User:Raul654/archive16

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

Contents

My gratitude[edit]

Thanks so much for continuing to allow all types of Featured Articles on the main page, I and others who work on video game related topics feel the same. You exhibit no bias against any topic, and allow anything that meets the criteria, including cuddly Knut, which I was happy to see grow from uncertain GA to an FA, to get on the main page. One of these days, you'll do something great once again, and I'll give you a second barnstar :) (I gave you one a year or two ago for something...)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Automating the daily FA[edit]

Awesome, thanks :)

The wikiquote section broke down a couple days ago, so I've been doing that by hand. Everything else is fully automated, but I had to make a number of changes to the script.

I will send you the script after I make the necessary changes (should be soon), but I still think the emails should only be sent automatically and be approved manually.

Changes in the pages that the script fetches from do not happen infrequently, so it isn't rare that I have to manually delete a few characters of garbage or make a modification to the script.

-Frazzydee| 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested re Featured Article blurb[edit]

Mark, I'm planning to request that Battlefield Earth (film) be featured on the Main Page on May 12th, the 8th anniversary of its premiere. I've produced an intro blurb for the MP (see Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)#Featured Article date and summary text) - are you OK with me doing that or do you prefer to write your own? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I don't use the suggested blurbs at all unless I'm having great difficulty summarizing the article (which is a very bad sign) or I'm in a hurry. Raul654 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview of sorts[edit]

I'm working on a paper for Wikimania about online collaborative writing and I was wondering if I could interview you over email. Your comments during the Not The Wikipedia Weekly Skpecast intrigued me! Awadewit | talk 02:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Raising of the flag - colored.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. BJBot (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Pleasure island.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. BJBot (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nightfall cover.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Nightfall cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

If you have some time, could you put on your Bureaucrat hat and wade on over to the Riana RfB discussion over on WP:BN. Maybe you can talk some sense into the other crats. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DC Meetup on May 17th[edit]

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia[edit]

I was just banned from the channel by Krimpet for 72 hours. I am very unhappy about it. These random bans are annoying. -- Cat chi? 06:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be an op in the channel that way people would not just ban me on first sight. -- Cat chi? 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am quite frustrated, yes. -- Cat chi? 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am waiting for a response. -- Cat chi? 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I kickbanned White_Cat for some very aggressive and disruptive nationalist trolling that just doesn't belong in #wikipedia, that he persisted despite being repeatedly warned. :/ If you have any concerns, I will gladly furnish my private logs of this incident. krimpet 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Last Mimsy[edit]

I've replied to the thread at Signpost. The Transhumanist 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC ping[edit]

Hello Raul, I know you're probably quite busy, but I would appreciate you dropping me a line on IRC whenever you get a chance in regards to a recent block/checkuser incident. Thank you very much! GlassCobra 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked for you just now but did not see you. Raul654 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

90.200.0.0/16 block[edit]

block link

We have had an OTRS complaint about this block and I was wondering if you could let me know what lead to this block, and if it was truly necessary to block a /16 for a whole year. Thanks, - TheDaveRoss (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was necessary - see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join. That range has been used extensively by Tile join. Raul654 (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It was absolutely not necessary. The end does not justify the means. Blocking an entire /16 for an entire year is blatant overkill. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 07:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll tell you what, Kurt - since you seem to know so much more than anyone else, why don't you take care of the problem? I have plenty on my plate, so I'd be happy to hand the job off to someone else. So - every time a new Tile join sock pops up, you block it. And then you track him back, find the latest half-dozen or more sockpuppets he's registered and holding in reserve, and block those too. Then go to all their talk pages and tag them, and the IPs they've used as well. Of course, to do this you'll need to request adminship and checkuser access, but given your track record around here you should have no trouble getting them. Now, when can you get started? Raul654 (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay[edit]

I'll keep it up to standard. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My IP is banned![edit]

Normally I can't be bothered to log in, and do so anonymously, but today I couldn't do that! I was banne because of "Range used by Tile/Eir Witt". I have no idea who that is, but I know that my subscription resets about once a month, so some other git on my Sky Broadband provider might have been talking bollocks, but I'm the owner of this IP now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeteoriK (talkcontribs) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nightfall cover.jpg[edit]

Hello. The image Image:Nightfall cover.jpg, has been identified as one of those that lacks fair use rationale. Since you uploaded it, perhaps you could fill one in?

Thanks, Beast of traal T C _ 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Beast of traal

TFA Requests[edit]

Just a heads-up. We have done some refinement on your proposal as seen in the talk page and I have been updating a sandbox implementation that parallels the current request page with modifications to your original proposal based on the discussions. The discussion may continue (hopefully people will vote on it), but I guess it is up to you whether you think it is good enough or there is a consensus to implement. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First things first, I've tweaked the point values there. I don't really see a distinction between being underrepresented in the FA pool and underrepresented on the main page. I've also added back the one point for an notable/important (but not necessarily core) topic. Admittedly, for the moment, this is subjective and a better measure is necessary. My rule-of-thumb is that if it's something 5th grader has heard of it, that makes it notable. Raul654 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I haven't been following this proposal; is it almost baked? If so, do you want to slot it in to the March 24 Dispatch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Humoresque[edit]

Hey Raul, I downloaded most of the Pandora music collection a couple of weeks ago and have been listening to some of the recordings. I found a recording (in the "vorbis/contrib/Goldstein_string_duo/1string" branch) of Dvorak's Humoresque (note that the linked article is about Humoresques in general) which I would love to add to the article.

Anyways, I was under the impression that the Pandora collection had been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but I can't find it on Wikimedia Commons. So my question is, has the Pandora collection been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? If so, could you advise me as to where to find this particular recording? If not so, could you advise me as to how (or if) I can help? Thanks, Iamunknown 05:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much of the Pandora collection is on Wikipedia, however, that one does not appear to be. My best guess is that it was omitted from the upload for lack of identifying information in the file name or id3 tag. If you want to help, head on over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Free music (which I started because I was tired of doing it more-or-less all by myself). The tools to do the conversion and upload are listed there, and if you ask questions on the talk page I and others would be glad to help you. Raul654 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event[edit]

I'm not sure if you intentionally added full protection to this article or not, but I've reduced it to just move protection since you've also scheduled it for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 13, 2008. - auburnpilot talk 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops - I meant to protect the template, not the article. Raul654 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick question. I'm just curious about the process to decide which article gets featured on the Main page.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Magic 8-ball. Tea-leaves or chicken entrails if on short notice. Raul654 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick answer for a not-quick question :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Last time I ask a serious question round these parts!!! But it does confirm my suspicion about the use of Chicken entrails. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

NIPCC[edit]

I made a comment at that page about the protection you put on it..DGG (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

TFA nudge[edit]

Hey, Raul. Just another gentle nudge toward making Sir Gawain and the Green Knight TFA for St. Patrick's Day (March 17). DYK has a little something special brewing [1], and it might be neat if we could get a green/irish theme going on the main page. Wrad (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Unflappable[edit]

Just a feeling, but knowing your familiarity with Raspor, you might want to glance over their contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject here. I think this is a sock of User:Kdbuffalo. I'm trying to find which sock of his also edited cycling articles, which Unflappable has done. IMHO. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The first edit certainly shows an expert editor, they are certainly a sock, but I'm not sure of which user. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence doesn't show anything untoward. I don't remember seeing these IPs come up before. He could well be a legit user. Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap. Now I may have to try to explain the basics of evolution to them. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I quit watching Evolution because it was causing me to drink too much. Of course, an article that I helped get to FA is now on the Main page, and the Creationists are there in force. Sigh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You're supposed to close your eyes and drink heavily during main page day; all will be fine in 24 hours :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I bet I saw over 100 reverts of the article over the past 24 hours. And then there's the edits where it's a whole bunch in a row, and you don't revert far enough back, or you revert back to the wrong version. I'm now going to drink. You do realize you helped out a lot with me in getting the article to FAC. But you do this so often, I guess you're kind of bored of it all.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(Abusing of Raul's talk page) ... last time I tried to help a friend on mainpage day, I ended up taking a two-week break from Wiki after someone in Puerto Rico screamed at me over a singular/plural question in Spanish ... literally, one "s" ... when I realized I was really bothered about being screamed out over an "s", I knew that 1) it was time for a break, and 2) mainpage was not for me. Go forth and drink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, of course, I gave up editing evolution vs. creation articles (one of which I got into a battle with you, that I hope you've forgiven me for) because of the stress. I'm definitely going to drink in 75 minutes.  :D OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Glitter girl again[edit]

Hey, Raul, I don't know if you're aware of Glitter Girl, since Binguyen has been dealing with this. She's back: I left him a note here. Not as troubling as the rest of what you deal with, but takes my time ... thought I'd keep you posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this one to Blnguyen Raul654 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea not selcted[edit]

Just wondering why? Buc (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir[edit]

I'd like to make an observation that someone who writes a "Laws of Wikipedia" essay may need to be a bit more careful with the ability to ban ;O) Laws are good, but we are just producing a reference work here human beings are not yet the faultless beings, and find it hard enough to live with the real world laws to be heaped with more of them in the process of editing reference articles.

As someone interested in military history of 20th century you may appreciate Lir's motivation in contributing to articles on the Second World War as a professional student in the discipline, and his hostility doing so while having to be constantly on defensive in expectation of being banned. Can we just stop this years-old charade and let the guy start editing and see how that works out under my mentorship?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Lir's escapades predate you, you really don't know the profound damage he's caused. He's quite possibly the single most disruptive user in Wikipedia history; he was the reason we wrote the tendentious editing policy in the first place. He was in large part responsible for the creation of the checkuser feature. He drove away numerous good editors. The "charade" you refer to is the well-earned reputation as a troll he has earned. No, he's not going to be given yet another chance, seeing as how he's already been banned twice by Jimbo, once by the arbcom, and twice by the community. (Notably, he reset his arbcom ban 30-odd times). It's clear he has nothing to offer Wikipedia but more grief. Raul654 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen TFA image[edit]

Liquid Oxygen.gif

Hi Raul, I think this free image of liquid oxygen (O2) and the gas above it would be better for the Main Page than the image of ozone stuctures currently chosen for tomorrow's TFA. First off it actually shows the element (in two of its states and in its most common allotrope). Second, the pale blue color of liquid oxygen is pretty cool and due to its electonic structure, plus you can even see bubbles of the gas, plus the gas above it. Ozone (O3) is important, but relatively rare. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If we apply your reasoning behind User:Raul654/archive12#Image with Featured Article on main page, 14/3/2007 to the oxygen article, isn't Image:Electron shell 008 Oxygen.svg a more appropriate image? I mean, without reading a caption, that blue liquid could be anything, whereas the diagram instantly conveys the FA topic. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Very true, but I strongly prefer real-life pictures to diagrams and maps. Real-life pictures tend to be more interesting and attract more attention. I didn't use the oxygen pic originally because the caption was unclear -- I thought the oxygen in the picture was the gas above the liquid, not the liquid itself. Raul654 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream[edit]

Hi Raul, Thatcher responded to a request on WP:AE for a different suspected problem, and when reviewing it requested that I open Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream and specifically ping you about the depth of the problem, to ask you to review is behind the curtain on Wakedream (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens again[edit]

Would you mind adding a hyphen to "14th-century" for the teaser on this date? It is a compound adjective. Thanks. (I'm thinking of running for admin just to add hyphens to the main page.) Awadewit | talk 02:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey[edit]

122.167.21.159 (talk · contribs) is an admitted sockpuppet. He's tendentious. He's annoying. He's a SPA at Homeopathy. Can you block this anonymous twit? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

East718 already got him. If he comes back, drop a note on the ANI or (if that doesn't work) here. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen overlinking[edit]

Ok, I'm confused. The instructions for creating a good wikipedia article are pretty clear that forgodsake you shouldn't overlink. But then I look at todays featured article and see that like EVERY OTHER WORD is blue. :-)

So, what is the official word ... are lots of links Good or Bad? Thanks. Ploversegg (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

You should not link generic words like this. On the other hand, Oxygen's lead paragraph says:

Oxygen is the element with atomic number 8 and represented by the symbol O. It is a member of the chalcogen group on the periodic table, and is a highly reactive nonmetallic period 2 element that readily forms compounds (notably oxides) with almost all other elements. At standard temperature and pressure two atoms of the element bind to form dioxygen, a colorless, odorless, tasteless diatomic gas with the formula O
2
. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen and helium[1] and the most abundant element by mass in the Earth's crust. Oxygen constitutes 88.8% of the mass of water and 20.9% of the volume of air.

Yes, there are a lot of links there, but none of those links are generic and all of them are reasonably related to the topic of the article. In other words, no overlinking here. Raul654 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just trying to learn the rules of the road. Ploversegg (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

Halbut returb[edit]

Nothing inspires trust like the Sword and the Shield...

User:CreepyCrawly == User:Spamsham == User:Obedium? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the above. Why are you inquiring into my identity? What have I done to warrant it? I've made good faith edits to an article you anjoy dominating, but that's no justification for pulling up my IP, which is only to be done in cases of vandalism. The talk page for my edits backs them up quite nicely. They are rational and logically supported. Now please stop stalking me. It's creepy. CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone sure opened the drawer - sock or meat. It's good we have User:Sword and Shield to protect us from them... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked them all. There's no IP evidence linking them, but I have reason to suspect this is because Scibaby is now using anonymous proxies. Raul654 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. That's why he was so brazen about insisting that there would be no evidence to connect the accounts. Thanks for the check. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Heres another one for ya', Grecian Formula (talk · contribs), same M.O., and approximately the same reverts. Persistent chap ain't he? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, see [2] and compare with the history.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet another one, Kinderhaus (talk · contribs), much the same reverts, i'll guess we'll have certainty in a couple of hours. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Never gets tired it seems, Macedonian King (talk · contribs), another with the same pattern of deletions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Next! ;-) Wavie Gravy (talk · contribs) - damn. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It might not help but I wonder if semiprotect should stop editors with less than say ten edits rather than based on account age. --BozMo talk 07:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

No one requested the "Trapped in the Closet" today, at least as far as I can tell so I'm just wondering whether you were aware there is some sort of protest on scientology today (and it was Hubbard's birthday 2 days ago). It doesn't matter a great deal but since we have people commenting on it on the main page, it will be helpful to know it it was really just a coincidence Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was requested for that date. Raul654 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style diet[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you selected this article to appear on the main page on March 20th. Did you chose that date for a specific reason, or was it randomly selected? Anyways thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no specific reason I choose it for that date other than the fact that it's been quite a while since we had a food-related FA on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit]

Hello. Can you help me with this question? Thanks, Slade (TheJoker) 15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Slade also asked this on my talk page; I'll get on it today (probably Gimmetrow has the answer). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hogg image heads up[edit]

In case you can help move anything along, here and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul, just to keep you in the loop, and since I don't speak images, I hope this is good. The Fat Man and Elcobbola are working on it.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Storm botnet[edit]

Wow, thank you for front paging it! Was there any discussion that I missed, or all you? I just logged on after hours away and realized it was up. :) Lawrence § t/e 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there was no discussion. It ended up on the main page because I wanted it there. Raul654 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank you! I'm glad you liked it. :) Lawrence § t/e 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Can you please have a look at User talk:CreepyCrawly, who is contesting your block? Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

TFA Request[edit]

Can I request Barthélemy Boganda for the Main Page on March 29 (DOD) or April 4 (DOB)? The TFA blurb is located at User:Nishkid64/Boganda. Thakns, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems you chose something else for March 29. Can I get April 4? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust[edit]

Thanks [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rule 13, or, Why the silent revert?[edit]

Raul,

Last night, I attempted to start a discussion over in the [very controversial] global warming section. Specifically, I was looking at the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. In my opinion, the entire global warming section, including that article are written from the "the IPCC and Al Gore are right, everybody else is dumb" POV. (the contents of the talk page make it clear that this is the prevailing POV among editors) I'm not going to rehash the entire thing on your talk page, but I wanted to ask you a question. Why did you simply revert my edits silently? Is the point of the global warming section really to push one POV? If so, it's sad, because Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a politician's talking points. If not, then why not have the discussion? If you believe that there is no reasonable way to read the section and feel a clear POV, then why not try to convince me?

I'm not even saying, convince me that your POV is right. I'm asking you to convince me that the article is NPOV. Or, if you can't, because the POV is as loud and clear as I claim, then why revert?

(I didn't undo your revert. There are more of you than there are of me, you are more militant, and I have no desire to waste my life in a game of revert-war. There are real problems to solve in the world, and the fact that Wikipedia is degrading from encyclopedia of knowledge to a collection of talking points illustrating the majority viewpoint is really not one of them.)

70.187.186.43 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but I reverted because you are trying to edit on a subject of which you are clearly ignorant. Your comment there, claiming that the IPCC is the work of politicians and wondering why nobody dissents, shows this abundantly. The IPCC is almost entirely the product of the work of roughly two thousand climatologists, either as authors or reviewers. The IPCC report is a summary of work that is already published in peer-reviewed journals. Political haggling over final approval of the report, such as it exists, comes at the very end of the process after the report is effectively finalized. Moreover, the approval process means that these reports tend to understate rather than overstate the problem. That is, by the way, why no legitimate scientific body dissents -- because what the IPCC says is both extremely conservative (to the detriment of efforts of those trying to mitigate the problem) and supported by a vast, vast body of already-peer-reviewed evidence.
Moreover, you are not the first person ignorant of this subject to waltz into the global warming articles and demand changes to fit your world-view. It happens often. And to be frank, it's not our job to educate (or try to educate) every drive-by POV pusher who shows up. Our job is to write an encyclopedia. Raul654 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

TFA March 19-20[edit]

Both TFAs for March 19 (Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico) and March 20 (Paleolithic-style diet) have to do with nutrition. Is it possible to swap one of these and replace it with something not so related? I'm only asking because people sometimes complain about repetitiveness on TFA. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for being part of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly[edit]

all the files are now online - and thanks again for coming along for a chat... whether you were vocal, or more of a listener, your support is fantastic - and do consider hosting a skypecast of your own before too long! (I think I pressed all of three buttons this time!) - once again thanks, and I look forward to seeing you around! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FA[edit]

I was wondering how you choose what featured articles will be featured next, and whether there's a pattern. Curious because there's one that I helped fix up, so I'm interested in seeing it on the main page. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock User:CreepyCrawly[edit]

Hello Raul654. On March 15 you blocked CreepyCrawly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as a "probable Scibaby sockpuppet." CreepyCrawly has gone to great lengths to show that he is innocent, and after a careful investigation, I believe him 100%.

Please read all of the evidence at User talk:CreepyCrawly#Outside opinion from Shalom. After you read it and double-check for yourself, please unblock CreepyCrawly, and state in the unblock summary that he is not a sockpuppet of anybody.

When checkuser evidence is ambiguous, as it is here, you need solid proof to justify an indefinite block. As you will see, there is solid proof that CreepyCrawly is not a sockpuppet of Scibaby. If this is truly the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," CreepyCrawly must be allowed to edit. I do not want to start a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, but I am prepared to do that if you continue to insist on banning this innocent new user.

Best regards, Shalom (HelloPeace) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Allowing for the sake of argument that it might be possible CreepyCrawly isn't Scibaby, the stylistic similarities to several other accounts are too close to be coincidental. So we're still left with an abusive sockpuppeter. Note also that your point "he almost never discusses anything on talk pages" is incorrect; some of Scibaby's longer-lived socks engaged in extensive talk page discussions. The demands for "fawning public apologies posted on my user page" and that "every admin who spoke out against me, who is also a regular editor of the GW article, publicly admit that they were motivated purely by a sense of ownership of that article" don't help convince us that this is a stellar editor in the making. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The "sock puppet" goes to Wikipedia Review and talks about being banned Nice work! Eric Barbour (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
On the one side, we have his claims that he's not a sockpuppet. And on the other side, we have a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I don't buy it. Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

Hello, can you rename me to Texcarson? I have been renamed on the spanish wikipedia and commons so far. Thanks in advance. — Raffaello9 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Penis fencing insemination.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Penis fencing insemination.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard[edit]

See here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Thread[edit]

There's an An/I Thread that Shalom (talk · contribs) has requested you know about. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


User talk:CreepyCrawly[edit]

Could you look at the unblock request here? I was inclined to grant it but wanted to check with you first. Mangojuicetalk 12:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannibal Holocaust[edit]

In early February, you told me to contact you in about a month about featuring Cannibal Holocaust on the main page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helltopay27#Cannibal_Holocaust_main_page_FA). It is currently in a featured article review, but it doesn't appear that it will move on to a featured article removal candidate. Since the review is almost over, and the fact that I'm impatient, I've decided after almost two months to finally consult you about this.

My official date request is April 22, as it's the only remotely relevant date I can find (it's the original release date of the film in France, whose audiences propagated the snuff film rumors). When the FAR is officially over, I'm hoping you'll add the article to the main page queue. Helltopay27 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Another GW sock?[edit]

I've blocked User:Cuspid Groove as another probable sock based on contributions. If you could offer your opinion, I'd be grateful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Taiketsu[edit]

Hey, regarding my 1-month block of Taiketsu (talk · contribs), I was just in a lenient mood. I agree that an indef block would be justifiable under the circumstances. If you'd like to lengthen/amend it to indefinite, that would be fine with me. MastCell Talk 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby[edit]

While trying to edit from my Sprint cell phone, I neglected to login, only to find my IP blocked due to abuse by Scibaby. While this isn't a problem, as I only edit using my registered account, I couldn't help but note the irony of the situation: I was blocked last year for reverting Scibaby on James Hansen. I'm curious what this range block entails, though. Is every unregistered Sprint customer blocked from editing Wikipedia due to his sockpuppetry? —Viriditas | Talk 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC instructions[edit]

... changed based on a discussion at Village Pump, that was never raised at FAC.[5] I reverted, need your input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

grrrr ... I hate split discussions. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for gosh sakes; blocked user. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv FAC[edit]

Hi. Following my nomination of the Tel Aviv article as FA, there were a number of comments. I believe I have addressed all of these although there havent been further responses from most of the users who wrote these. I have now posted a message on their talk pages so that they can decide whether I have fixed their issues although if they still dont respond - the issues are still visible on the FAC page without the person who had the issue saying its fixed. Is there anything I should do or will it not interfere to much with the success of the nomination? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Lir. Thanks. --Editorofthewiki 01:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mar 24 Dispatch[edit]

Looks good. Raul654 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Tony, Gimme, and Kirill :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly[edit]

Thanks for your interest in coming and being a part of a conversation! - I'm going to host a chit chat at 00.00 UTC March 26th (which is probably tomorrow for most - it's 8.00pm east coast US) - it'd be great if you can come along, and I've created a new 'confirmed' participants section at the wiki page, which it would be great if you could pop over and sign, if you are indeed available! - I hope so, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tile join as usual[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#More_Tile_join_socks, Tim Vickers (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very late and I'm about to go to bed - will deal with this tomorrow or the day after. Raul654 (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a mix of older, ripened accounts and recent ones. I didn't see any that weren't blocked, so the only thing left to do was to thwack the underlying IPs. Raul654 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Edward Kienholz reference on Flag over Iwo Jima[edit]

Not sure why you feel the need to roll back my edits regarding a referenced entry on Edward Kienholz without a discussion. How is Black Flag able to stay as an example of image appropriation by the antiestablishment, but Edward Kienholz, who is a very well know American artist, is not? While I like Black Flag as much as the next guy, I would argue that Edward Kienholz's reference is considerably more significant to our culture if not significantly an earlier appropriation.

FAR closing[edit]

I am seriously troubled by the improper closing of the History of erotic depictions FAR. First, midway through the process the closer admitted that FAR was not the place to solve the issues complained about. At that point, the FAR should have been thrown out, but was left to continue. In the second part, the closer ended it early, giving me no chance to respond to his allegation on unverifiablity of the main source and stated that he had de-featured the article because the main source wasn't verifiable. Throughout the FAR, neither of the complaintants mentioned that that source wasn't reliable, merely complained that they did not like the format of the citation. Hence, the myriad of evidence that this source is indeed allowable, (including where the same source was used as a source in an article for a *peer reviewed journal*) was not entered into the FAR.

There was no consensus to de-feature the article, and the closer stated that his decision was based mainly on the un-verifiablity of the source. In an attempt to get a third party opinion, I posted the source and all the evidence for it on the Verifiability noticeboard and all the comment there has agreed, that the source is allowable. Thus the closer's closing the FAR early and main reason for de-featuring are seriously in error, and I'm asking that the FAR be restarted or voided. His only other reason for de-featuring mentioned, lead too short, was not brought up until the final part, and again, due to his early closing it down, I was not able to address it in time.

Now, I realize that everyone in FAR and FAC does lots of hard work and I understand that its a hard job with little support. However this does not make them infallible. The basic premise that the decision was made on (the main source is not verifiable) is in error, has been proved to be in error, and has third party confirmation of that error. I am seriously disturbed by the closer's refusal to admit to this error, and the response I've gotten so far, which is basically, too bad, what I say goes. I don't think that the closers make many errors, but this one was blatant and obvious and needs to be fixed. FAR closers are not the ultimate authority or whether a source is verifiable or not, and by taking on that role, a serious error was committed.

"This is so massive and disputatious, I'm not sure what to do with it. This may not be something FAR can handle. Marskell (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"
"Closing: This is a difficult, split review. While there are a number of arguments, the clearest is in favour of remove: This does not meet policy. It's not even debatable. Adult film directors do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If it were two cites, maybe we could overlook it—but there are twenty-two cites to this DVD. It's a foundational source for the article and it is clearly not reliable.
Normally, I would leave this open longer to allow citation debates to run through (and this has been open quite a while) but there has been resistance and reverting, which doesn't seem to be productive in terms of meeting citation policy. There has been no effort to get rid of this obviously unsuitable source, for instance. Basic things, such as a LEAD that properly describes the article, are not met. I'm removing. Some form of WP:DR may be the best place to take this article. Marskell (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "

As you can see, he clearly states *twice* that FAR may not be the best place for the issues raised, and erroneously states that the documentary was made by adult film directors. (It was not, it was made by a group with a reputation for producing high quality documentaries) You can see that he has made up his mind so fiercely against the source that he isn't even willing to consider the possibility he is wrong. This was later proved in discussion with him on his talk page. The evidence and discussion of the documentary's reliability can be found here. If a peer reviewed journal accepted this as a source, and other peer reviewed journals have praised its worthiness, and indeed one can see the entire list of academics and authors interviewed here, to say that the source isn't good enough for Wikipedia is ludicrous.

I'm guessing that your instinct is going to be to support your deputies no matter what decision they make but please consider this seriously. I've now been told that I need to meet the closer's concerns to have a chance in re-submitting this to FAC. However, the closer's concerns are fundamentally flawed, so that requirement is tantamount to making ever getting this featured again through FAC impossible. The early closing, erroneous basic assumptions, and notation of that fact that this may not even be suited to FAR in the first place made the closing improper and unfair. Please consider fixing this. pschemp | talk 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(As above) It's very late and I'm about to go to bed - will deal with this tomorrow or the day after. Raul654 (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Also on Marskell's talk page and mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There's four threads open on this and I don't know where to reply. (I actually don't want to because I'm finding pschemp so aggressive.) I'm not fiercely opposed to admitting that the documentary is a serious one. I said as much on pschemp's talk page. But the attendant issues are not flawed: even if a quality documentary, there is not sufficient publisher information provided to the reader and the article over relies on it; the lead needs work; the other source discussed, Libido magazine, is clearly dubious. So I don't think it unfair to ask that some work be done and it go back to FAC. Marskell (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Concur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the FAR should be restarted or voided because the basic premise it was closed on was incorrect, and it was closed early, not giving me a chance to address the issues Marskell introduced. (including the lead, which i was working on at the time it was closed early.) And I brought it here because the attitude I've reciecieved from Marskell has been nothing but complete ignoring of this basic fact. In this paragraph above is the *first* time he's ever admitted that the main source is verifiable. This is a direct contradiction to what he said in the closing. All I'm asking is chance to let the FAR process finish as it should have. pschemp | talk 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby rangeblock problem[edit]

Hey, could you investigate this: User talk:Jsheinz1234. He claims to be caught innocently by the rangeblock, but he's hardly a regular user (check his contribs history). Maybe a Scibaby sleeper account? I am not familiar enough with the Scibaby case to know how to deal with it. Perhaps you could? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit pattern looks innocent to me (especially when he started these other topic edits). --BozMo talk 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Other than the fact that he uses the same /18 as Scibaby, I don't see anything in checkuser to suggest he's a scibaby sock. His range is anon blocked, but given that he has an account, this should not affect him. Tell him to log in if he wants to edit and he should be unaffected. Raul654 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Single User Login[edit]

Heard your comments on NTWW. Just an FYI, you need to unify your accounts via Special:Preferences, before logging into other accounts :) Check out WP:SUL for more information. On a related note, do you have any idea at which time, and on which date, the next podcast will fall? I'm not sure if you're contributing to this episode, but I figured you might no :) Cheers, Anthøny 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a few hours after the talk. I've unified my accounts (vandals apparently used this nick to vandalize on 3 wikis I don't use. I'm still waiting to usurp those). I'll be ready to talk about it for next time :) Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested Monday for the next discussion, and we're trying to make it earlier in the evening so you can participate. Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your reply, and for accommodating me ;) Anthøny 07:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 30, 2008[edit]

I asked a few weeks ago whether I could have December to Dismember (2006) as the TFA on this date. My reasoning is that it is a WWE wrestling event, and the biggest wrestling event of the year, WrestleMania takes place this Sunday, and I therefore feel it would be appropriate to have it on the front page on Sunday. However, I am very dismayed to notice that Celine Dion is instead expected to be on the Main Page on Sunday. Could you please explain your decision? Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oversight on my part. I'll rejigger the queue once we figure out what we're doing for April 1 (god help us all). Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Banners[edit]

Account renamed[edit]

Hello, you just rename my account. I just would like to say thanks. Maybe for you its a tired work, you do it often, but, its very plesant for me to be allowed to log me with this name. Few year ago no body do it for me, maybe another policy. Thanks another time :) bayo 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil[edit]

This is uncalled for. My bot works within community consensus, and claiming it spams is uncivil. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Turf war[edit]

Just letting you know that I intervened in an edit war at your Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests page. User:Mesplay was adding some votes and a new nomination when there were already five noms up, and Users Cirt and RelHistBuff reverted both the vote and the nom. Mesplay reinserted the vote and the nomination, with the nomination commented out. Cirt reverted (again removing Mesplay's vote), and then reported Mesplay for a 3RR infringement.

I declined the 3RR report under the unclean hands doctrine, but am dropping you this note as a courtesy given that it's your turf. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cirt has since accepted the decision so it probably won't be a big deal. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your "final warning" to NCdave[edit]

Raul, on my user Talk page you accused me of "unhelpful and counterproductive" editing and "disruption" of the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. You also asserted that that you can block me because "The rules prohibit me from blocking someone I am currently in a dispute with. You do not qualify." You also announced on the article talk page that you had issued a "final warning" to me.

It appears that you didn't notice my response, so I'm repeating it here.

You and I most certainly are in dispute at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. You are actively involved with editing this article and talk page, and you have sided against me repeatedly. For example, you have reinserted material that I explicitly objected to, regarding the Establishment Clause. Perhaps you were unaware of my objection to that material, since Hrafn deleted the discussion from the Talk page, but you can read it in the diff.

However, you also reverted edits which were in agreement with my stated view that ID is not a form of creationism.

Additionally, you've made no secret of your disdain for the film, even to the point of expressing glee that it is playing in few theaters, and reverting other edits which were intended to make the article less unbalanced, and even defending incivility on the Talk page.

You are not a neutral admin, Raul, so please recuse yourself.

Also, please do me the courtesy of <s>striking</s> your "warning" on my Talk page, and noting that it was a mistake, since it is embarrassing to have that sort of thing on my Talk page.

Nevertheless, if you are aware of any comments that I've made which are impolite or violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, I would be grateful if you would point them out to me. I do my best to apply the Golden Rule to my Wikipedia editing, but that doesn't mean that I never slip up, and I'd like to know about it when I do.

Thanks in advance, NCdave (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said I hadn't edited the article. I edit there to make sure that idiocy doesn't seep in (articles like that seem to attract it). You've collected more-or-less every edit I've ever made there, and tried to claim bias against you. This is false. Your tenditious editing there led to your final warning, and if you persist in the behavior I and others have made you aware of, I'm going to follow through on my warning. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

April Fool's Day Featured Article[edit]

There is currently a debate about which FA should be put on the main page on April 1. One of things brought up during the discussion was that, "An aburd date-appropriate blurp needs to be written for the "winner"."

Thanks, ISD (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For your consideration[edit]

I was significantly involved, so leaving Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ima Hogg to you. (By the way, Kirill solved the banners thing, will explain later.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm a Hogg"... are you sure this is a real name not 1 April?
  • I agree, if Uncyclopedia cant get to FA by April 1, use Ima Hogg. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Range blocks and collateral damage[edit]

Hi. Please be careful when range-blocking, like you did with the 90.204.64.0/18 range. That range block caused some collateral damage, as it also disabled my IP, which I'm not particularly fond of. Also, you blocked the range for nearly a year, whilst most range blocks should be blocked for about a day or two at most (at least according to my knowledge). Please take this into consideration for next time. Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here. My IP (90.204.42.76)has been blocked till 2009, with a message saying this ip range has been used by tilejoin. This is very bad form - both the range (resulting in collateral damage) and the extreme length of the block are completely over the top. Please either undo this block or refer it higher up the chain for dispute resolution. Little Professor (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sigh* Well, looks like the blocked IP has shifted around to me. From the response you've given to other people, I guess you're not going to undo this. I usually log in to make changes these days, so it doesn't really bother me, but I question the wisdom of this block, given that in all likelyhood TileJoin is no longer using any IP in the range. Still, I can see you're a man with a mission. JustIgnoreMe (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're invited![edit]

You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
April 5, 2008

Time: 5:00 PM
Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut

RSVP
(view/edit this template)



This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Sprint PCS Scibaby casualty[edit]

See unblock request here. They look OK to me ... should we tell them to register an account via email. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, but why?[edit]

Hi Raul, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for some months now but suddenly find I am blocked (although no problem when I am logged in). I've done nothing to deserve this BUT I have recently changed ISP from BT to Sky. The block message states:

  • Editing from 90.204.64.0/18 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Raul654 for the following reason(s): Range used by Eirwitt/TileJoin. The block is set to expire: 05:47, 27 February 2009.

Please help! Thanks, Weydonian (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can edit while logged in, you are not blocked. Your IP address falls into the rage used by a persistent vandal, so that anonymous editing from it has been disabled. Just log in - or do I misunderstand your problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be blocked till 2009, and you shouldn't block a range used by a high number of different users (I'm on Sky too, like Weydonian, and have been blocked for no reason just because my ip falls into the range Little Professor (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't find policy[edit]

Where is the policy (but that's prob not the right word) on why we protect the main page? I can't find it but I've seen it before. I know someone that wants to read it. RlevseTalk 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008[edit]

Hi Raul, your logs say it's unprotected, but we can't seem to edit the page. Also, is there a target character limit for the front page blurb?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely unprotected (I protected it, then very shortly thereafter decided I wanted others to edit it and unprotected it). The target character limit is 1,400 characters (with spaces). Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I get this when I try to edit:

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following page, which is protected with the "cascading" option:

Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow For my taste, it has too many not quite true things right now (from the FerryLodge version, as listed on talk), and I want to get closer to the Outriggr/The Fat Man version, but can't edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, cascading protection. Well, rather than undoing the cascading protection, I've created a sandbox copy at User:Raul654/test. Tweak that, and I'll update the main page blurb before tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better idea :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Fat Man finished working his magic at User:Raul654/test, but we can't move it over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus version (among Texas editors) is all done at User:Raul654/test (within the character limit), User:DragonflySixtyseven moved most of it into the blurb page, but he disliked and removed the sentences referencing her name (see Talk:Ima Hogg/Archive 1#Note), so you may want to compare the two versions to see if you want to use any more of that content. Do you need to reprotect the blurb page? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the critics have been too harsh on my favorite Fat Man, but this one makes up for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked: Range used by Scibaby[edit]

Dunno who this Scibaby is but my entire ISP is blocked by this ban which is set by you. Could you please look into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenport (talkcontribs) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for making a comment, but I was on this talk page, and I notice you say your entire ISP was blocked. There must have been a LOT of people vandalising or something, because if everyone that uses an ISP gets blocked? "Yeah, im with Charter, and my entire ISP just got blocked. Did Charter do something wrong?" Just seems a little odd if you ask me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There must have been a LOT of people vandalising or something - No, just one really, really, really persistent sockpuppeteer / POV pusher. Raul654 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature FAC[edit]

I've made a comment here. You may wish to respond to it to clarify the doubts that exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unconventional proposal to deal with Evolution vandalism[edit]

Hi there, I've become a little tired of this constant protect/unprotect, checkuser/block cycle. I've made a proposal for an interesting experiment here. You and Alison's comments as the people dealing with most of the checkuser requests would be most valuable in the discussion, so I'd be grateful if you could comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Plague is up for deletion[edit]

Thought you might be interested since you added the pic and his birthdate to the article, and are thus the only person besides myself to have contributed content to it recently. The AfD is here. Yilloslime (t) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tendentiously?[edit]

Are you really being serious, or is this some April Fool's Day prank? Thats truly insulting, because I dont believe I added any kind of bias to that article. If you believe thats being tendentious, then please, review yourself carefully, because if I get blocked, Im taking a whole bunch of people with me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we supposed to understand this cryptic threat?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Consider it what you want, Nazis. Your propoganda doesnt intimidate me. Your bias just sickens me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You lose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study[edit]

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for FA for April 5: Bette Davis (her 100th birthday)[edit]

I apologize for going over the head of WP:TFA/R, but this opportunity might be too good to pass up: I was just reading some news articles on the 100th birthday of actress Bette Davis this coming Saturday April 5, both here in the U.S. and internationally as well, and it just so happens that it currently is an FA that has not been on the main page yet. I realize that another article for this day has been suggested on WP:TFA/R, and it might screw up your scheduling. But it might be worthwhile to think about actually putting that on the main page as the FA for April 5. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I just went through it; for such an old article, it's in very good shape. A couple of non-reliable sources, but looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

20 year anniversary - Main page request[edit]

Hi Raul. Just a quick note to mention that as indicated by the infobox, 7th May is the 20th anniversary of the start of the summer of 4 captains. Resorting to cricket commentator-speak: A main page appearance would be perfectly splendid! --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lisa[edit]

Raul654, hi. Thanks for choosing Lisa del Giocondo for the main page on 13 April, or to whoever did the deed. The advance notice is plenty of time for me to get in gear to add another excellent source. I am traveling that weekend but am sure other people will be around (I will keep adding TFAs to my watchlist to return the favor). Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Raul654 (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate sock[edit]

I'm not too familiar with what goes on with sockpuppets involving climate articles, but I know you're usually hot on their cases. It looks like User:Victim of Changes is the latest one. I'm still new to how administrative tasks get handled, so if could point me in the right direction of what to do next time I spot a blatant sock like this to get it taken care of more quickly, that would be much appreciated. Jason Patton (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's him. And he's just used a tactic I've never seen before - it took me a while to figure out how he pulled it off. Raul654 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Typewriter Company[edit]

Mainpage has been protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent warning[edit]

I have responded on my talk page. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your rv to Greenhouse Gas[edit]

I have restored the contribution on methane by Victim of Changes which you reverted. It has its faults, in particular it is not in the most encyclopaedic form, so modification may indeed be required, but please don't simply rub it out again without justification. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It was added by a banned user (and an extremely prolific sockpuppeteer), and as WMC accurately noted when he re-removed it, the source ("Bovine Belching Called Udderly Serious Gas Problem") is laughably weak. Raul654 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Free right now?[edit]

I am talking to Durova right now on Skype if you want to join us.--Filll (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but I was just getting ready to go offline. Maybe some other time, though. Raul654 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message[edit]

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IP range block[edit]

While I was at a different house I couldn't edit wikipedia because of some giant year-long block from you. How many people would this block affect? It seems you're probably going to lose a lot of constructive edits and possible new users who don't sign up, so isn't it a bit excessive? It doesn't affect me anymore but it was in London so I'd assume quite a few computers would be cut off by that. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch preview[edit]

If you have time, WP:FCDW/April 7, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

new guideline consensus[edit]

Hi - user:Mufka has been working on a guideline at WP:DOY for what to include and not to include in the day of the year articles. It's been tagged as a proposed guideline for a while, he's solicited input from all the usual spots, the feedback on the talk page is unanimously in favor of it being an official guideline. Sound like time to change "proposed" to "guideline"? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was unanimous until this edit. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stumped on Prague Spring[edit]

Raul, I'm unsure what to do with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring. I won't summarize the problem to you so that you can read it fresh and not be predisposed by what I say, but I'm not sure which way to go with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

El Señor Presidente[edit]

Raul, I'm sorry to hit you with two at once, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Señor Presidente has a tricky image issue, and that's a weak area for me. The article has extremely solid, unanimous support, ready for promotion, sans the image problem. A University class has worked with the FA-Team and they may be bringing several other FACs soon that may have the same or similar issues (two book cover images, one Spanish, one English, unclear if policy allows both), so I don't want to set a bad precedent. I hope you can look in, since some tension seems to be building around this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can i has catz?[edit]

can i has catz?

TOFA date request[edit]

I want to add a date request for a prospective TOFA, and, although the directions say to replace the one with the lowest point value, I'm tempted to replace the first one (for April 16: Virginia Tech massacre). It already has a large amount of feedback -- all in support -- and it's for the next slot that has not been assigned yet. Further, none of the other requests are failing catastrophically (or at all, really), so should I go ahead and replace the April 16 request or take down one of the one-point requests (and, if so, which one)? -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove anything from the requests queue until I've actually scheduled that date. I most certainly do not want to have to memorize dates for nominations which have been removed. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation[edit]

I can't help but be curious about this usurpation. Was there a particular reason you performed the request sooner than two hours after the request was made, instead of waiting the full seven days to perform this request? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cometstyles requested it in IRC. Raul654 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But what was the justification for waiving the week waiting time? The week wait has been key point in the usurpation process for its entire existence. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. The purpose of the week-long wait is to allow notification on the talk page of the person to be usurped. I thought that had been done last week, before the request was made; I see now that it was done 24 hours ago. I'll be more careful in the future. Raul654 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

TFAR[edit]

Thanks. I had my mind on Coeliac disease, which was featured a little over a year ago; May is celiac awareness month in the U.S., and I thought it would be a good time. Rotavirus was featured the day before yesterday, so if nothing bio/med is put in the queue soon, it would be a reasonable gap between two health-related articles. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem[edit]

Raul654, first of all thanks so much for your early interest in our project. It's very shortly coming to an end, and I should say it's been a remarkable success. It could soon be even more of a success, as we have an article right on the verge of becoming a featured article. There is quite a debate there on images, and I understand that User:SandyGeorgia is going to consult you about that very shortly. I'll leave that in her and your hands, though I can tell you that the article's principle editor (who's worked incredibly hard over the semester) is hoping for resolution soon. I know, however, how busy you are.

But I wanted to ask you about something else. I asked SandyGeorgia about whether it would be possible to get this article, which when passed would be the first FA ever produced by a class project, put on the main page. It would certainly make the students inordinately (and deservedly) proud and happy. She directed me to WP:TFA/R, but looking at that, we'd be very low priority and quickly bumped off. Do you have any thoughts or advice? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If and when it passes the featured article candidacy process, I'd be happy to put it on the main page. This is just the kind of thing that should be encouraged in the strongest way. Raul654 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, marvellous! And thanks so much for your speedy reply. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: El Señor Presidente promoted[edit]

Thanks so much! The students will be thrilled. And they thoroughly deserve it.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, Raul (and the MMM contributors as well, of course), on FA #2000. It's exciting that this special project also happens to be a numerical milestone.--ragesoss (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's very exciting. I had no idea! I have suggested to User:Mfreud that she get in touch with you with a date for the mainpage.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to say: El Señor Presidente is FA #2000, right? Sceptre (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I promoted 5 simultaneously, so really there's no true 2000th FA. But if people want to say El Señor Presidente was, I won't nitpick. Raul654 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think people are choosing ESP because it was the last article you promoted in your contrib log. Sceptre (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

<- don't forget the Red-billed Chough! - p'raps 5 joint 2000th is the fairest way...! Privatemusings (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Thanks; you fixed it just as I was halfway through leaving you a note dealing with the bigger issue of respect for archiving decisions at FAC and asking for your help. Is an admin supposed to use the tools that way, to delete his own archived FAC? Doesn't feel right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Gimmetrow beat me to it, but I would have fixed it had he not. Second, as my proxy, your decisions on FAC need to be respected just as I had made them. If they aren't, there's something going wrong with the FAC. Raul654 (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


El Senor Presidente[edit]

That looks great! Thank-you very much. This is extremly exciting for me!--Mfreud (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not worry about changing the date, Cinco de Mayo is perfect!! Thanks again, I cannot actually contain my excitement!!! :D --Mfreud (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If editors are disrupting WP, why are they not sanctioned?[edit]

In a recent discussion, you described an editor as: "a reprobate POV pusher who does, in fact, push an anti-science agenda in one article after another". Now that may be true - I don't know, and I'm not really here to discuss that specific editor. I do know that there are many, many editors pushing all sorts of agendas on many contentious topics. Admittedly, I've only been editing for about 6 months so I'm no expert in how WP operates, but what I don't understand is why sanctions never seem to be brought against these editors. There are policies against disruption, that mandate colloborative editing.... why are these policies not enforced? Why aren't people regularly topic banned from subjects about which they are too passionate to be effective editors? I look forward to your respectful reply. Dlabtot (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


The question you are asking - why do people who systematically undermine our science articles stay around, and even proliferate in Wikipedia's environment? - has no simple or short answer. It might well take an entire PhD thesis to answer it completely and satisfactorily. (Any budding english or journalism grad students out there feel up to the task?)
Anti-science POV pushers use a variety of tactics to confuse the issue and wear down other editors who are knowledgable of and competent to write about science. Often times, figuring out who is a crank requires an understanding of the subject, which - frankly - most administrators do not have. That's why anti-science POV pushers can do what they do.
Sometimes they are sanctioned. Sometimes they are not. If sanctioned, Often they appeal.
The arbitration committee itself has a mixed record on the matter. Sometimes it makes good decisions. Sometimes it makes bad ones. Occasionally it corrects a bad one, but that's a rarity. (Personally, I am proud of my record on this matter as an arbitrator.) Unfortunately, the systemic failure of the dispute resolution process to deal with the problem means that individual administrators (myself included) have to deal with these things on an individual basis. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I worded my question so poorly that you got the impression it was about "science articles", or that I had the impression that no one is ever sanctioned for anything. I'm asking a much broader question that applies as much to nationalist, political, or simply lame disputes as it does to science articles. This project is supposedly about writing an encyclopedia, yet an enormous amount of energy is spent on dispute resolution that, imho, amounts to mollycoddling. It's not hard in most cases when examining a contentious article and its talkpage, to identify the problematic editors. I guess my asking 'why' these editors are not simply topic banned is slightly rhetorical; what I'm trying to do is advance the ideas that editing an encyclopedia should be a dispassionate endeavor, no editor is indispensable in any one topic, and that enforcement of many policies should be must stricter. Pretty much the only way to be sanctioned right now is by engaging in incivility or violating the three revert rule. But a multitude of reprobate POV pushers who do, in fact, push an agenda in one article after another seem to be a much bigger problem for the encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Disputes on articles with deep technical or historical background are not quite as easy for admins to sort out as you make them out to be. This project is supposedly about writing an encyclopedia, yet an enormous amount of energy is spent on dispute resolution that, imho, amounts to mollycoddling. It's not hard in most cases when examining a contentious article and its talkpage, to identify the problematic editors. - to respond to the latter sentence - it's easy to identify uncivil editors. It's not easy to identify civil editors who are cranks if you aren't well versed in the subject of their crankery. As to your former point, why we spend so much time on dispute resolution - well, as I said on the arbcom mailing list earlier today, the dispute resolution fails spectacularly at resolving certain kind of disputes (the scientific fringe, national/ethnic issues, etc). Raul654 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
When I say 'problematic editors' and you say 'cranks', I'm pretty sure we are talking about two different sets of editors - sets which do have many elements in common. But it seems clear that we are talking about two different things and I have not been able to effectively communicate my point to you. Oh, well, I tried. It does seem however, that we are in substantial agreement about the failure of the dispute resolution process in many cases. Dlabtot (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of pro-science editors sanctioned. Look at ScienceApologist's block log. However, there is something that people do not quite seem to absorb.
NPOV does not mean neutral or positive. It means that if you have two views, A and B that disagree with each other about a topic, A and B will be presented, and A's criticisms of B will be presented and B's criticism's of A will be presented. If A is much more prominent than B, then more of A's criticism's of B will be presented.
What I have seen, over and over, by people who complain as you do, is that if there is a topic with disagreement, they want only one side presented and no criticism of that side. That is when there are problems.
There are also problems when A is much more prominent than B, but editors want to present A and B as being on equal footing. That also causes problems.
So if someone is a proponent of a minority position B, they often feel things are unfair. Well they are sort of unfair, but the unfairness is built into the rules of Wikipedia. If people do not like this unfairness, they are free to go to other Wikis with different sets of rules which they might find more fair.--Filll (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FA milestones/Dispatch[edit]

Hi Raul, Sandy and I were discussing whether the April 14 Dispatch should discuss the 2000th FA as well as the first FA from an educational project. Do you think this should be a stand-alone article or should it be a Dispatch? We'll bow to your wisdom (and the prose of anyone who might have already volunteered to write it). Karanacs (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

crossposted at Newsroom Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, are you interested in watching this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed it when Tony posted to the FAC and saw nothing wrong with it (which is why I didn't comment). Obviously as a signpost article, it should not be tagged as an essay. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NCDave[edit]

Hi Raul, I have to admit I was a bit surprised to see NCDave blocked for reinstating my edit. There were a couple of reasons I added "reportedly", just so you know, the first being as said that the movie isn't out yet. Since the contents aren't publicly available, I think some readers will be unsure how Wikipedia can know what's in the movie. The second reason was simply because the claims are obviously a bit bizarre; in that context I think it may be better to be clear we're saying what's reported and not that we decided ourselves this was the point. I think NCDave should have brought it up on the talk page rather than reverting, but I wonder if a week block is a bit much, unless there's more to it I'm missing? Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Raul. I encourage you to undo your recent block of NCdave. As your are engaged in disputes with him, according to Wikipedia policy, it does not seem that you should block him. That page specifically states:
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.
Please undo your block. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_block (which you filed and then somehow neglected to tell me about) Raul654 (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have told you. I'm sorry. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your AN/I comment, I'm a bit surprised at the snap judgment; I also don't think it should be relevant, but if you looked you'd see much of my work here has been fixing up articles like Secularism, Secularization, Separation of church and state, Separation of church and state in the United States, the Establishment Clause, etc. I think you were simply mistaken about what I added, but the perspective of what my POV would be is a bit (ok, wildly) off. That said, I think there are certain superficial aspects of some of these ID articles which suggest a bias, and which more open discussion with other perspectives could improve (not taking this or that view, but finding the third way). I also don't think the read of what NCdave did in this instance was quite correct. That's not to say I disagree with you entirely, but mostly that making a number of people feel like someone was mistreated isn't the best if it can be avoided, possibly just by a clearer explanation. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

May 11[edit]

Would you consider Orion (mythology) for this date? The point system gives it one point, for underrepresented area (all of religion, mysticism and mythology has 36 FA's), but I'm not sure I'd want to elbow aside one of the existing TFA's even if I could. May 11 is the only really significant date, the date Ovid gave to it in the Fasti. (I might be able to make a case for a 2000th, or maybe 2010th, anniversary; the date of the Fasti is arguable.)

If there is some other procedure I should use here, please let me know. The existing blurb would do, but could be improved by making the first sentence follow a recent tweak to the article; and Zeus placed him among the stars, instead of the passive. If you want the anniversary in the blurb, The entry for Ovid's Fasti on May 11 is a poem on the birth of Orion. can be added.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this while editing below; I assume you are talking about it being on the main page, but it's already been TFA. You didn't forget its appearance, surely? (Ignore me if I have the wrong end of the stick). Yomanganitalk 09:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it has; thanks for the reminder to link — that's the blurb I mean. Does that disqualify? Raul was kind enough to make it TFA without asking the talk page, but I had always intended it for May 11, as the only significant date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you get to have two main page appearances. I'd imagine there'd be uproar from those who haven't yet had their article on main page. You'll have to wait for the number of yearly promotions to fall below 365 (or 366). Yomanganitalk 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Raul? This is news to me; many articles have been repeated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have an example of an article that has been repeated on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not off-hand; but I know I've seen several, often quite good, long-established FAs, and concluded that Raul (having no suggestion for the date) picked one to fill. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've scanned the TFAs and found no duplicates. No TFA page title redirects to another TFA page title, either. If an FA was promoted long ago, it doesn't mean it was TFA long ago. Gimmetrow 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FA page division[edit]

Raul, last week, someone separated Flora and fauna from our biggest category (Biology and medicine) at WP:FA; I reverted as I wasn't convinced it was time to divide that cat yet. Both Casliber and Yomangani had a look at the proposal from the editor who wanted to split, and they suggested instead separating Health and medicine. (Cas is a physician who has written FAs in medicine, dinosaurs, mushrooms, and other animals, so knows the full category.) Their proposed split would move 35 articles out of the current 169 at Biology and medicine. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Flora and fauna section and a mockup is at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Mockup to split WP:FA Biology and medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrating (whether or not this is their intention) that the point system can be gamed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think if Cas wanted to game the system, he'd go for flora and fauna for his mushrooms and birds. The medical articles he has worked on have already been on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt Casliber would; but the potential for someone sneaky is obvious. (I hope this is obscure enough not to be WP:BEANS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The concern and the BEANS have both already been raised at the talk page of WP:TFA/R; none of the participants in the current division proposal are part of that, nor is there any reason to think they would be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
PMA, I think I already dropped out of the point system a while ago as four (maybe five if I include Banksia brownii at a stretch) I've been heavily involved with have been mainpaged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to discontinue the point system. It's proving to be more of a headache and less effective than I had hoped. About the proposal split - I'm strongly opposed to splitting flora/fauna from biology - that would clearly create two overlapping article categories. Health/medicine from biology is a more natural split, so I'm willing to consider it. Raul654 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also dislike the idea of overlapping or sub-categories, as that heads us towards a cluttered page full of sub-categories like the GA page. If no one objects to the Medicine split, maybe I'll do it in a few days, since I've got the work done in sandbox, but I don't feel strongly about it either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I commented back on the FA talk page. I think you can avoid the need for subcategories with a rename of the original category. 10 points to me for meddling - I shall soon have enough to exchange for a free child ticket to WikiWorld. (Restrictions apply. Child must be accompanied by a paying adult.) Yomanganitalk 09:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Make that 20; can I be the paying adult? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yomangani's proposal, at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Alternative proposed I think by Yomangan and sandboxed by Outriggr. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

TFA request[edit]

Hi Raul654. Can you possibly remove Lisa del Giocondo as TFA for 13 April? Apologies but I bet someone else would love the spot and there is no way I can both reconcile the article with a new source and make my own schedule by then. I am almost certain the article has factual errors. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Trip canceled, so we'll be fine, whatever you decide to do. Sorry for the noise. Is there any way to ask for Minnesota or Minneapolis, Minnesota for the week of July 18–27, 2008? Both are celebrating their 150th birthday (1, 2). -Susanlesch (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Minnesota has already been on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, good to clarify that. But Minneapolis has not been on the main page and we can mention Minnesota there. I requested Minneapolis for 18 July quite a while ago but that page is blanked nowadays. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hurray, answered here. No problem, it came up elsewhere and I didn't even want to ask this question in the first place. :-) -Susanlesch (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby's latest[edit]

What say you?[7] Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. Raul654 (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You can handle these better than I do... User:Sloe Bloe Jason Patton (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One of your blockee's[edit]

You may want to comment here. He claims you have a COI because you blocked him and have edited the article in the recent past. RlevseTalk 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rule of five on TFAR[edit]

Hi Raul654, sorry to bother you. I placed a nomination on WP:TFAR for coeliac disease to be featured in May (which is coeliac disease awareness month). The nomination was removed on the grounds that there cannot be more than five nominations at any one time. This number 5 strikes me as rather arbitrary, and others seem to be of the same opinion. What do I do? JFW | T@lk 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Idea[edit]

Raul, Tony and I have been trying to hash out an idea for days (mostly his original plan, but I've beaten back his grandiose ideas into what works practically for me in terms of time constraints and reviewer constraints :-) The gist is to kill two birds with one stone: 1) recognize and acknowledge top FAC/FAR reviewers while 2) bringing in new people/prestige to the FA process by elevating an article to FA of the month. The broad idea would be to have a panel that votes to choose the FA of the month. The changing panel would be made up of top FAC/FAR reviewers (methodology a derivative of this, but in a way that I don't have to do the time-consuming tally work) complemented by non-FA regulars appointed, some by you, some by me, to involve new or other people to the process. The panel would choose the FA of the month from the monthly featured log, which would be announced in the Signpost. By tallying their FAC/FAR participation with a methodology similar to the linked archive (above), we'd generate a side benefit of being able to reward, acknowledge and barnstar all active reviewers. Tony and I have hashed out (actually, fought out with a lot of gnashing of teeth and bandwidth :-) a greater level of detail, but don't want to move forward with the idea unless you approve in principle. If you like it generally, we'd like to move quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see what is wrong with this proposal. Although I am not a huge FA producer and I only find value in FAs in so far as they give us a reason to generally try to improve our articles, I think an FA of the month is a great idea. And if it can be done in a way that recognizes those that put in the work of reviewing (in general a thankless task) a little bit, what is wrong with that?--Filll (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a way to thank people; it's called a barnstar. (As for a FA of the month, it presumes that FA's are in fact chosen for quality; all too often, this is not the case.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Without having examined the methodology, I think this is an alright idea. We need a better way to recognize core articles brought to status, for one thing. Marskell (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
My objection is to the methodology. The award itself is largely harmless, and will probably peter out the way most things of the month do. If it doesn't, it will probably induce incivility from the advocates of different articles. (If they are banned from the decision process, as Sandy would do, they will infest the talk page, and be less civil, in order to draw attention from the high and mightly electors.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
" ... as Sandy would do ... " Pardon? And you're objecting to the methodology when you don't know yet what it is? The methodology involves reviewers tracking their own participation so that I only have to verify in the end, because going through almost 200 monthly FACs so I can award barnstars is prohibitive timewise. Barnstars are nice; figuring out who I can award them to took me a full day last month. Also, after I finished discussing this with Tony, I realized we hadn't allowed for how Marskell might reward FAR reviewers by adding them to the panel, so that would need to be accounted for. Further, PMA, the point is to broaden the panel to include non-FA regulars, specifically to address quality concerns and to allow outsiders to judge quality. I'm surprised you reject that notion, since your concerns were such a big part in building it in to the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see I have had some effect. But the most effective way to broaden the panel is not to have a barrier; the usual problem with any of these things is to get editors to participate at all.
  • Pre-emptively: the only reason I can see to limit participation is to avoid editors attempting to bandwagon the process by one-time special-purpose !votes. This is a problem all over Wikipedia, on AFD no less than here, and we can deal with it by discouraging and disregarding WP:CANVASS violations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll explain the reasoning for limiting participation. How many editors are willing or able to read through 60 to 80 monthly feature-length articles to enter an educated vote? What does the "vote" mean if the editors haven't read all the articles, don't know the criterion, and are perhaps only voting on popularity or other factors? The editors who already know the articles, won't be burdened with having to read 60 to 80 at once, and can put forward the short list are the top reviewers who have already worked on most of those articles. They are in the best position to put forward a short list for a broader vote by the panel, which includes non-FA regulars, so the panel only has to read a few articles. Otherwise, you have a possibly meaningless vote based on popularity from editors who haven't likely read all the articles. It's intended to make it practical, feasible, and not a burden on everyone involved, while encouraging more and better reviews and rewarding a top-notch article along with good reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
How many editors are willing or able to read through 60 to 80 featured articles every month, discuss the relative merits of each and then justify their decision on the selection of the FA of the month to the baying mob of editors whose article have been passed over? Hmmm....I don't think I'm going to need all these fingers. Yomanganitalk 01:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Right :-) Accounted for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't look at me. *I* get enough flack on the source stuff. I don't need to look further for more work. (But I was good and reviewed a non history FAC!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Tony: This is why my proposal is for a (rotating) short-lister—one person to select about five promotions each month, which would then be read by a small number of panelists. Anderson, I favoured asking you to participate in the trial, so are you seeing yourself as belonging to some "privileged caste of reviewers"? Whatever other squabbles there are, I don't doubt that you'd do a good job as panellist or short-lister. In any case, there would be a continual rotation of personel, a month at a time during the trial, and thereafter, if the trial continued, perhaps less often (every several months): all good reviewers would get a go, but naturally, not all at once, because that would be a recipe for chaos and the scheme would collapse. And before you recoil and return to accuse, I have already ruled myself out as serving, at least for quite a while, lest there be a perceived conflict of interest.

But Sandy wanted a more objective way of choosing the personnel, and was still considering her line on the short-lister idea (which to my mind is the only way to make the task of the panellists reasonable, to give them the chance to read five articles properly and rank them in just an hour or two; anything more would be an impost, and it's idle to think we can ask our hard-pressed reviewers and prominent WPs to participate in a gargantuan task that requires close coordination. I'm keen for it to be a clean, quick, efficient process that requires minimal coordination between people (that's the automaticity that will make it run smoothly and with satisfaction for all: who wants a monthly committee process to choose five articles from 80? That will not work.). TONY (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep :-) Tony and I squabbled for hours over who chooses the shortlist and how. For three nights I've been on Australian time :-) I say the top ten reviewers, who've been in there and have already read most of them at FAC, since it won't be such a burden for them. The top ten reviewers (I've got that figured out, see sample linked above, but modified) each put forward a list of five FAs for the month, and Raul or I tally their votes, if the top five isn't clear or we disagree, as in all things FA, Raul's the boss, he chooses from their lists, make it easy, put forward only a short list to the panel. Tony preferred initially that one person puts forward the short list; I'm not sure if I succeeded in beating him into submission. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. So 10 people have to sift through 70 or 80 articles and FAC pages to produce a short-list of five? It's extraordinarily cumbersome; will all 10 do it in time? There'll have to be a fairly tight deadline—unless the operation is streamlined, there's no way the winner will be announced in the following month. By my reckoning, the reading and judging of the five short-listed articles needs to occur in the first two weeks of the following month. What if only six have chosen their short-list by the deadline? What if there's little commonality between them? That's highly likely, given five/80. Too many people at once, I say. Let a smaller number have a go in succession, every few months (better one person, but I can see I've lost that argument). To Keep it small and simple, why not the top three reviewers who agree to the task, instead of the top 10? They should probably each rank what they see as the best 10 of the 80 articles, from 10 points for their first choice, down to one point for their 10th, and the five highest summed scores would comprise the short-list. I'm still unhappy with the complexity, but this would work better, I think. And would the three be different from those who judge the short-list itself? TONY (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well ... theoretically, the top reviewers don't have a lot to sift through, since most of them have already reviewed all those articles. My proposal is simple; when they put up their tally of articles reviewed, they put up their choices. If they don't want to participate, it doesn't matter. If any top reviewer doesn't care to put forward a list, or doesn't put one forward in time, that's no problem; we work with what we have. The most critical factor in this proposal for me is that it have a way to tally, acknowledge and reward good reviews; otherwise, it's just more work for me, and I don't want to do anything that deprecates the hard work reviewers do to make sure articles are promotable. I don't want a process that makes them secondary; without their good reviews, we don't have quality. I also wouldn't introduce any complex ranking scheme; statistically, those can backfire (for example, if everyone consistently chooses the same article second, it can come out first on a point tally, even though no one chose it first). OK, so here's how we can merge your goals and mine: forget about having Raul or I sort through, tally, and pick the final five. Let your monthly shortlist person be the one who gets to pick the final five from the reviewers' lists, but don't leave out the reviewers, because if we do, the entire Project becomes more work, and gives the hard-working reviewers who help assure articles are the best they can be short shift. The problem with top three instead of top ten: look at the sample data from February. I want to be able to identify, acknowledge and barnstar the top reviewers, and three isn't enough. If you make it only three, you make it too hard to end up in that group (for example, it could mean simply Ealdgyth, Karancas and Elcobbola end up in top three every month, because they review almost every article. Limiting it to three cuts out everyone else). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think our different perspectives arise from your concentration on a single month—trying to involve everyone at once—and my long-term view, that month after month, all of the hard-working and effective reveiwers can participate: a rotational system to acknowledge the best reviewers in the medium term, not the short term. I think people would not like to do it on a long-term basis, and would be comfortable being asked to serve for just once every so often, whether for one round (in the trial) or perhaps three monthly rounds each time thereafter. We'd like to have fresh blood among the short-lister and panellists, yes? "statistically, those can backfire (for example, if everyone consistently chooses the same article second, it can come out first on a point tally, even though no one chose it first)"—Not seeing the problem here; proportional voting. If two panellists put article A first [10 points] (and four put B second [16 points], probably B is more favoured, on average. How else? TONY (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Tony, distracted by the phone here. Immediate reward for good work is better than long term chance that "they might pick me some day"; that's why I prefer monthly. People's schedules and availability change. And, my methodology is self-selecting, which is more democratic, more Wiki-like. I don't want to see either Raul or me being asked to choose (people or articles, that's a sticky wicket). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, I don't consider the "source" stuff a review. I generally don't read the whole article when I do that, I just spot check the information sourced to questionable sources, and look in depth at the sources (usually websites). A "real review" to me is when I dig into the prose and try to at least make sure they make sense. I couldn't possibly pick out 'brilliant' writing, but i can at least make sure the prose makes sense. As long as we don't go with bot generated thank yous to the reviewers, I think someone will be found. I have to say I found the thought of having a bot dropped thank you on my talk page more offensive than some of the prickliest nominiators! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do consider it an essential piece of the review; brilliant and compelling prose, based on blog and self-published sources, would not be a good result on the mainpage. And the work you do is extremely time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are we acknowledging good reviews, or are we acknowledging good articles? Many reivews are superficial, but some of them have been superficial about excellent articles - because nobody has found anything to say about them except "Hey, wow, excellent; promote". Septentrionalis PMAnderson
  • We're trying to do both: refer to original post to Raul, kill two birds with one stone. The methodology will deal with superficial reviews. If we're only acknowledging good articles, I don't need more work. I need a way to also reward good reviews, as that leads to good articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC) PS, PMA, I've put a ton of thought into the point you raise, but don't want to divert the conversation yet into that level of detail, when we don't even know yet if the whole idea is workable or has Raul's blessing; trying to stay focused on the basic concept for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • On self-appointing selective societies, I stand with Harry Golden: I am no less opposed to those which admit me, and expect any such organization to spend its time deciding whom to blackball as not worthy our exalted company. Compare Esperanza.
    • I am nevertheless touched by Tony's considering inviting me; a great change from his remarks of last month. (I would accept, in an effort to see whether such a group can be made useful, or reduced to the list of volunteers that constitute any other Wikiproject.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, if you wish to make a subsection with the irreducible bare bones of your proposal for Raul to comment on, I will not reply here (if I feel compelled to comment at all, I will address Sandy's talk page). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to move further until Raul has had a chance to weigh in; I know he's very busy, and there's no need to move forward until we hear his thoughts. I don't want to invest the time until we have some direction from him. Give the man some time :-) And Congratulations on finishing the work, Raul !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm...a snack[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for coming to our chat yesterday (and for all the times you've made it). It's great to have you, and best wishes with the final haul on that thesis! Cheers, DurovaCharge! 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

bit of an echo here.... by my reckoning you've got 20 hours or so to the deadline, so you probably ought to make a start! ......maybe one more hour on IRC though? ;-)

srsly - best wishes in finishing everything off.... Privatemusings (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I spent about 18 hours straight working on the thesis yesterday, but I managed to finish it today at 5:00 AM EDT (103 pages total, of which about 30 are source code in the appendix). I should have downtime until Thursday while my adviser reviews it, then another frantic rush to make any last minute changes he wants, get it printed up and signed by all the necessary parties, and submitted to the graduate office by the April 21 deadline. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A tale[edit]

Well, you said you'd close it: Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub. I've left it way over time hoping for more comments and work. There has been improvement and keeps but there's also non-trivial removes. Up to you!

And congrats on finishing the thesis. Marskell (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles to not be on TFA?[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article currently says "Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page." Do you maintain any such a list in any Wikipedia page? If so, please provide a pointer to this list (either here or, better yet, back on WP:TFA), even if it is incomplete.--66.80.2.174 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

April 14 Dispatch[edit]

Tony hasn't ce'd yet: Wikipedia:FCDW/April 14, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tricky RFCU[edit]

I've got a tricky case that you might like to double check: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33. See my note at the bottom of the current iteration. Cheers, Jehochman Talk 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to talk[edit]

Hey mark, its Nancy. You may not remember me, its been a while. Since I did not have your number I had to contact you this way. We need to talk soon. Send me a message if you get this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumba (talkcontribs) 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

...who are you? Raul654 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm Nancy Hollister[edit]

I'm sorry if you don't remember me, Its been something like six or seven months now but we met at the University during some seminar. I would really like to talk to you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumba (talkcontribs) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiight. And which seminar would that be? Raul654 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You should step down as an admin[edit]

While you may see it as merely "protecting" good content from "POV warriors" your policy of blocking users with whom you are engaged in disputes is extremely disruptive to wikipedia. It call into question the neutrality of wikipedia processes, and completely undermines the collaborative nature of the project. In reality, you are pushing a POV, just like every other human being. Your consistent abuse of power, in spite of constant reminders to stop, and in violation of numerous policies, leads me to believe you are unfit to have admin tools. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama FAR[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama is probably going to be a recurring stability discussion between now and November. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your "delegate" Joelr31 "closed the Obama FAR[8] neither as a keep nor as a remove". [9] This is clearly contrary to the declared procedure for "Featured article review (FAR)" which obligates that either you or one of your delegates "determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage". Either there was or there wasn't such a consensus, and I think it pretty clear that there wasn't. It's time for the community to get its chance to have its say on whether Barack Obama should keep its FA status, and Joelr31's decision to attempt to deny us that promised opportunity is truly shocking. Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also no via media for the article milestones box on the talk page, it's either "kept" or "removed", which correspond to the two possible actions Andy mentions. Joel's on-the-fly attempt to finesse a tertium quid out of this debate is an understandable motion, but is unlikely to stand for long. Believe the proper result is "no consensus, default FARC". At a minimum it should be reopened in review phase and we should seek consensus on whether we have consensus to discuss removal consensus, and yes, due to this out-of-process move, that's exactly what I mean. JJB 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see an "article milestones box on the talk page" on the WP:FAR talk page -- are you referring to a different talk page? "Article Milestones" is mentioned once at WP:FAR, and it might be helpful to blue link it. Andyvphil (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, found the "Article Milestone" box on the article's talk page, part of the ArticleHistory template. Says "action4result=pass (under appeal)" but displays as "?". So by "no via media" you meant no corresponding option allowed by the template? Not following you. Andyvphil (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct. I agree with Stifle's temporary solution of using a uniquely worded message box instead of "pass (under appeal)". :D JJB 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur with the above comments. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this down so you'd see it. Apologies if that was inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Joel has posted some of his reasons for his choice, but I do not think he has stated them all yet. JJB 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the diff.[10] "My initial intention was to re-start the review...[but decided] achieving consensus for either keeping or removing its FA status would be nearly impossible. How can it be decided if there is no consensus for keeping its status or no consensus for losing its status?" So his decision is that Obama gets to keep its star indefinately because you can't review it. Haloooooo! Anybody in? Raul, are you on board with that or not? Andyvphil (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to respond, or be derelect in your responsibility to perform your admin functions in this project in a transparent manner? Andyvphil (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nancy[edit]

Im not sure it was a while ago and I attend them frequently. I remember meeting you there though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumba (talkcontribs) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 19 TFA[edit]

Hey Raul, just curious why Emma Goldman was chosen to be the featured article of the day on April 19th. I can't find any connection between her and April 19. Wouldn't it be better to wait and feature her on her birthday, June 27? I was planning on suggesting the article for then once June rolled around. What do you think? Kaldari (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, how are you doing?[edit]

I would really like to talk to you Mark, I think we need to get to know each other better (obviously, you hardly know who I am). I would like to talk to you sometime, I'm sure you'll remember me one we get to talking. See ya:)

AfD nomination of Egged bus 36 bombing[edit]

I have nominated Egged bus 36 bombing, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egged bus 36 bombing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks II[edit]

ThomHImself (talk · contribs) is on his 4th or 5th revert. I drop a WP:3RR Warning on him, but it might have been too late. But I think at 5RR, there shouldn't be much patience. Anyways, just thought you should be made aware. It's all as a result of that dumb movie, Expelled. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Hi Raul654. I've left a request at User talk:Builder w re this indefinite block but still got no response. Could you please answer it there? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're being watched...[edit]

A Bulldog is watching you... --Cream (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chronic FAC[edit]

Hi, I nominated The Chronic article as a FAC and it was recently closed with the result of not being promoted. The thing is that it got afew comments and only got ended with one support and one oppose. Also, most of the comments that were made were only focusing on the reliability of references and the fair-use rationales of some samples, not on the actual prose or things that had to be expanded. I don't really think the article received enough views from regular FA reviewers to have a overall consensus on the page. I was wondering if you could point out the main strengths of the page and the areas which need expansion or which don't follow the MoS or the FA critria. Thanks. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

More to come.--Filll (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Participating in Sandbox[edit]

Raul, I know that I was not personally invited to participate in the Civil POV sandbox, but would you mind if I helped out, if I have anything worthy of contributing? If not, thats fine as the people you invited are much, much more experience than I. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind others working on it. In fact I think it's a good thing, provided that they are using that page to further its purpose (to explain the problem and lay out a set of principles the arbcom can adopt to limit civil POV pushing) and not to undermine it. Raul654 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
On a lesser scale, we have the same issue across all of the autism-related articles. It's a concern because of the overlap of admins (with Evolution, for example) who can deal with it: TimVickers, Mastcell and only a few others. I'm watching as TimVickers' time is increasingly being taken up by these issues, and noticing that he hasn't written an FA in a long time :-( I'm at the end of my rope with the troubles the autism-related articles have caused me, and ready to unwatch all of them, but I feel badly leaving so few other editors to deal with this. There is a walled garden of scores of articles, and because some of the editors perseverate, a lot of time and patience is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC query[edit]

Raul, the Murder Madness and Mayhem educational project has two more FACs maturing: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario Vargas Llosa, both nominated on the 14th. Vargas Llosa still has a few loose ends to tie up, and the students may need more time as they're in final exams and User:Jbmurray is traveling. The General has no opposes, unanimous support at nine declarations, five from editors who had no involvement with the project or the FA-team. But, because of my frequent MoS and ref fixes, wikilinking, and Spanish-language input, strangely, I figure in the top five contributors by edit count. While there's nothing controversial in the FAC, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to promote it when I figure in the top five contributors? Please let me know your thoughts, as I've not been in this spot before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate for you promote it; feel free to promote it if you feel it meets the criteria and there are no oustanding actionable objections. Raul654 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the quick feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

TFA ideas for April 21st, 25th & 29th[edit]

Hello, Raul. I was told to leave you a note here, rather than on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests (max'ed out for a while), so here I am.

I thought April 25th would be a good day to use Redwood National and State Parks (promoted in June 2006) as the TFA, as that will be Arbor Day in the U.S. I also thought April 21st might be a good day for Monarchy of the United Kingdom (promoted in May 2005), as that day will be Queen Elizabeth II's birthday. I see that you've already put in BAE Systems for April 20th. To avoid back to back UK topics, may I suggest moving that from April 20th to April 29th? That will be the anniversary of the founding of British Aerospace, the predecessor of BAE Systems, in 1977.

These are just my ideas and suggestions. I don't need them on those dates that badly. I just thought that they are nice dates for the respective FAs to get on MainPage. I hope you agree with me. But if it's way too much work for you to move things around. Don't worry too much about it. Okay? Thanks.

Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And, like you have nothing else to think about: there's a 200th anniversary currently at FAC for May 3. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Third of May 1808 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: After copyediting by several of the finest (Awadewit, Noetica and others), this article is doing quite well at FAC now and has garnered Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not completely uninvolved with Third of May 1808, I didn't do much with it—I strongly support it appearing May 3, because if ever there was a reason for giving anniversaries a place in TFA scheduling, this is it—the significance is built right into the title! –Outriggr § 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Raul, May 3 is promoted now: six days, unopposed, five supports, four uninvolved. And a reminder that May is Coeliac disease awareness month in the U.S. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Re. BAE Systems. I know a lot about BAE and have contributed more than anybody to the article (with the guidance, support and advice of many others of course) and even I wouldn't identify the April 29th date of British Aerospace's founding with BAE Systems without it being pointed out. But no objections to moving it, whatever works best for all concerned. Mark83 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that the TFA templates for April 20th~23rd have been updated. Thank you for taking my suggestion, Raul654. Happy Earth Day & Arbor Day to you. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just sat down and hashed out the schedule for the next couple weeks. I'm not going to schedule Redwood National and State Parks for the 25th because Manzanar has been requested for the next day (and articles on two US places back-to-back would not be good). Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Another option could have been the article "Sequoia" which is specifically about the coast redwood trees, as that is not a USA page, but is about the genus coast redwood, grown in New Zealand, United Kingdom, and elsewhere, even if it is native to the US.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul's Razor and Homeopathy[edit]

Greetings...and thanx for your support at the Arb Comm on homeopathy.[11] I love Your Raul's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." I would love it if the homeopathy article could strive towards that sharpness. DanaUllmanTalk 03:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PCS and Banks[edit]

There are some acronymns for security measures that I dare not mention here. I was told by a very reliable source that those particular IDs can be changed. Would it be correct to assume that one of the blocked ranges uses a carrier that does not even bother to see such IDs, or do we have babies on WP so sophisticated that their IDs are changed, sprinting ahead of you? Doug Youvan (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

April 22 is Earth Day[edit]

Jus a heads up for April 22, which is Earth Day - I guess something to bear in mind when choosing an article for that day, in case you haven't done so already. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest Earth, promoted April 21, 2007? Or The World Is Not Enough (song), promoted November 18, 2007. :-P --PFHLai (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to eavesdrop, but I couldn't resist reponding. Earth seems like such a perfect choice! Wrad (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(slaps hand on forehead) d'oh! Had presumed it must have been on main page already...but it hasn't, neat! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Pearl Jam on Earth Day? Hmmm... --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I got the date confused! All right, I'll shuffle the queue around (again) later tonight. Raul654 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably too late? It is already April 22! Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
D'oh. Yes. Sorry folks, my mistake. Somehow I got confused and thought earth day wasn't until the 25th. Raul654 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Pearls are kind of related to the Earth :p Gary King (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible TFA[edit]

There are already 5 listed including a nom for April 26, but it occurs to me that you might want to consider Royal Blue (B&O train) for that date, which is exactly the 50th anniversary date of its final run on April 26 1958 (4 pts). Also, Transport only has 47 FA's, so it's an under-represented category (1 pt) JGHowes talk - 01:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

\color{Red} \oplusHello, please reply. I realize this is late in the game, so your further advices would be most appreciated. JGHowes talk - 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for "Expelled" Protection[edit]

Thanks for taking care of that, my erasing arm was getting tired. There are enough new IPs hitting all the other evolution/creation/ID pages for this gnome to deal with. And thanks for the comment to Mr. "Dr." Henley. Well put. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream has leapt to the defence of poor Mr Henley, and blocked Angry Christian for 48 hours for being a bit rude when given an unexplained final warning by Nightscream. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Angry_Christian. .. dave souza, talk 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban[edit]

Thanks for taking an interest in the state of discussion on the 9/11 articles. I understand your concern and will stay away from the articles. I will, however, be appealling your decision in accordance with the discretionary sanctions. However it turns out, it will be good to get this matter settled.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have appealled the ban. (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Other bans and rewrites during a lockdown[edit]

Hi Raul. I noticed the ban you issued to Thomas Basboll on the 9/11 articles. Do you think things would help there if several other long-term editors of the pages were also banned from the topic, so as to allow new editors or other (less entrenched) editors the room to edit? In other words, should such bans be handed out indiscriminately to allow a return to normal editing without conflicts between long-established and entrenched users, or should bans be applied selectively according to someone (presumably the admins in question) deciding what is and is not POV pushing? Selective banning runs the risk that another POV will be favoured. In some ways, I think a universal ban and page protection is best, followed by selectively allowing "repair groups" in to work on the article - this would have to consist of established editors who the community would approve of editing the article. Get a minimum number (say 5 editors) working on an article (these would have to be really good editors), and cut out all the background noise, but still allow discussion on the talk page. Give the selected group a month or two to get the article to featured status, and then release the page protection. Maybe also allow a month of free editing after the two-month lockdown before submitting to the FAC process? Ultimately, this may be the only way to get controversial articles to an acceptable state. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I am not so sure whether banning helps. I think it's not the individuals themselves who are impossible to work with, it's the ideas they hold. People have very outspoken ideas about 9/11. So that makes two groups, A and B. Each group has individuals who think that their view is the only truth, and individuals who think that all noteworthy views deserve treatment. We seem to have no mechanism to decide how to proceed, so I expect quarreling to continue even after all the editors who have ever edited this article would be banned for two months. But I might be wrong, and it's worth a try perhaps.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is important not to become a POV pusher yourself... I am formally warning you: Symbol note.png In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) PS, I forgot to ask: please either undo your ban or explain it in detail...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Who are you formally warning? Raul? Carcharoth? FloNight♥♥♥ 20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, he's been issuing them to several people despite the fact that he's neither an admin nor unvinvoled (as required by the arbcom decision). Therefore, this warning is void, and if he continues to pretend like he can do this, he can expect me to block him for his deception. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adolf Galland.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Adolf Galland.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Also Image:Albert Kesselring.jpg, thanks! Kelly hi! 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian block[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your participation, and your honesty. Would you mind if I picked your brain by asking you why, given the numerous warnings I gave AC and others, you think that blocking him for 48 hours after he left that profanity-laced message on my Talk Page was not warranted? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article[edit]

Hello, I was at the page where you request featured articles, but I was kind of confused about how to properly request an article and I didn't want to mess anything up. I did, however, notice that you are in charge of the whole thing. Anyway, I was wondering how I would go about requesting Metallica on the front page? Sorry for bothering you. I understand if you are busy. Cheers and thanks. Wikipediarules2221 04:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Can you chime in with your opinion on this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot[edit]

Raul, Gimmetrow is going to be out for three days, Friday through the weekend, so you'll notice a change in my usual pr/ar routine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Madness!![edit]

Facundo quiroga.jpg Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For all your support and encouragement, from very early on and right to the end. Thank you so much!
On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Global warming[edit]

Is there a limit to how many times something can be linked to in an article? I think the link was fitting since it made it easier to find. Mentalhead (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't use "See also" for terms that are already linked in an article. In fact, generally you should avoid having a see-also at all -- if something is important enough to merit a link, it should be mentioned in the body of the article and not as a afterthought. Raul654 (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Quick sock Q[edit]

User_talk:FellGleaming isn't another Scibaby sock by any chance? There is something in the vocab and style which reminds me but the pattern is a bit more sophisticated. --BozMo talk 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You reverted Climate change denial without explanation[edit]

I had a simple good faith edit on Climate change denial making it clear that the term is pejorative. Comparing holocaust denial with climate change denial should make the thing self evident but apparently not. The least you could have done was to give a reason for the reversion, which you haven't. Please don't revert without giving a reason. TMLutas (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Raul beat me to it. Try talk - you might also want to read through the archives of talk. Btw. my revert summary would have been: "POV - unless you can find enough sources of equally high quality to show that this has weight" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's nice KDP but you didn't do that and I would have reacted differently. Try talking to me on my page and we can continue.
You reverted again and also did not give an acceptable reason. Article edits do not automatically have to go to talk and only then get changed WP:BOLD applies. I'm willing to be convinced it was a bad edit but your unwillingness to give your reasons makes it impossible for me to see your point. I'm not a telepath. TMLutas (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you're not a telepath. It would have been good to put "per WP:NOR and WP:SOAP" in the edit summary to clarify. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting viewpoint and I think you can't honestly defend it. There's plenty of evidence that it's a pejorative term, just try google. That doesn't change the main problem which is that Raul564 is reverting like a newbie when, I now see, he's a sysop. TMLutas (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There may be "plenty of evidence" that it's pejorative but your edit presented no such evidence. Quoting your own words, "I'm not a telepath." Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Check the talk page again and you'll find a first run at providing evidence that it's commonly perceived as a pejorative term. And it's fine that we disagree (though we should probably be doing it elsewhere) but Raul654 was and is abusing his power by locking the page and not going through the normal edit process. You know very well that I'm open to compromise as we've hammered out compromises lots of times. With someone who reverts without comment, there's nobody to partner with. That's abusive and that's the real problem. TMLutas (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:TFA page[edit]

I apologize, I didn't realize the rules had been changed. It just seems unfair to remove nominations that are less than 24 hours old. -- Scorpion0422 03:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Nimrod (talk · contribs)[edit]

Seems like a single purpose account going after several global warming articles with some serious POV pushing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

civil pov pushing[edit]

I just wanted to loop back with you and let you know I've visited that link several times, read the comments and I am still without any ideas on the subject so I have not said anything. Just an FYI that I did in fact follow up and thanks for the invite, I just don;t have any ideas. Angry Christian (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Intelligent Design[edit]

How can you say that the low odds of evolution and high odds that life starting before life on Earth is not related. Rael, wrote the book on "Intelligent Design" 30 years ago. Yet his material is absent on ID despite the scientific probability that it can occur. Humans are capable of seeding life on the moon and Mars right now if we wanted to. What has greater odds, we evolved in a unnatural rate, or that older life in the Universe seeded Earth? When you take the number of planets that previously, before Earth, evolved to a higher state than us, and then consider the low odds of life on other planets as this article points out, then you have something worth discussing and should be part of the ID site. It appears that a scientific approach to ID is impossible with squelcher's, and perhaps the site will continue in its embarrassing controversy (as it appears you want) because no intelligence is allowed in ID. Its bible, calling it a fraud (same thing), or the highway. ID is a scientific possibility. Let the possibility surface, and it is science not Bible think. Wiki is open ideas, not squelching them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7351428.stm Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured List Director proposal[edit]

The proposal, for two directors at featured lists, is at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Proposal; I've "volunteered" you to close the vote in two weeks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I've added it to my watchlist. Ping me as the close-date approaches. Raul654 (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do (May 8). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director; to close at 16:00 UTC, May 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder, almost there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your threatening me with a block?[edit]

Okay, heres my issue with your threat. Your not supposed to block me because we're constantly involved in disputes. If you haven't noticed, I'm one of the more moderate ID believers on here. If you want to say I push a POV, just look at yourself. You and your friends are much more millitant than I am. I just want to know one thing. What did I say to push you over the top. Saksjn (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope[edit]

Raul, a proposal to ban an editor from FAC has suddenly appeared at AN/I. Please see this and User talk:SandyGeorgia#ANI. I am not comfortable about this precipitous, slippery slope with an editor who hasn't been involved at FAC that long, raised a valid point on the Vargas Llosa FAC, removed his/her oppose when faced with disagreement from others, and has apologized to many editors. If the pattern persists, maybe, but ... this is too fast ... your call ... but I'm uncomfortable with this precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#User:Ottava_Rima[edit]

Your input at this thread would be very welcome. I have proposed a partial restriction on this editor's participation at WP:FAC. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 05:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

April 28 Dispatch[edit]

Invokes your name (who knew?) WP:FCDW/April 28, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I still remember the pencil sharpener DYK :) Raul654 (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Audiovideo[edit]

Hi Raul, I've taken my first stab at putting an audiovideo into an article, here. It seems to be acting funny though. The video is fine, but the audio only seems to work when I run VLC(Activex), and not when I run Cortado(Java). Any idea what the problem is, or how it can be fixed? Thanks.

P.S. I guess we're taking an extended break from the free music project. If you get a chance sometime to sketch out your thoughts about how to proceed with it (if at all), that would be much appreciated. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to be fixed now. I played around with it and uploaded it again. Hopefully you didn't spend much time on this.  :-) BTW, too bad about NYB, who seems to have been the very best.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

misunderstanding[edit]

Dear Raul,

I'm afraid I may have misunderstood something. The ArbCom wrote, that admins may proceed

if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere ...

I have seen a lot of non-admins issuing warnings before, and I never imagined that it had to be an uninvolved admin who makes the warning. I had no intention to pose as admin, (which is absurd since most of these people know me), nor would I ever do such a loathsome thing.

  • Are you sure it needs to be an uninvolved admin?
  • How do we proceed now?

Your sincerely,

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Raul, are you willing to answer this?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) If you want to invoke the arbcom 9/11 remedy, you must be an uninvolved admin. The arbitration committee decision makes this abundantly clear (Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Discretionary_sanctions) (2) While not an administrator, you refrain from trying to invoke them, ever again. Raul654 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FAR notification for Avatar: the Last Airbender[edit]

Avatar: The Last Airbender 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. Collectonian (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Thylacine taken off FA list for 25 April 2008?[edit]

Hi Raul

I saw the Thylacine article on the FA page early on 24 April and thought "Excellent!". Went back to read it a few hours later and it was replaced with the ocean sunfish article. Why is that? I'm not complaining (really!), just wondering because I couldn't find any discussion on the decision. Cheers, Ossipewsk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's primary author emailed me to let me know that that date was not a good one for him, and he would prefer another date Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for letting me know. 25 April is ANZAC Day, so I can understand. --Ossipewsk (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks galore[edit]

Raul, there's a big mess of socks impacting Tony1 here at ANI, the next thread after that, and at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1. Tony's probably asleep, but it keeps growing. Are you able to do anything? One of them is still unblocked, and um ... I don't really know what Tor is or how much it will take to get the socks back in the drawer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Stefan–Boltzmann law on your watchlist[edit]

Some anon wants to remove a statement about global warming on this page. This happens quite regularly but isn't an edit war. However, this page is not really being edited or watched by a lot of editors. I am the only one who has been reverting some anons who wanted to remove the reference to global warming over the last few months... Count Iblis (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. Raul654 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts[edit]

I would be appreciated if you would look over User:Vassyana/Problem_solving and give me your thoughts in return. I feel it is related to your essay on "Civil POV pushing". Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Vassyana's talk page. Raul654 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Seldon.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Seldon.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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Singer[edit]

I see it often repeated, however a blog is not a WP:RS source. So how do we verify the source presented? In a similar instance I have found on numerous pages and journals information about Theodor Landscheidt, while its repeated everywhere, William keeps removing the sources: [12] as not reliable. So I guess it is two fold, even though in both cases its easy to find people blogging about it, how do we find reliable sources? --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So how do we verify the source presented? - You go to the library, and you get a copy of the journal issue that is cited there. Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Raul654 (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Then that means the source presented is not accurate since there is no page number etc to verify. I am not sure why you would readd it barring its incomplete and there is no way to verify it, especially considering your only verification is a blog that it exists. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny you should say that. I put a request in to my University's library yesterday. They got back to me this morning with a scanned copy of the letter in question. Singer does indeed say - point blank - he thinks martians built phobos. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you upload it please, it would be great if I can read it to verify. Especially since his belief as quoted in his book was suppose to be that *if* it was artificial, it would have been for ... So to see a document where he specifically states martians built it, would be interesting, and would allow the issue to be closed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here - My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. Raul654 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It goes on to state: "The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them." Do we know if the measurements were correct? I think since not only has the person stated they do not believe in Martians, or so its been reported, and if the measurements were incorrect, the point is in fact a red herring. If I removed all doubt that martians existed, leading you to accept only that reasoning, then told you all points I provided were lies ... it would be quite misleading to then state you believe in martians. --I Write Stuff (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In any event I updated the article to reflect the full information, thank you for posting the article as you obviously did not have to. --I Write Stuff (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid MP image[edit]

Hi Raul, would you object to using a tighter crop of Image:Depo-testosterone 200 mg ml.jpg on the Main Page? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't object if someone (else) makes one. Raul654 (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A decision at WP:ANI made use of User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing[edit]

Hello Raul. If you are curious about the use to which your work was put, search for your name in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy. The editor whose behavior was questioned seemed to appreciate the reference! EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. He was definitely not the audience I had in mind when starting that page. Raul654 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

0 = -1[edit]

I had a professor in college that did this with algebra, and in less than ten steps. Left it on the board for years, and no one ever found the error. You gotta appreciate a guy that could do that with algebra, rather than calculus, haha. Your user page was interesting, just thought I'd share this little tidbit and say hi. Supertheman (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All the algebra "proofs" I'm aware of have a hidden divide-by-0 somewhere. My proof doesn't - it has something far more... devious ;) Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do I sign up?[edit]

User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing

Has anything official come out of this? I can think of two editors, maybe three, who I'd like to cite WP:CPP on. Speaking of WP:CPP, could I, should I put in a redirect with that title? WLU (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an email to the arbcom, suggesting in the homeopathy case that they use the remedy from the 9/11 attacks case, but incorporating one of the remedies suggested on the POV pushing page. See this.
Assuming it passes, I want to see how that plays out. Hopefully, it will santize the environment a bit. Raul654 (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentle reminder[edit]

I hope you won't mind if I nudge your memory, as we're now about a week away from the anniversary. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That's kind. I can see from your contribs that changing the plan had a knock-on effect which caused you lots of work, so double thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

May 12 TFA[edit]

Any chance you could move Super Smash Bros. Melee to May 13, since it has no relevant date in the article itself associated with May 12, and add the WP:FA Battlefield Earth (film) to May 12, because it will be 8 years to the day since the film was released? Here is a sample blurb, it got bumped off of WP:TFA/R for a discussion about a different article on a different date, and ChrisO (talk · contribs) never got a chance to add it back. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Poll underway re policy change[edit]

In case you're not already aware of it, a poll is currently underway at Wikipedia talk:Good articles for a policy change to place a GA symbol akin to FA star on the GA header. JGHowes talk - 15:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC Chapter[edit]

Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC chapter. Since we have a very active and very community oriented DC/MD/VA area group of Wikipedians, it only makes sense to develop it as a chapter, especially given the recent changes to the Board of Trustees structure, giving chapters more of a vote. Hopefully we will be either the first or the second officially recognized US Chapter (WMF Pennsylvania is pending as well), and hopefully our efforts will benefit WMF Penn as well. Remember, it's a working group, and this is a wiki, so feel free to offer changes, make bold changes to the group, and discuss on the talk page! I hope to see you there, as well as Wikimeetup DC 4 if you're attending. SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MilHist FA problem[edit]

Raul, since you're a MilHist guy, there's a problem with a split to one of TomStar81's MilHist FAs, see User talk:SandyGeorgia#FA split. And, an IP removing articlehistory. I don't know if an admin should put the pieces back together, or if it comes to FAR, and if so which piece, since it's not clear now which article carries the star. It looks like (?) a unilateral split, because TomStar81 has been busy at school. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Esemono (talk · contribs) did, I don't know where the article went, I don't know how to get it back, but a featured article is gone. (That oughta sum up why I'm not an admin.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

Hi Raul, I saw with alarm that User:APRCooper had raised copyright questions today at Talk:Discovery Expedition about a map I uploaded from NASA and altered. I feel responsible. I saw the reference to Antarctic Digital Database (ADD) on the NASA map as clutter and did not realize that the ADD wasn't something that belonged to NASA. APRCooper in his latest note to you on the Discovery talk page says he'd be "quite happy if a note was placed in the Wikipedia meta-data for the map. NOAA observed the conditions; the person who re-used the map didn't." I think he means on the Commons where the licensing information lives, and I certainly don't mind adding something like "based on information from the Antarctic Digital Database." On the other hand, I know little about copyright law, and I don't want to somehow make things worse. Can you advise? Finetooth (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Retraction[edit]

As suggested by Oren0, I've edited the comment I made on the discussion page. bjquinn (talk)

Minor query[edit]

Hello there. I see that Super Smash Bros. Melee has been scheduled for May 14 and have realised, after checking the "Main page requests", that this wasn't requested. I know that articles don't have to be requested for them to be allocated a date, so as a matter of interest, I was just wondering how it came to be chosen, and for what reasons. I've looked on the Requests page, but it doesn't really explain the rationale or processes for articles that haven't been requested. This is just a matter of curiosity, but I'm really pleased with the decision as the major contributor of the article. Thanks, Raul. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All non-requests are chosen by me. As for why, I can't really explain it - some combination of the fact that it's a very popular game, we haven't had a video game article in several weeks, it's different from the previous ones we've featured, etc. Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project[edit]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C[edit]

There was absolutely no consensus to add the Kentucky Derby to ITN. Why did you add it? -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 16:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See below. Raul654 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Kentucky Derby on ITN[edit]

Hi Raul- can you explain why you have added this item to the ITN template [13] without participating in the discussion on the sugestions page, and indeed when there was a) consensus not to add it in that discusssion; b) it does not appear anywhere on the putative listing of ITN-able sporting events on Wikipedia:Sports on ITN? Did you check the discussion first, and could you maybe check in and give your reasoning? (I presume purely for turnover- the problem is, making these kinds of unilateral decisions for turnover shatters pre-existing consensus and precedents and invariably leads to large amounts of internecine grumbling down the line). Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I added it because ITN was absurdly stale, with the same picture for the last 2 weeks and some news items even older than that. The derby item was suggested by Spencer on the candidates page (and although he withdrew it, I still considered it a valid suggestion). Raul654 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
So you unilaterally considered it a valid suggestion, without adding to the discussion or attempting to build consensus- indeed you ignored the existing consensus completely. Either being an admin is "no big deal", or there are two classes of Wikipedians- admins and the rest. I really don't think you should have done this. There is a discussion, there was a consensus, and you ignored and neglected to participate. (I do agree that ITN was stale, there are other, better stories with consensus that haven't gone up, and if you are willing as an admin to participate in the discussion and update the template in line with consensus, so much the better and I hope to see you around on the candidates page). Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Demanding that everyone "add to discussion" and "build consensus" are two of the biggest reasons that ITN wasn't updated for 2 straight weeks. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
...and are perhaps the two most important bulwarks of Wikipedia. Bottom line: you put this story up because you fancied it and you had the power to do so. Don't abuse the power that you have. As noted below, there were other stories with more support that could have gone up (London mayor, food crisis, elections, Austrian kidnapping, American cult, etc etc). There should be an organised cadre of ITN admins and there should be a defined or loosely defined rotation schedule of stories. But at present, there isn't. Next time, drop a note, wait an hour or two to see how people feel, and then do it. Admins are designated as admins by the community specifically because they are trusted not to use the power that they have arbitrarily. Not much harm done this time because you were quickly reverted and you (commendably) didn't get in to a wheel war. But please don't do it again. Badgerpatrol (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have a distorted view of how things work. There is no obligation that people read and chat on the talk pages before going ahead and making edits, especially when the template in question is embarrassingly out of date. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an obligation not to override consensus. There is an obligation for admins not to abuse the additional powers that they have relative to "ordinary" editors. This matter is settled, your change was quickly reverted and rightly so. Please don't be so arrogant again. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see - you come here on my talk page to ruleslayer the fact that I didn't use the talk page before updating the weeks-old news on ITN. Then, at the same time people are talking about reforming the broken ITN process, you hypocritically bemoan the lack of involved administrators. I think I've identified one of the biggest problems of ITN - perhaps you should go look in a mirror to see what it is. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to respond to that sillyness, except to say that I see no hypocrisy whatsoever. The whole point of my input on this talk page is to point out that you did not involve yourself in ITN. You seem to admit yourself that you didn't even read the suggestions page before going ahead and putting up a couple of stories that you personally fancied. The Kentucky Derby story in particular had no consensus, for a variety of reasons, and should not have gone up. Putting it up is spitting in the face of all those who do involve themselves in the ITN process - essentially stating that their opinion doesn't matter, will probably be ignored, and you are going to do what you want anyway. Your edit was quickly reverted and rightly so. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Badgerpatrol, I agree with Raul. This is a "not seeing the forest for the trees" situation. The ITN section of the main page needed to be updated. The Kentucky Derby article was newsworthy and logical choice, especially with the sad loss of the filly. I honestly think that most people would expect that type of story on the main page at least for part of the day or part of the day after. To start with any criteria that excludes the Kentucky Derby is odd. But the uniqueness of events made this a solid addition. Timeliness and unusualness of event need to plan a strong part in these updates, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is with the way ITN is currently organised, where stories are basically selected. If the KD is notable, then many, many, many sporting events are going to be filling up ITN. And why not? We can't very well say "no" if someone wants to put the world canoeing championships up after an event like this (which I imagine is significant in the US but is ignored in the rest of the world) goes up. So either ITN gets filled up with sports stories, or we don't put them up and the ITN talk pages get filled up with disgruntled sports fans wanting to know why the tiddlywinks world cup has been ignored. (And that principle applies generally, not just to sport). Nobody disagrees with your point that that ITN was very stale and needed updating- but there were other stories that were closer to consensus that could have gone up. The fact is, Raul put this story up because he liked it, he didn't care what anybody else had to say (in fact it had zero support and had been withdrawn by the nominator), and because he, as an admin, could, and the other 90% of us can't. That's a bit worrying and a bit naughty. Admins are not !voted in to office so that they can rule over the rest of us according to their personal caprice. However, there's no harm done, I mean no offence to him, he made a mistake, it was reverted, and he didn't do it again. All is good. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec reply to Badger) Please do do it again, if ITN again suffers paralysis by analysis, resulting in a stale mainpage. I don't pay that much attention to the main page, but I went to bed Saturday night wondering why that stale image had remained there for so long, and woke up Sunday morning to see it still there. At least someone did something, and if that's what it takes to get the "regulars" at ITN to realize they might be paralyzed by "consensus", great. So someone (strangely) didn't want us to know about Big Brown and Eight Belles, fine; at least Raul did something which got the page moving. Badgerpatrol, consider that there might be a real message in Raul's action: this is partly why I stop several other places before I come to Wiki each day. The news and the image was stale; Raul did something about it. Good on him; I hope the message endures. Keep the main page interesting and current, or expect others to act. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and I have no power to alter the main page. If I did, I would have updated ITN in line with the accepted criteria and in line with the discussion on the candidates page- in line with process. Ironically, in this case the problem is not with process but with lack of adherence to process (I know that phrases like "adherence to process" are like a red rag to a bull sometimes round here, but another general phrase for "adhering to process" could be "respecting the opinion of others"). But- ITN is not a news ticker. It's not supposed to be a source of news, it's a gateway into the encyclopaedia. In fact (as I have argued elsewhere) I think ITN is broken as it is and that we should turn it in to a straight news service (linked from wikinews or wherever) and then all these (recurring) problems instantly disappear. A lot of people think that's what it is anyway- I say they have the right idea. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as you all realize the page was stale, and Raul's action got it moving, Raul Did A Good Deed. If Raul let the TFA be governed by teh same sort of "paralysis by analysis", we'd have quite a mess on the main page, so consider that he's not just any uninformed admin who saw a problem and took action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As long as we have an ITN section, IAR and BOLD should be used when it becomes embarrassingly stale. It strikes me that even DYK is better organised yet just, without wishing to cause anyone at DYK offence, a bit of fun. Process overhaul required. Until then, be bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with WP:BOLD (although I despise the oft invoked IAR- that is a policy that should almost never be invoked and yet we see it all the time- it should be the last ditch "nuclear option", not an everyday ocurrence. "Ignore all rules" does not mean "do what you like"). The point is not that Raul updated the template with a story that had a mediocre consensus which he then boldly judged to be enough -the point is that he put up a story that no-one but him wanted to see on ITN when there were other, better stories. There was no "paralysis by analysis"; Raul's intervention was timely- but it was the wrong intervention. Admins cannot just go around ignoring everone else and doing whatever they want. The update was not wrong- the story was wrong, and not at least reading the candidate's page first was very wrong. I agree that a process overhaul is desperately required- until that happens, we should at least attempt to make the process that we already have actually work, otherwise we have chaos and confusion. If people stuck to it, it would work. If people ignore it, then it won't. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe, just maybe, the people who "run" ITN are completely out of touch because they can't understand why readers might care when the number two horse at the Derby died on the track. I mean, I'd much rather see every airline crash that ever happened anywhere in the world, and Hugo Chávez's mug a dozen more times: why allow for any variety, after all? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody "runs" ITN, which is part of the problem. We should perhaps consider a dedicated ITN overseer just as Raul is for the FAC process. To be honest, the story was just a bad one. Horses die on the track all the time (often several die or are destroyed during the Grand National meeting, for example) I don't think that confers any additional notability and it wasn't mentioned in the update anyway. (But apart from that- you're right, ITN is crap, it doesn't work and we should get rid of it completely and replace it with something else. But until we do, we can't just have one man picking his favourite stories and everyone else talking into thin air.) Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, it's not about the horse. It's about a problem that Raul (and many others) saw, and when he actually did something to get things moving, instead of thanking him, a whole lot of people came over here to criticize him as if he had done it for some strange abusive reason, rather than acknowledging that there's a problem. He does know a thing or two about the mainpage, 'ya know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[UNINDENT] But it's not his personal fiefdom and it's a little patronising for you to imply that it is. Nobody has any problem with what he did - it's the way that he did it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not the Zimbardo Prison Experiment. It's not arranged as admins dictating to the plebs and nor should it be. The fact that so many people complained- instantly - should in itself tell you that something went a bit wrong. I'm not having a huge go at Raul, the matter is done and dusted and I'm sure his intentions were perfectly sound - but what he did in effect was basically to ignore and belittle the opinions of those who are involved in the ITN process and who do contribute and try and make it better. His intentions were sound but if he had taken another 30 seconds care to select a more suitable story then people probably would have been stopping by to thank him. Wikipedia is a project with tens of thousands of contributors, each of whom matter. The success of this endeavour depends on consensus and mutual consideration. Nobody is more important than anybody else, and no-one should pretend that they are. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that a lot of people complained tells me that ... people like to complain :-) It goes around a lot more than thanks. And seriously, if you knew of some of my pet peeves, you wouldn't be trying to have a conversation with me about perceived admin abuse; I can write that book. This wasn't it. Anyway, peace out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ITN/C[edit]

Please check WP:ITN/C before adding items that have no consensus like the Kentucky Derby. We will only add horse races if there is a triple crown winner. Thank you for being a drive by admin and we'd all appreciate it if you could revert your addition. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone had the good sense to get that utterly stale image off the main page, and add some worthy, missing and appropriate current news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And in the processs, wildly shattering a consensus that has been in the building for some time. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Pointing to ITN's dysfunctional process, and claiming that its glacial speed is being upset by such radical ideas as having timely news items, is not an argument that is going to sway many people. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A dysfunctional process is still better then no process at all. There was no concensus, and I don't think one admin's opinion will change that. And why those two? The London Mayor story had more support. --PlasmaTwa2 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Village pump post[edit]

FYI: [14] (I thought you were traveling?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I got back this morning, tired and slightly sunburned :) Raul654 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds nice :-) Hint: Laser brain ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard[edit]

Thanks. You save me from getting an automated 3RR warning from the POV pushers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I added back in the bit about her identifying as a Christian, even though it doesn't justify her signing the petition. I figure, what's the worst that that information can do, as long as the aSDFD part is kept in to explain it's purpose. *moulton flashbacks* Baegis (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the addition. I'm chatting with Krimpet in IRC, and she was confused as to why that part was being removed. (It's partly my fault. That addition got caught in the revert-war cross-fire of the ID petition removal) Raul654 (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
We got Moulton indeffed because of these attempted additions. I did not know it was an admin doing it, but what does that matter? Adding whitewashing is just not appropriate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently your conversation with Krimpet failed. He/she placed an AN/I about this situation. Hrfan is well-known for editing ID related articles, including this one, and I thought he should be aware of it. I'm done here. I honestly could care less about Picard. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking with her in IRC about it. Raul654 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Something else[edit]

Is this appropriate? I don't misuse the tool. I mostly use it to remove vandalism. And I do not violate any Wikipedia rules regarding its use. Can you help? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Boston quiz.doc listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Boston quiz.doc, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 14:04, May 5, 2008 (UTC) 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May 5 Dispatch[edit]

Wikipedia:FCDW/May 5, 2008, Featured content at schools and universities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Raul654 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Now Tony's in there, too; frightful to see what results when Tony and Jbmurray combine their talents on one page !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Raul, where would Natalee Holloway go at WP:FA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we need a new category, "Missing white girls" :)
On a more serious note "Law" (if it ever goes to trial) or "History" (the catch-all) would seem to be the best fits. Raul654 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, let's refine it better to assure a category of one: "White girls missing from Palm Beach, Aruba in 2005". I was guessing Culture and society; I hope you're watching where I put things :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, finally found the one I was looking for: Murder of James Bulger. Was in Law, now at WP:FFA, so seems like Law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: Missing white woman syndrome Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com - my mistake![edit]

Thanks for the link, it helped. The linked article doesn't deny the existence of AIDS, which is all I thought the cat meant, but I dug deeper and subsequently found the Wikipedia article AIDS denialism and now see that the use of this term, to label questioning of the medically accepted link between HIV and AIDS, is independently supported. I wasn't at all familiar with the current published discussion on this topic. My mistake! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I'm starting to understand the Wikipedia context too: I had not a clue things had heated up here. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Incase you did not see[edit]

Incase you have seen that User talk:140.122.225.112 and User talk:81.237.202.149 are both of the same Tor network and are WP:NOP. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw enough to suggest that you know this already. Good luck sorting it all out. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Onions, parks, and tor :)[edit]

not so nice when you are on the other end of things is it :) *smoochies* take care hun :-* 88.191.80.227 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: El Señor Presidente[edit]

(copied over from my talk page:) I haven't got to speak to my students (who have mostly dispersed for the summer), though I found it fabulous, once I realized that the day started at 5pm not 4pm my day, heh. In fact, around midnight I was with some friends, after some beverages had been consumed, and one of them got out a guitar, and started making up a song about Wikipedia to celebrate; we all joined in with various bits of percussion. Heh. Anyhow, many thanks for all your encouragement. Oh, and I was on the phone with a report for AFP earlier on today, so something may come out of that, I don't know... --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Picard[edit]

Was your removal of my comments here intentional? If so, no problem. But I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a mistake. Guettarda (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops - no. That should have given me an edit conflict when I clicked save but it didn't (2nd time that has happened in the last 24 hours) Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Are you around on irc? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm walking out the door right after I write this, so whatever it is will have to wait. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing[edit]

Imho, this could be a great topic for NTWW, if you're interested. Dorftrottel (warn) 15:43, May 7, 2008

Namecheck in an AN thread[edit]

I seem to have given four people, including a current arbitrator, a former arbitrator, and a steward, a public ticking off. <looks worried> So I thought I'd better let each of you know about it. See here. Thread is here. Apologies in advance if this irks you, but I feel strongly about how some of these threads end up poking fun at individuals. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on his talk page Raul654 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you delete your wikipedia search history?[edit]

I happened to read your rule #6 about organized corporate astroturfing campaigns and then immediately came across this, thought you might be interested in further evidence to bolster your prediction.

On the same topic, here's a case from earlier this year of a charity engaging in astroturfing. (Though not on WP.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that corporate astroturing has occurred - it's just a question of when. The first page you linked to has no date, and the latter is from 2008. Raul654 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize, I'm not sure if you understood me - I totally agree with you that corporate astroturfing not only occurs but is probably rampant and I congratulate you on your accurate prediction about Wikipedia back then, I just thought you might find those links interesting.

And actually, as someone who has been involved in purchases of advertising in a couple of different parts of the IT journalism industry, I can testify that a pay-for-play type of astroturfing occurs in the "reliable" media as well, which you're probably already aware of. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for change of intro[edit]

Hello Raul. I have just stated on the talk page of Battlefield Earth (film), which will be on the MP in a few days, that I would like to see a sentence removed from the intro. Do you agree with this, and if yes, could you change the Main Page text? Cheers, Face 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of this sentence, and think that the blurb is fine. This was gone over in quite detail through the review process, most recent of which was the WP:FAC discussion. To this day the film doesn't have too great of a rating at Rotten Tomatoes, not to mention that it is listed prominently on multiple "worst of..." lists. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cirt - just about everyone puts "Battlefield Earth" on their worst-movies-ever-made lists. It belongs in the blurb and article. It is also an objective fact that the movie was a financial failure. Raul654 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Planning for the 7th Wikipedia Meetup[edit]

The planning for the summer Philadelphia meetup has begun. We would appreciate your input.
You're getting this invitation because you're on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Attack page[edit]

Here OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Uber previously had 3 "hit lists" and they were speedily deleted as attack pages. Why that one was not (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/interesting edits) I do not understand. Raul654 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen other attack pages deleted by administrative fiat. Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? No matter what you say about my level of civility, I never stoop to that level. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Super AIDS[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Super AIDS, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Vassyana (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of prodding, I will nominate it for AfD. There's a lot inaccurate and wrong about the article. See the talk page. Vassyana (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your claim (that only one person was infected) is false, and everything in the article is true. See the talk page. Raul654 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping the gun. A combination of sensationalist title, sensational claims contrary to the sources (notably the one you removed) and the provided sources only mentioning one case that responded to treatment set off alarm bells for me. Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick question about wikipedia policies[edit]

Hello, I am kind of new to wikipedia and I have some confusion about the wikipedia policies and guidelines. First, I noticed that the policy page, which is apparently the Bible of how one should edit and act on wikipedia, can be edited by anyone. The page says that the guidelines are a mixture of policies created by Jimmy Wales and others, but also some were added by editor consensus. So I guess I have these questions:

1) I notice the standards for an admin blocking someone, are far looser then the WP:Policies, which tend to be rigid. So I guess my question is, how much authority do the WP:Policies have, especially since they can be edited by anyone? The confusion is driven furthur one of the policies states to break the rules if it betters wikipedia. Does this mean I don't have to strictly obey the policies? Does this mean I can edit the policy page itself? 2) Is there perhaps a list of policies created by Jimmy Wales and other heads of wikipedia that exist before community edit of the WP: Policy page? This would be really helpful. 3) Are all of the editor-created policies approved by the founders and higher-ups of the Wikipedia Foundation? 4) Does every new edit of the WP: Policy page become the official policy of wikipedia? In other words, something that is approved by the founders and people running the Wikipedia Foundation? --Jtd00123 (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind. I think I know the answers now. --Jtd00123 (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Main page FAs[edit]

Hi Raul. I saw the whole Israel semi-protection thing being discussed on AN. I also believe you have a short list of FAs that will never see the main page. Perhaps it might be worth refraining from putting Featured Articles that are already under permanent semi-protection (e.g. Israel, Islam and the like) on the main page (in effect, adding them to this short list)? Considering we have a policy, penned chiefly by yourself that says "don't protect main page Featured Articles", this would seem logical. I believe we have plenty of featured articles spare, so this wouldn't cuase any shortages. What do you think? Neıl 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal wants to be blocked[edit]

I've been having problems with a vandal at John Coleman (news weathercaster) with a vandal who has expressed hostility to Wikipedia and a desire to be blocked. User talk:Wotring3. Could you oblige him? JQ (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Raul564, I have also been having a revert skirmish with an unregistered user at the article Michael Strank -- this user insists on inserting a rarely used nickname for Strank in the lead (I have no problem with the nickname, but it is out of place in the lead, I think), and keeps inserting a sentence or two detailing his own personal views of the widely used term "friendly fire" in the section which details Strank's death. I have asked that he not continue to insert his POV in the article, but he continues to do so. I do not wish to take this any higher, and know that you are an admin (or at least a well-respected military editor). Could we officially ask this clown to knock it off? For the moment, I am not going to revert his insertions in order for you to see them. Sincerely. Sir Rhosis (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Raul, me again. Regarding the Michael Strank article; it appears the anon user has registered and has reentered the nickname "The Marines' Marine." As I explained to the user when I reverted, the spot where he entered the name was the incorrect place for it. He reverted my revert with a "source" for the name. I have no problem with the nickname (though I doubt that it was ever used to Strank's face -- Bradley's book simply has an elderly marine comrade refer to Strank by those words in passing). Could you tell this new user that there is a perfectly acceptable place (under the photo) to enter commonly used nicknames for a person? Tired of this, as I'm sure you are as well. Sir Rhosis (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Andre Kertesz and main page request:[edit]

Hey Raul! A while back you said that you'd put Andre Kertesz on the main page for July 2 for me if I couldn't find a free space to request it. I've been checking up for a month now to get in, but it's been locked up for ages. I'm trying to get away from Wikipedia, but this issue keeps on bringing me back. I'll take you up on your offer for the sake of my sanity because I just want to be able to get away from the site. I've left the formatting below. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

André Kertész (July 2, 1894September 28, 1985) born Andor Kertész, was a Hungarian-born photographer distinguished by his photographic composition and by his early efforts in developing the photo essay. In the early years of his lengthy career, his then-unorthodox camera angles, and his unwillingness to compromise his personal photographic style, prevented his work from gaining wider recognition. Even towards the end of his life, Kertész did not feel he had gained worldwide recognition. The first photographer to have an exposition devoted to his work, he is recognized as one of the seminal figures of photojournalism, if not photography as a whole. Dedicated by his family to work as a stock broker, Kertész was an autodidact and his early work was mostly published in magazines. This would continue until much later in his life when he ceased to accept commissions. He served briefly in WWI and began to form dreams to move to Paris, which he realised in 1925, against the wishes of his family. There he was involved with the artistic melting pot of immigrates and the dadaist movement, and achieved critical and commercial success. The imminent threat of WWII pushed him to immigrate again to the United States, where he had a more difficult life and needed to rebuild his reputation through commissioned work. He would take offense with several editors that he felt did not recognize his work. In the 1940s and '50s he stopped working for magazines and began to achieve greater international success. Despite the numerous and awards he collected over the years, he still felt unrecognized, a sentiment which did not change even into his death. His career is general divided into four periods based on where his work was most prominent at these times. They are called the Hungarian period, the French period, the American period and, towards the end of his life, the International period. (more...)

CAMERA lobbying[edit]

I've already made one brief statement on the matter, but if you want my views here they are:

A set of people saw what they viewed as some pretty intensely POV writing on Israeli-Palestinian articles, and tried to (very ineffectually) organize themselves to fix that problem; apparently one of the tactics they planned to use was to add material to articles from academic sources (not just websites), and then get people sanctioned when they deleted it. From what I can tell they managed to get almost nothing done. Nevertheless, their ideological opponents were able to make a great deal of political hay out of the matter: EI's spin was accepted as fact, and a witch-hunt ensued, along with some pretty hysterical rhetoric, and various other panicky responses, many amusing or sad depending on your perspective (the ritual marking of any article mentioned on the list was a particularly absurd touch). And, on a personal note, several editors have since rather idiotically tried to use it to troll and smear me, conveniently ignoring the fact that the group itself apparently specifically stated I shouldn't be informed about its existence, as I was too loyal to Wikipedia and wouldn't have approved.

Meanwhile, a similar group, "Wikipedians for Palestine", existed openly for over two years,[15] and was even advertised on Wikipedia.[16] [17] [18] This group was much smarter, though - they insisted that to become a member you had to prove you were "pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist" by making an on-Wikipedia edit first, and, as a result, they were never really exposed. Anyway, once the CAMERA list became public, and people started noting that the "Wikipedians for Palestine" had been around for a long time, some damage control became necessary; the "Wikipedians for Palestine" board first put up a justification insisting that they were completely different from the CAMERA group, using various spurious arguments - that they had low message traffic, that they were "explicitly committed to NPOV", and most amusingly, that "the existence of this group has never been hidden". Right, just the membership was hidden, and, of course, the contents of their postings. They then deleted all messages from 2008, and followed it up by deleting the group altogether. One wonders, if there was nothing wrong with their "never hidden" "explicitly committed to NPOV" existence, why they would bother doing so.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how much more political capital people are able to get from this; they've been milking it for all its worth, but there don't appear to be any new revelations to expose, or editors to ban. Perhaps they can keep the dream alive via the ArbCom case, but I suspect some new Wikipedia scandale du jour will soon come along to tittilate the masses. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think this time you have a fair point, Jayjg. Clearly there is a widespread view that WP is strongly pro Zionist and a widespread view the opposite way. Both sides perceive themselves as NPOV fighting bias. Clearly we don't know what the Pro-Palestine group did. However I cannot see much evidence that either group was effective (nor of the various other attempts made to subvert WP over time being effective anywhere). The only thing which looked like a serious breach of faith was the suggestion that the Pro-Zionist group should quietly work elsewhere and get to be admins before they started attacking the articles as a Cabal. I cannot see any evidence the PP group did this, and generally I think language and other barriers might make this harder. The PZ group haven't had time to do this yet. The obvious PP editors seem to be far more single purpose in general, to their and our deteriment --BozMo talk 09:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, we know the pro-Israel group was ineffective. However, we have no idea if the "pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist" group was effective or not. There were over 20 of them, and they've operated with impunity for two years - there's no way of telling which regular Wikipedia editors were part of the group, and what they collectively succeeded in doing. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Very Good News department ...[edit]

... look at this gem :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFA/R[edit]

There have been several detailed replies from editors regarding the proposed changes to the page. For your sake and others, I would suggest you look it over here. Noble Story (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FACs for you[edit]

Raul, I'm e-mailing you about some FACs that you might want to look at and close yourself. Please let me know if you'd rather I close them. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow up, there have been a lot of changes on these FACs in the last few days, but I'd still like to ask you to handle Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta (I strongly defended the article when it had what I thought was an unfair Good Article Review, and probably have a COI), and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton, where the 1e issues need to be sorted. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
And, there's an oversight concern. Blnguyen says he'll agree if another oversighter agrees. User talk:SandyGeorgia#link delete SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul, please see the query at User talk:SandyGeorgia#Hey. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I responded on my talk about these two, and you might want to look at Roman Catholic Church as well; it's a challenge. Congratulations !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Climate change denial[edit]

Hi Raul,

I would like to add a section to climate change denial--can you tell me how to get permission to edit that page?

I think it is crucial that the article address a suit filed against several petrochemical corporations in February by prominent attorneys Steve Susman, Steve Berman et al. From the June 08 Atlantic Monthly:

"...the suit also accuses eight of the firms (American Electric Power, BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, Exxonmobil, Peabody Energy, and Southern Company) of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking--by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus" (Faris, Stephan. "Conspiracy Theory, p32–4).

Other important citations include CNN and New York Times.

Thanks,

Cyrusc (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: the article is now semiprotected, so I am good to go.Cyrusc (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article for May 15[edit]

Raul, on this page, am I right in thinking there's been a bit of, ahem, freelance for the May 15 Featured Article? I'd revert it myself, but I thought these templates were normally full-protected? Sofia is not an FA anyway. — BillC talk 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely freelance :-) Raul will most likely get to it soon, but you could revert it yourself if you want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted it, pretty obvious as the article is currently rated as B-class. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice the anon has put a picture caption... normally i wouldn't bud into conversations, but that did spark some interest in me... have image captions for the templates been discussed before?? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(Glad to see you back, SmthManly). Yes, it was freelance, and it got reverted. I'm not sure what you mean by 'captions for templates'. I don't do image captions for main page images (except as alt-text), and no, it's never been discussed before. Raul654 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant for the template in which the actual featured article goes... i guess poor choice of words, sorry :-). I figured it might've been discussed but gave it a try anyway, and I actually never noticed the alt-text. Thanks for the welcome, I'm more active now that I've resolved a lot of personal problems, but I dunno exactly what to do in terms of activity. I guess I'll just keep editing away at my regular articles. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be related to WP:Accessibility, where Rick Block has pointed out we need captions on all images. Since I've never seen or used a screen reader, I'm not really understanding, but that could be it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

FA category[edit]

Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi, physician in the Japanese Army. Would that go under Bio/medicine or Warfare (and how do you decide in cases like this)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I avoid deciding until the articles are promoted - it saves me from arguing about hypothetical possibilities :)
When you exclude the lead/references/external links, it looks like most of that article is about Tatsuguchi's experiences on Attu. Therefore, I think it should go in warfare more than medicine. Raul654 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but I keep a checklist based on when they appear at FAC, so I have less to sort out later (when my brain is dealing with all those tabs open at once :-) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Went away for a little while with open screen and pressed save.SorryJohn Z (talk)

Mail[edit]

U have.--Filll (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nguyen Ngoc Tho TFA[edit]

Was that nominated by anyone or was it fortuitously noticed? I didn't even notice that it was his 100th birthday this year. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed :) Raul654 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed someone else has a 100th birthday this year. Hopefully, the article will clear FAC in time, but there's still a lot to do. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought you'd wanna see[edit]

this. If you haven't already. --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. I think Gimmetrow is right - it makes sense to indef move-protect featured articles. I'd bet 99% (or more) of FA moves are vandalism. Raul654 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Idea[edit]

Not sure exactly where to float this idea, so am asking a Bureaucrat. There are many articles that are created in an incomplete form, and quite a few of those get CSD'd. The main cause would seem to be new editors who don't know about personal sandboxes. Therefore I'd like to suggest that new user accounts that are created should automatically have a sandbox created with the new account, along with general hints on how to use it. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This question would be properly addressed to developers, although it's still too under-developed to be of much use to them. And chances are good that they will never act on it even if you do flesh it out more.
Alternatively, it could be incorporated into the welcome messages that people tend to put on their talk pages. Raul654 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFAR Undertow[edit]

Yes, but see this. I read that as meaning no current case is required but that one might be opened if UT wants his sysop back. Thatcher 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I missed that part. All right, go ahead and remove the RFAR then. Raul654 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's feature text (Elagabalus )[edit]

The short version of Elagabalus on the main page contains an error. Search for "his his" (it's in the second sentence). RJFJR (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I finally found the lead so I could fix it. RJFJR (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts?[edit]

I'm wondering if this fellow is our old friend, or just a garden-variety POV warrior. I think the latter is more likely but would appreciate your opinion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Checked him 4 days ago, but found nothing untoward. Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just caught a whole drawer full of socks. See my contribs. Raul654 (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

More of your thoughts?[edit]

This person reminds me of this person. Everything from the writing style, to the tendentious editing at AIDS denialism to staying on the talk space of the article to misinterpreting scientific method to being a SPA. Just a paranoid thought with all of the craziness around here these past couple of days. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence of a match here. Raul654 (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Hoteltravel[edit]

Hi, that user is caught up in a rangeblock of yours, and could use your help. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ping... just bumping this up to your attention. Yeah, more SciBaby collateral damage. Perhaps you could use our new IPexempt tag to let this guy off the hook? Your call... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
IPexempt tag? Raul654 (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
More to the point -- the block only affects anons. He should be unaffected. Raul654 (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In case you didn't know about the ipexempt tag : Wikipedia:IP block exemption. (I couldn't work out whether you knew about it or not). Woody (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there - so you know, the Scibaby IP range 99.204.0.0/16 is, aside from being a bloody big chunk of IP space, the range used by Sprint for mobile phones and tethering. Imagine the frustration of someone wanting to make a minor edit on a Treo, only to find the IP address block more or less permanently assigned to his mobile has been blocked from editing. Then imagine the cost in real money to those unfortunate enough to be on a pay-per-use plan (luckily not me) who were thus burned by SciBaby's whatever-he-got-us-all-blocked-for. Surely there's a better way. --Mike Ely (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of the topic ban[edit]

Hi Raul, I asked a Review of your topic ban on Thomas Basboll here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've requested a response from you there. I was not pleased to see the clarifications thread stonewalled and only get the input of one arbitrator. At the very least, I think you should have said something at the clarifications thread, which is why I'm asking, with all due respect, that you say something at the ANI thread. As I've said with others, I am happy to drop things once there has been a reasonable response, but no response at all is not good. Carcharoth (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom has looked at this matter and decided that things were done correctly. Everything that needed to be said was said at the original WP:AE discussion. If you have a problem with that, Pokipsy76 and Carcharoth, I suggest you take it up with ArbCom and stop hounding Raul654. Jehochman Talk 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
One arbitrator has agreed with Raul. No other arbitrators commented on the thread other than to recuse. Another has (commenting in general) passed appeals on topic bans back to the wider admin community (or possibly to AE - it was unclear). I said above: "As I've said with others, I am happy to drop things once there has been a reasonable response, but no response at all is not good." Basboll conducted himself with dignity during his ban and appeal and subsequent retirement, and he was rudely rebuffed at every turn. All I'm asking is that Raul and others show people respect when they show them the door, and respond to reasonable requests from editors in good standing for some sort of response and not just go silent. It is not acceptable for one person to serve a ban, and then go quiet and let others do the defending. If Raul responds, I will happily drop this and do something more productive, but I shouldn't even have to say that. I shouldn't have to plead for some sort of response. Do you see now why silence is the most corrosive response? Silence leaves people in limbo, and leaves those watching wondering what is really happening. I don't get involved with every ANI thread or AE thread. I stayed quiet on this one for a long time, but my disquiet has grown as I've seen people rebuffed and stonewalled at every turn, and left in limbo by silence or little response. How much clearer can I make myself? Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please comment in the thread at AN/I? An uninvolved administrator has requested that you address the concerns in the thread there, and while I agree that the multiple discussions amounts to forum-shopping, it would be nice to put this to bed once and for all. Horologium (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Parallel computing[edit]

Hi Raul, Thank you for you interest in my naive questions to the article about Parallel computing. Please look once more at the picture describing ideal speedup and runtime Image:Parallelization diagram.svg. The line for speedup is ok, but runtime can not be below zero even in the ideal situation. kuszi (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Shoot! You're right. It should be an asymptote which approaches some constant value (0 for the ideal case, greater than zero for the non-ideal case). Raul654 (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. kuszi (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

bwahahaha[edit]

You got carded for buying a root beer float. Priceless. SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was very amusing. I'm glad there were witnesses, because otherwise I don't think anyone would believe it. :) Raul654 (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

May 19 Dispatch[edit]

It hasn't gotten a lot of input, is still a bit ill-defined in scope even after input from several editors, and you may be able to review/check some of the content in terms of history (for example, I don't know who started GA). Wikipedia:FCDW/May 19, 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

re: misunderstanding[edit]

Please see #misunderstanding above.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008[edit]

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Donald Bradman and WP:SIZE[edit]

I'm preparing Bradman's biography for a run at FAC. I'm concerned re WP:SIZE. For good reasons, the guideline is a little vague on absolute limits and I'm wondering whether >100Kb is excusable for a man whose every action and utterance was so notable over such a very long period (c.60 years). I've already hacked loads of lesser material out into daughter articles and while I'm sure I could trim a little more, I begin to feel I couldn't excise more without severely damaging comprehensiveness. Your (and Sandy's) thoughts at this stage would be instructive and timely. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit on the long side, but I've never been one to get particularly upset over an article being long (that is, too informative). If you exclude the references and only count the readable text, it's not out of the ballpark. Raul654 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lies[edit]

Plese don't repeat the Discovery Institute's lies. The statement says it is about "darwinianism". That's what was signed. They did not sign a statement about "evolution". That is just another lie from DI. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage[edit]

An advert tag has been added to Elderly Instruments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems to happen often when we feature (on the main page) articles on medium or small sized businesses - they attract johnny-come-latelies who erroneously claim the article is not notable, biased, etc. I'd prefer not to repeat this discussion every time one gets featured on the main page, but short of not featuring them on the main page (which would be like burning down the house to roast the pig) I cannot think of one. Raul654 (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And it seems to happen to the good faith, diligent editors like Laser brain and Mike Searson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Laser brain has acknowledged that some parts of the article should be removed, others need to be reworked. I remark some ridiculous accusations from time to time on today's featured article, but here I think that some points are founded. Raul654, I really appreciate your work and FA writer's work, but sadly, I think that this article was not ready for the Main Page. Cenarium (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm off all afternoon, but am really troubled to see how good faith FA writers are treated by mainpage naysayers, who don't accurately engage policy or guidelines ... sad stuff. Perhaps it's time for a Dispatch discussing mainpage day or mainpage selection, to lessen the chances that good faith editors like Laser brain and Mike Searson (who work so hard) will have to have their day marred like this again. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It was brought up on main page's talk page, but (unlike the article) a lot of people respond there. See Talk:Main_Page#Elderly_Instruments. The discussion was far more positive. Raul654 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, Laser brain has appreciated the critics 1, 2, 3. Just for your information, it's the first time I am involved in a dispute over today's featured article, I'm not exactly a "mainpage naysayer". Cenarium (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock[edit]

Do you think User:Sirwells is another Scibaby sock? Newbie, recently editing in the same area, same POV and abusive attitude and talks a long term story with lots of WP knowledge? --BozMo talk 09:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe so. Raul654 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --BozMo talk 17:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What about this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atlas shrugged cover.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Atlas shrugged cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Basboll case[edit]

Hi Raul. I wondered if you could help me with regard to your topic ban of User:Thomas Basboll. I have been asked for advice myself and thought I would approach you in the first instance. As far as I understand it, we had this followed by this. At the point where the latter was archived, three admins were raising questions about your action there. As it was then archived without a definite conclusion being reached, I wonder what the best way forward would be? Certainly I do not see on the face of it from that one diff provided, that a topic ban was called for, although of course I remain open to being convinced by evidence of further misdemeanors on the user's part. As I mentioned in the AN/I discussion, you may not be seen by some as a neutral person in this area given your involvement in, for example, indefinitely blocking a user in January with the edit summary "Conspiracy theory POV pushing". I appreciate that your actions throughout have been taken with the interests of the encyclopedia at heart, but I think we need to be careful to preserve not just fairness but the appearance of fairness here. Best wishes, and thanks in advance for any help you can give. --John (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas appealed to the arbitrators - and they agree with the ban. Pokispy then appealed to AE - and more admins than not agreed with the ban. Now he's on your talk page. I've just about had my fill with Pokipsy's forum shopping, which seems to be just about all he does these days. (Notice he has not made a single constructive edit in several weeks)
Yes, I did indefinitely block someone from a 9/11 article for making this edit (and two others like it) four months before I banned Thomas Basobol. I just could have easily specified vandalism - the result is the same. That does not make me an involved admin. In fact, in the homeopathy case the arbitration committee is currently hearing, at my suggestion they specifically defined what being involved is to exclude that. (It says, in short, that an involved admin is someone who has a current, personal dispute with the person in question)
The end result is -- Thomas Basobol remains banned until the arbitration committee sees fit to reverse their previous decision to uphold my ban. Raul654 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As the admin who set Pokipsy's topic ban, I have been keeping an eye on his edits and have been growing more concerned with his behavior. See here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul, for your prompt response. Raymond, while I see where you are coming from, I don't see Pokipsy's support of Thomas's appeal as disruptive; he has merely tried to follow the process as best he can. As I say, there were significant questions raised about the ban during the AN/I discussion, and I wonder now how best to take the matter forward. On a general note, the procedure for placing and appealing such bans may need to be clarified as I was not able myself to see unambiguously how to progress the matter, and I have been around for a while. Thanks, both. --John (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You say there were significant issues. That does not make it so. The procedure is to appeal to the arbcom, which Thomas did. It was rejected. That's the end of the issue as far as Wikipedia dispute resolution process is concerned. Further attempts to invent new avenues of appeal are very quickly wearing down the patience of everyone involved. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for "everyone involved" as you apparently can, but it is certainly frustrating to me to see a good faith editor treated the way Thomas has been. As I mentioned, it might be an idea to improve both the documentation of the process and the process itself, while of course bearing in mind WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. --John (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have hoped what I just said was self evident, but if you insist, I suppose we can create a guideline along the lines of Wikipedia:Don't make up new avenues of appeal because you don't like the outcome of all the previous ones. It seems a bit wordy to me though. Raul654 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and as for how he's been treated -- I really don't have much sympathy for POV pushers, no matter how civil they are. Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice one, thanks for the laugh. Fact is though, as I understand it, Thomas was placed on his topic ban (which in the absence of any duration set is presumably indefinite?) by an editor who has a documented record of partisan involvement in issues related to his ban, then advised to take it to Arbcom, given a lukewarm response there falling short of outright rejection by a decent quorum of arbs, then advised to take it to AN/I where issues were raised which certainly seemed significant ones to me and two other admins, and then the thread was archived without a resolution being reached. Please tell me if I have substantially misunderstood the process followed; it was pretty hard to figure all the steps because of the lack of any documentation describing such appeals (or maybe I was just being dim and it does exist?). If this understanding is substantially correct, it is certainly not my ideal model of a fair and transparent appeal process. What do you think yourself? --John (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Your understanding is incorrect in a number of ways. (1) I was not involved in the dispute, (2) his reception by the arbcom was not lukewarm. All of the arbitrators rejected his appeal and either agreed with the ban or expressed no opinion, (3) The ANI has failed to raise a single substantial issue, and (4) it was archived per standard procedure. However, following that archiving Pokispy, per his established tactic of making up new avenues to appeal by choosing the venue he feels he'll get the best reception in, then went to your talk page. Raul654 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article[edit]

What with 3 recent "Today's featured article"s, critical of Scientology, it seems to me that there is an abnormally high percentage of such articles, with no positive stories to date as far as I am aware which seems to make a mockery of Wikipedia's POV stance. Maybe I'm wrong - hope so. Johnalexwood (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles featured on the main page compiled with all of Wikipedia's policies, including our policy of neutrality. Raul654 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So then, by definition, however many articles featured that are critical of the Church, there should be as many that are in support of it? Johnalexwood (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Whatever gave you that idea? ➪HiDrNick! 18:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well then, instead of being POV, balanced, fair, unbiased or any other way you want to say it, "Today's featured article" actually is used surreptitiously to attack or support whichever group, political view or opinion is favoured or disliked, as appropriate, by the "Today's featured article" WP editor, by choice of the articles featured.Johnalexwood (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • People write the articles they want to. If you want "positive" articles about the church of Scientology on the main page, why don't you go ahead and improve them to FA status? Raul654 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Elderly Instruments protection[edit]

Hi Raul, per my comments toward the end of this ANI thread, I was wondering if you might consider unprotecting the Featured Article for the last few hours of its run on the main page. There definitely was some disruption going on there so I can see why you took that approach, but I think it could be dealt with without full protection (when unprotecting, you could include a stern note explaining that further drive-by tagging of the article as an advert will be met with blocks). After reading the whole article talk page, it seems to me that there are some concerns that don't have much merit but others that do. Some improvements seem to have been made and the article creator was discussing some of the good faith concerns with other editors. I don't think the level of disruption was sufficient enough to justify putting a halt to editing via full protection. Obviously improvements can still be made tomorrow, but there's probably more energy to work on it while the article is on the main page. Anyhow just a suggestion, I'm certainly not going to unprotect it myself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

All right - per your suggestion, I've unprotected. However, if there is a resumption of advert tagging, I'm going to block the offenders and may reprotect the article. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll watchlist it and keep an eye out as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) And within 5 minutes, it's being tagged again. I've blocked the offender, but I suspect unprotection is not going to work. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The article should be semi-protected in the worse case, but definitely not full-protected. If advert tags are placed by reputable editors, then I would strongly suggest asking them not to do so on their talk page first and then also mentioning that they bring any concerns they may have to the article's talk page, instead. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Reputable users or not, they are disrupting a main page featured article with behavior they should know better than to practice. Raul654 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's give it a bit of time. If there's really a flurry of advert tagging then re-protection would be fine. I don't know that that will happen though. If it happens a couple of times, a 24 hour block for whoever does it is completely appropriate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.) The user who added the tag was a SPA and intended to be disruptive. I agree that it would be a bad idea, even for a reputable editor, to tag the article, a fair amount of editors are already working on this, it would serve nothing but to flame the situation. Cenarium (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I made that suggestion because some editors may not be aware of the current discussions about the article, and a mere note on their talk page will probably be more helpful than a 24-hour block. Gary King (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like things have settled down somewhat, but we need to do something to be better prepared for next time. Typically it's editors who have never engaged the FAC process, and often don't appear to know Wiki policies and guidelines, the FA criteria, policies or guidelines, or even the difference between FAC and FAR, who disrupt the mainpage and attack good faith editors every time we run a company or a product. Fortunately, the last two times have involved editors who are so steady and solid that it doesn't seem to shake them (Mike and Laser), but what an unpleasant experience it must be to be faced with the kinds of accusations that are on the article talk page (seems like a real lack of AGF all 'round) after doing the research and hard work needed to produce an FA. Can we write a Dispatch dealing with this, so we'll have something prepared next time the mainpage runs (as it should) a company or a product? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Think Laser or Mike or someone else with experience in this area would feel up to it? Raul654 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if one of them could write it alone; it would need to be joint effort. We've had pending for a while that we need to cover 1) what to expect on main page day (like some of the info in Giano's essay), 2) how TFA is chosen, and now 3) this issue that happens each time a business or product is TFA. Is covering all of that in one too much? Bigtimepeace is right that we need something preemptive so a good faith editor has canned answers and doesn't have to be exposed to this again. Laser brain has taken a break, and that is a big loss to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Bit of a drive by comment here, but I happened across this issue on ANI and have now been commenting on the talk page. I fully agree that there were a number of very bad faith accusations from folks who don't know much about how the FA process works (I'm no expert myself). That's not acceptable and preparing for these kind of responses as Sandy suggests makes a lot of sense. However I don't want it to be lost that there were some problems with this article to begin with. Those folks suggesting that it should not have passed FA have a legitimate point (which is not to say they are necessarily right). Some significant improvements have been made, particularly with respect to wording, and other issues are being discussed on talk. Basically I agree with what Sandy is saying, but don't want what occurred while the article was on the main page to be chalked up only to bad faith, personal attacks, and a lack of understanding of the FA process. There were legitimate comments and edits as well, and the article is probably better now than before it went live on the main page. Anyhow, for what it's worth.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That can be said of many articles after their mainpage appearance; the lack of good faith displayed in this case was malinformed, appalling and disheartening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to intervene again, but I was about to make a statement similar to Bigtimepeace's. Editors like D Monack (talk · contribs), Varano (talk · contribs), Face zz (talk · contribs), Tombomp (talk · contribs) , User A1 (talk · contribs), Madcoverboy (talk · contribs), Lampman (talk · contribs), B (talk · contribs), Gwen Gale (talk · contribs), iridescent (talk · contribs) and Edison (talk · contribs) are not the ones who "disrupt the mainpage and attack good faith editors every time we run a company or a product". The article is undeniably good, but serious concerns have been raised, and you cannot wipe them out just because it's TFA. Cenarium (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy I fully agree with you about the lack of good faith, I'm just saying not everyone who commented there should be associated with that. That's my only point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
But sadly, I think that we can't do much about that. It will always be people who will make bad faith assumptions or frivolous accusations around TFA, or DYK, or ITN. (For example, I heard recently of USA-biased DYKs, of ITNs devoted to catastrophism, etc.) Cenarium (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi Raul654, I just saw that you edited a few minutes ago. Will you be online for the next few minutes? Acalamari 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for at least the next several minutes. Raul654 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In that case, can you please close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias 2? It's two hours overdue, at 71%, and I've been looking for a bureaucrat who is online to close it. I remember you said a few months ago that if anyone needed anything bureaucratic being done, we could ask you. Thank you. Acalamari 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Unfortunately, there was not a consensus to promote. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand: thanks for closing it. Acalamari 22:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive of subpage[edit]

Hiya, I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of archiving some older threads at User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. It had gotten over 250K and was starting to get difficult to read. --Elonka 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't object. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC followup[edit]

Resummarizing here from User talk:Raul654#FACs for you and User talk:SandyGeorgia#Schedule

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton

Clinton has been at FAC for more than two months, already restarted after a lot of initial issues were sorted. It has 10 Supports plus 2 significant contributor Supports (was nommed by a non-contributor). It has 3 Opposes that deal mostly with prose and flow, and 9 additional Opposes on 1e only.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta

Zinta has 8 Supports plus 3 Contributor Supports, and 3 Opposes. I don't find the opposes convincing, but I supported the article at Good article review, and have probably become too close to the article.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church

The three RCC FACs have been hard to keep focused on WP:WIAFA, with every oppose extensively debated and reviewers stating frustration or that they've given up. The article has improved significantly during the FACs; a fresh set of eyes (yours :-) may help sort things out. It's very hard to read (even though I constantly correct the threading and formatting to keep it on track), but a restart may frustrate everyone. I think it currently has 9 Supports and 6 opposes (POV, stability and sourcing); one Supporter is an interesting new account.

It's unfair to drop the lengthy and difficult ones on you, but I'd be happy for you to deal with all three of these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with these tonight. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I've already been through today, so we won't edit conflit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I promoted Preity Zinta and archived the Hilary nom. Regarding her article, given that her candidacy is very likely going to end in the next few weeks, I think that should take care of any residual stability concerns. The RCC one is tough - lots and lots of commentary, many of the objections resolved, some not. I'm going to leave it as it is for now, but I think a restart might be in order -- it could definitely benefit from more time on the FAC. Raul654 (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see how it does over the next few days; I'm flying on Wednesday, but should have computer access all day Friday. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, Raul, I was in the middle of some comments on Zinta - is this really not able to remain on the table for a few more days? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: if RCC is restarted, do we re-vote/re-comment on the newly restarted page or do our previous votes/comments remain valid? --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Typically, a restart means a clean slate, a new FAC, and !votes and actionable items still unaddressed must be re-entered on the new page. Because the three RCC FACs have been so exhausting to everyone involved, and hard to keep focused on addressing opposes per WP:WIAFA, I'm entertaining the idea of doing a different kind of restart. I'm keeping an eye on it and depending on how it goes, we may need to reboot for a clean slate, to sort out what work remains, but I'm hoping to avoid doing that in a way that will just result in all that text being re-typed and debated again. I'm aware of how frustrated the reviewers are, and that most have just stopped reviewing, but progress has been made, so we've got to keep our eye on the ball and try to re-focus on what work remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Raul, I am the nominator for the Roman Catholic Church FAC. There are currently 12 votes of support from 11 very veteran and respected editors and one new - and 6 oppose. The comments left for us by the opposes have all been addressed by making changes in the text or by providing Wikipedia policy or consensus to refute. The issues that opposers wanted us to change that we did not change and why are listed below:

  1. Capitalization of the word "Church" issue - opposer Andrew c asked us to lowercase all mentions of "Church" even when it was being used as a substitute for saying "Roman Catholic Church" over and over throughout the article. A poll we conducted on the RCC talk page eventually went to the MoS page where Wikipedia policy on the issue was vague. Wikipedia community was in the process of making a decision on this issue. We decided that we would change the text to reflect the community decision but would leave it alone until such decision had been made. See this comment by DanK on FAC page [19]
  2. Use of the book "The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages" by John Vidmar - opposer RelHistBuff did not want us to use this book at all stating that it was not a scholarly work and that John Vidmar was not a history professor. Although much discussion ensued on this issue, the facts revealed that Mr. Vidmar is a very respected history professor who has taught church history at three different Catholic universities and the Smithsonian Institute. His book was reviewed by a fellow scholar Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review. Since no one could come up with any evidence that the book was not a scholarly work, no bad reviews, no statements of errors and we had three good reviews including the scholarly Bokenkotter one, we did not eliminate use of this book since it provided us with one of our three apologist church history works that were used in equal balance with three critic sources. I performed an analysis of our sources that is documented on the FAC page that reveals how we paid special attention to use of sources by all major viewpoints to avoid being labeled pro or anti Catholic. This analysis is here [20]. Sensititve areas of Church history like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, WWII, provide references to both apologist and critic sources with quotes included from each source. Eliminating Vidmar would have eliminated a very important apologist source for us. Ealdgyth did an analysis of the Vidmar citations used in the article and provided us with a minor list of comments on the article talk page - all of which we answered satisfactorily - and none of which revealed anything improper in using his book. See this documented at subsection entitled Vidmar here: [21]
  1. Slavery - Relata Refero asked us to include statements in the article text that were not found in any of our scholarly sources and for which no papal bull or other substantial church document could be provided to back up his assertions. The Church did not create or institute African slavery, it was an institution long before Europeans arrived and I have this information from one of my scholarly sources by Koschorke, a documentary sourcebook. We have text in the article that states that some believe the Church did not do enough to stop it.
  2. move Origin and Mission section - opposer Karanacs wants us to move Origin and Mission stating that it duplicates material elsewhere in the article. Please see the article, it is not a duplication and there is consensus of editors to keep it where it is. Complete discussion of Karanacs comments are here [22] - as of this writing, one editor has posted his an another editor's previous agreement with Karanacs on this issue and two have posted in my favor - Lingnut and Johnbod. I have noted that per Wikipedia policy WP:Silence and consensus, the significant lack of any discussion or requests by the vast majority of editors on the article through three FACs including this one and two peer reviews and months of talk page discussion proves that most editors have long been OK with the current format. Three editors does not make a consensus in this situation, even when just considering this FAC.
  3. Nine comments - by opposer Tony (mainly punctuation or wording improvements) were answered by making changes to the text or in one instance providing direction to where he could find the content he desired that was already in the article text.
  4. opposer SummerWithMorons did not leave any comments for us to address but only chastised us for using religious rhetoric and not using scholarly sources - opposer did not elaborate on which of our sources he considered not scholarly - please see that our sources meet WP:RS and the top qualifications as suggested by WP:Reliable_source_examples.NancyHeise (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that several of the reviewers feel their positions are mischaracterized in this summary and have stated so on the FAC page. --Laser brain (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Only Relata made such a statement but did not elaborate, not "several". Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me add that I also have various times strongly expressed my disquiet at the way in which my positions have been repeatedly mischaracterized, so that they could be disdained and dismissed. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 11:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Video files[edit]

Hi, Raul654. I've uploaded few video files. They all play fine yet while some of them Image:Bears fight 11.wmv.OGG show the picture in the thumnail, the others do not Image:Great white shark and cage diving 2.wmv.OGG. May I please ask you, if you know what I'm doing wrong? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA close?[edit]

You might want to take a look at Ktr101's RfA. I've already !voted in this one, but in the course of looking at the RfA, it looks like this candidate is really just looking for some sort of quick editor review. In fact, his nom statement just talks about criticism, not being an admin. Considering it also is fits WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW, maybe a quick close would be in order. Just thought I'd give a crat a heads up. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Update, just closed by an admin. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFAR[edit]

A user wants me to change the date for my Jurassic Park nomination. Should I? Limetolime talk to me look what I did! 23:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's 100% up to you. Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta-FA discussions[edit]

An off-topic meta-FA discussion has sprung up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Wall which you might be interested in. Does George Washington (inventor) hold the records as far as you know? Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, shortest time elapsed between article creation and FA status is not a statistic I keep track of :)
Having read your comment on that FAC nom -- I do not believe the George Washington article was given any special treatment. It was promoted just as any other article would have been. So yes, I would have to agree with you that it's the record holder. (Also, FYI, the promotion point is the moment it's added to Wikipedia:Featured articles, which is the definitive list.) Raul654 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Discussion has been moved here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Todays Featured article[edit]

I noticed there was no featured article selected yet for June 1, so I wondered if there was a problem. Also, I am not sure how to make a request; I would like to nominate Confederate government of Kentucky for June 3 (Confederate Memorial Day in Kentucky and many other states) if its not too late. (June 3rd was chosen due to being Jefferson Davis' birthday, who's bicentennial is June 3rd). I'm unfamiliar with the protocols with TFA, so if I stepped over you or someone else, I beg your pardon.--Bedford Pray 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just sitting down to schedule them. Raul654 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--Bedford Pray 03:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Graphics for TFA?[edit]

I noticed that Ran's TFA doesn't have the film's poster (or anything else, for that matter) to illustrate it on the main page, and I believe that this has been the case with some of the other recent film TFAs. Why is this so? If it is a fair usage issue, then surely it would stand to reason that the image would be equally unacceptable within the article? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would qualify as fair use, but as with many thing here, it's the principle of the thing. Raul654 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TFA 5 June[edit]

Do you think you could consider putting Bill Russell on the MP on 5 June as this is the day the Boston Celtics, who Russell played for for his entire pro career, will begin the 2008 NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers. June 8 is also an option as this is the date of game 2. Buc (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, article currently under review. Also, place your requests for TFA in their proper place on the TFA requests page. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I've already scheduled both of these dates. Raul654 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Forever war.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. BJBot (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock[edit]

Just bringing your attention to this request - User_talk:81.153.84.95. This is part of this block - [23]. Given that 81.153.x.x is a part of the dynamic range of BTBroadband (one of the UK's most popular ISPs) I think it's unlikely that this is the original blockee, but your call :) Black Kite 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The range block only affects anon users. If he wants to edit, tell him to log in. Also, FWIW, checkuser suggests that he's not the same person, but if it's a highly dynamic range, then that doesn't mean much. Raul654 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama archive[edit]

Nice new pic by the way.

It didn't seem important at first, but now I think it would be better if Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3 were included in the Talk:Barack Obama {{ArticleHistory}}. This week at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1 we have had debates about instability and everyone is looking for established precedents. Obviously, the most famously dynamic page right now is Barack Obama. It would be better for the paper trail permanent record if his article history was all-inclusive. Please reply at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's odd - Gimmetrow's bot (gimmebot) should have added it there when it archive the FAR discussion. I don't know why it did not. I've dropped a note on his talk page pointing him here. Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Obama FAR, ostensibly it was not Gimmebotified because it was neither kept nor removed from the list. Don't know whether that helps or not. Woody (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
See also User:Raul654/archive16#Obama_FAR. Gimmetrow 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Basically, Joel closed it as "aborted, no contest" and it was decided not to run it through usual AH. Not a keep or a remove. I understand Joel's position: sometimes we're not actually keeping things at FAR but saying "this isn't the right time to discuss in this venue." (Perhaps we actually need a fully articulated third category?) But paper trails matter, so I don't mind if this readded to AH, Gimme.
I'll tell you one thing: Obama is going to plague FAR. This article, at present, is an FA category by itself. Part of me wants a unilateral status removal because meeting 1e is going to be joke (especially if he wins). Another part of me doesn't want to give up on the idea that any article can be featured—even where the subject is running for the White House. Thoughts Raul? Marskell (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
GimmeBot cannot add it to AH if it's not a Keep or Remove without restructuring AH to account for ... what ... abort? This was discussed at the time; there's currently no such thing in AH. I guess we could call it a Keep if we have to record it in AH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it would have to be added as Keep. I was mentioning a third category hypothetically. Marskell (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It was archived as a Keep. Confusing. Maybe GimmeBot could botify it into AH as a Keep, but add a different closing note? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
When should it show up on the AH at Talk:Barack Obama?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I may not be understanding what is going on, but the AH has not been updated. Is it suppose to be?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Joel, thanks for your reply. I am trying to determine whether any reference to FAR3 will appear in AH. It sounded like above there was an agreement that AH is deficient without FAR3's inclusion. Your response said that we need a third category to properly address it. It has beenkept by no consensus essentially. Why not add a no consensus and mark it as such. There is extensive precedent on WP for having NC closes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Marskell (and Joel, if you're watching) - see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#Stability_criterion Raul654 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching. I will comment on the criteria talk page. Joelito (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

Apologies for springing this on you, I'm just looking for the opinion of someone oversite and picked the first active contributor I could think of. Yesterday a new user created the article Sonic Focus, this was promptly tagged for deletion as promotional. At this point I noticed that the article was also a copyright violation and tagged it as such - replacing the promotional tag. The original creator then proceeded to start to rewrite the article in their own words as recommended by the standard template for informing users of a G12 deletion. Pleasantly surprised I tried to help out, removing POV language and adding references and as well as removing the deletion tag. The result of this is (in my opinion) a short but valid stub that at the least does not meet any of the speedy delete criteria. My question is since the basis and original posting of the article was a copyrighted work, can the new work be validly released under the GFDL license or does it constitute a derivative work of the original copyrighted piece. If it is possible should the original "creating" edit and those after it where the article content is unchanged be removed. I'm sorry for the rambling question but I'm bit unsure about the issue, please don't feel under any obligation to respond especially if I'm making a fuss over nothing. Again thank you for your patience. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The current article does not resemble the original copyvio in any way - it looks like a total rewrite. So no, in my non-lawerly opinion, I don't think it's a derivative. The earlier revisions do contain copyvios, so I deleted the article and restored the last revision only. Raul654 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

June 9 Dispatch[edit]

Raul, are you settled in yet? When you have time, I want to review a FAC. Also, do you think Wikipedia:FCDW/June 9, 2008 is almost there; is anything missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • After reaching 340KB, about a dozen supports and 10 opposes before the restart, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church is again back to the same territory in size and declarations only days after the restart. Reviewers are mad about the restart, and nominators say I've been unfair, so it's all yours :-) At least the page is readable, sort of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked from the global warming pages[edit]

Looks like I can't edit the global warming pages. I guess that this has something to do with the Scibaby problem, perhaps he is editing from my neigborhood with a similar IP address?  :)

I would be glad if you can fix the problem, but it is not urgent. There is just one edit on the GW pages by me that needs to be improved:

I edited the global warming controversy and the climate change denial pages yesterday, mentioning a new NASA report containing the results of an official investigation that concluded that there had been political pressure on scientists. I gave a newspaper as the source, but I think that a better source can be found, perhaps the report itself. Count Iblis (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I found another drawer full of socks this morning. After 6 months, it's readily apparent that the 'drain the swamp' approach (which entails blocking his socks, his IPs, and his ranges) isn't working well, so I decided to adopt a new approach. This morning I fully protected a half-dozen or so of his favorite targets. (That's why you can't edit them) They had been semi-protected but that too was not working. I'm not sure if there is a technical fix that would allow you to edit them while preventing him from doing it. Raul654 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't that seem a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or shooting a fly with a rocket launcher? We can't fully protect all of these actively edited pages to deal with one vandal (especially when I didn't see his latest round of edits on some of them, so it's more of a preemptive strike). What are we going to do, leave these pages fully protected forever? I think this should be undone, or at least some discussion should be had as to whether this is the best step. As far as I can tell, fully protecting a page in response to a sockpuppet is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of WP:PROT. I assume that administrators such as yourself and others on the pro-AGW side (there aren't any regular 'skeptic' editors who are admins as far as I know) wouldn't use this protection to edit these pages as they see fit, but I still believe that if the decision is to be made to protect these pages it should at least be done by an admin who isn't regularly involved. Oren0 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this discussion is better had at Talk:Global warming and I've pasted it there. Oren0 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Raul654. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Oren0 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Check an RFCU report?[edit]

Hi Raul, I filed an RFCU report a few minutes ago due to vandalizing at Evolution, it can be found Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Xted. From what I remember this is a recurring vandel, and I figured you were probably familiar with him/her. Just wanted to let you know, so the right connections could be made. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's tilejoin. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interview for the Signpost Dispatch?[edit]

Mark—At the Workshop we've been planning to prepare a number of interviews of the people behind the FA process. Sandy has suggested that I interview you and wind your responses into an article to be published in the next few months. I guess it could involve the evolution of FAC, your role in it, your thoughts on it, anything you feel is relevant. The Q/A dialogue could be conducted via email or on a dedicated page. It would probably be heavily tweaked for journalistic reasons, with your approval necessary for the final draft. What do you think? TONY (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'm game. I think a dedicated page would be better than email, IMO. Raul654 (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If the Assessment Dispatch doesn't come through for the 16th, we may need something then, so I hope you two get crackin' just in case :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Raul, thanks for agreeing. I'll be asking you to add to/change questions where through ... er ... more intimate knowledge of the subject, you can make it a more informative, smoother interview. I presume those guys have gotten the 16th off the ground, so there should be no rush. TONY (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Too late[edit]

This is too late. He is already gone. I am fairly irritated myself. See my talk page or user page.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And unfortunately here is another one biting the dust.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing an FA candidate[edit]

Do you by anychance know how to withdraw an article from being a featured article candidate? -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If the nominator wants to withraw a nomination, he can move it from the FAC to the failed FAC nomination page Raul654 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TFA June 12[edit]

Thank you for scheduling The World Without Us on June 12. I realize that many FAs do not get this TFA honor and it is greatly appreciated when it happens. When my first FA reached the main page I felt like I was initiated into some kind of club and I would like to be present for this one, too. However, I (the principal author & DYK/GA/FA nominator) will be away from June 10 to 13 (out of town work conference). Is it possible to re-schedule this to a later date? And, if I may be so bold as to suggest similar alternative articles for that date: Night (book) (50 year anniversary - 1958) & The Well of Loneliness (80 year anniversary - 1928). -maclean 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What I'll do is bump The World Without Us to a few days later, on or around the 15th. Raul654 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar for fighting sock puppetry[edit]

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
Your determined efforts to fight sock puppetry are appreciated. Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but until and unless either (1) the pages are reprotected, or (2) some other acceptable solution for dealing with Scibaby is devised, I am going to stop dealing with him. Apparently the time I spent was little appreciated. So all the people who thought it wasn't such a big deal and didn't warrant full protection can now deal with it themselves. Raul654 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural consequences work; others will see what will happen. But I've also noticed the inordinate amounts of time TimVickers has lost to this sock, and it irritates me that he has been taken away from article work and we haven't seen him at FAC in months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the one that gives Tim Vickers problems is TileJoin. The message above referred to Scibaby, who is actally the more disruptive of the two. Raul654 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
ah, I see; corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Not unappreciated - quite the opposite. I very much appreciate your work, and i bet that we'll be back begging you, to continue ;). (at least if i'm not mistaken and this is scibaby in a new incarnation...). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You are not mistaken - it's Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel ignored! ;-)
But seriously, many of us appreciate your help, especially with socks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul - your contributions are appreciated when seen. I haven't given you a barnstar because you have enough, but you certainly have my thanks. I hope I haven't given the impression that I don't appreciate your work, just because I disagree about the prot. When not seen (as in the case of scibaby socks blocked before obviously active), they aren't, which is regrettable. I hope you don't lose your interest in GW articles. Can we do some kind of deal for putting what look like scibaby socks - as TY was starting to look like - up for confirmation by you? Hopefully that would be less work for you than chasing them yourself, which I agree is burdensome William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that hard to see; anyone who has Raul's talk page watchlisted knows how much time he's had to waste on this, and has seen the effect (of a different sock) on Tim Vickers as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Its a bad case of damned if we do, and damned if we don't :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth Raul, I appreciate what you've done dealing with these vandals as well. Just because we have philosophical differences about how best to handle this problem doesn't diminish my respect for all of the work you put in. It's a shame that you've decided to stop dealing with this issue, but I do believe we'll be able to keep things under control. Oren0 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT[edit]

Hi any chance of you 'weighing in' on the subject of balance in use of sources. I've been trying to explain it to a user on Talk:Philosophy but without much success. The sources he wants are fine in themselves, i.e. represent significant minority type views, but don't represent the whole thing. I'm not asking for any view on the subject matter itself (Philosophy is specialist subject, obviously), just a view on policy. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Very happy if someone Peter trusts would weigh in. I am attempting to get cited sources with authority in place, and suggesting an approach in which we would not be dependent on Peter or other editors attempting to summarise the field which would constitute original research. My position is best summarised here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhilosophy&diff=217932717&oldid=217930385 --Snowded (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The policy on question is WP:WEIGHT. This requires that, where reliable sources differ, a balance is achieved between different views. Peter Damian (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser activity[edit]

Would you be able to comment at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Activity levels of individual Checkusers? Thanks. Also, I know you are already aware of the thread, but the above post came from that thread, so I thought I should point out that I mentioned you there. Apologies if my impressions were mistaken. I think I should have asked you and Thatcher at your talk pages before mentioning your names at the ANI thread. This is one reason why I would like to see activity logs, as that would confirm impressions and correct mistaken impressions. Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bizzare edits[edit]

Hm... on further reading, that was Solomon I was thinking of (on critics of WP), I was mistaken. However, I assumed [2] was enough for the Skeptic category. ffm 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Emsley 2001, p.297
  2. ^ Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong?". In Joseph F. DiMento, Pamela Doughman. Climate Change. MIT Press. ISBN 026204241X. 
Uh, not to point too fine a point on this, but if you read the article past the title, you'll see that its title is not rhetorical -- the article explains at length why we can be sure the consensus view is not wrong; that is, that the earth is indeed warming and human activity is causing it. Just read the final paragraph: And that sums up the problem. To deny that global warming is real is precisely to deny that humans have become geological agents, changing the most basic physical processes of the earth. For centuries, scientists thought that earth processes were so large and powerful that nothing we could do would change them... And once they were. But no more. There are now so many of us cutting down so many trees and burning so many billions of tons of fossil fuels that we have indeed become geological agents. We have changed the chemistry of our atmosphere, causing sea level to rise, ice to melt, and climate to change. There is no reason to think otherwise." Raul654 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I was mistaken. ffm 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with username needed[edit]

Hello Raul,

I have recently consolidated my accounts on the several wikipedia projetcs having Ar wikipedia (account 135) as my home wiki. However, my accounts on some wikis, like here in EN wikipedia and on Ar wikisource, have different usernames and could not be consolidated.

I understand that accounts with different names cannot currently be consolidated. The problem is that as soon as I accessed EN wikipedia while logged on globally an account with the global username was automatically created, which naturally doesn't have my history or preferences.

Can you help me renaming my original account on EN wikipedia (User:Alef01) to أحمد and merging it with the global account and discarding the automatically created username here on EN wiki.

I now understand I should have requested a renaming of my account before merging, but I have now gotten my global account temporarily unlocked.

Your help will be appreciated.

--Alif (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

أحمد already exists, and when I try to rename it (to make way to rename your account) I get this error: Cannot rename user أحمد locally as this username has been migrated to the unified login system Raul654 (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm beginning to understand how complex an operation this is. --Alif (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Smell of Unwashed Feet[edit]

...is in the air. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as people insist that the Scibaby problem is minor and doesn't warrant protection, then I'm only hurting my own cause by doing checkuser. The only way people will change their minds about protection is if they have to deal with it themselves instead of me doing it myself. So, file an RFCU, or block him on the basis of his behavior. (I don't know whether or not he's Scibaby -- I haven't checked, and I'm not going to)
I'm not doing this to be a dick, but I'm tired of dealing with this problem myself. Once the problems start to crop up, with more vandalism, more reverts, possibly innocent people being blocked mistakenly, and more consternation all around, hopefully that will start to change some minds where protection is concerned. But so as long as the article remains semi-protected, I'm done dealing with this problem. Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just want to say thanks for what you have done already to keep GW and related articles protected from this nuisance. Wish I could help you out, and even as a regular user, I think it was fair to try a full-prot to get your case heard. I think the solution lies somewhere between semi and full, but it's a solution that's not available. Anyway, I think you're probably right that this will change some folks' minds (I certainly don't want to constantly revert his silly edits and get accused of not AGF), but we'll just have to see. Regards, Jason Patton (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

TFA years of birth and death[edit]

Hello Raul! I'd be very interested in your feedback about a suggestion for placing the year of birth and death on the TFA blurb of biographies. There's a discussion here. Cheers, --Zvika (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied below, "Birth and death dates in TFA blurbs" thread. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A note about the Scibaby situation[edit]

I'm finding it hard to write kindly to you because of the intense disagreement I had with you over your claim that User:CreepyCrawly was a sock of Scibaby. I proved conclusively that, given the fact they were using two different IP addresses, and the fact that they interleaved four edits in a four-minute window, and extensive behavioral evidence of different methods and voices, CreepyCrawly and Scibaby were definitely two different people. I wrote on my blog how upset I was that you wrote: "It's possible that [CreepyCrawly is] not necessarily Scibaby." I thought it was an absolute certainty, given the accumulated evidence I had assembled over a three-day period, that CreepyCrawly was not Scibaby, and I could not understand why you failed to see what was obvious to me. The frustration in trying to fight an indefinite block on an innocent user, who would still be blocked were it not for my intervention, led directly to my decision to leave Wikipedia indefinitely. I returned about six weeks later.

Now I understand how Scibaby was causing you so much stress as to reduce your ability to assume good faith on any user without a substantial edit history arguing against the consensus on global warming articles. In my review of the Scibaby socks up to March 16, which I undertook comprehensively in order to contrast CreepyCrawly's activity with Scibaby's pattern, I gained an appreciation for just how disruptive this one person had become. I honestly have no idea how he does it, but he simply refuses to stop. I asked myself, along the way of proving CreepyCrawly's innocence, if anything could be done to stop this sockmaster. I supported the increase of autoconfirm because I knew it would deter sockpuppeteers from attacking semiprotected pages. I have not checked the recent sockpuppets' contribs, but I assume that Scibaby has simply made ten edits and then attacked the global warming pages, with essentially the same result as before. So I guess that strategy did not work.

Ironically, blatant page-move vandalism is much easier to deal with than Scibaby's attacks. It becomes immediately obvious that HAGGER??? is not the name of any nation or commonwealth on earth. I see no reason why thousands of pages can't be move-protected, but that is a separate concern that does not hinder good-faith editors in the least. Even with Taiketsu moving "global warming" to "global warming hoax", which I reported to ANI after it had lasted for 59 minutes - if I had not noticed that, someone else would have found it soon after. In contrast, with a sophisticated, sneaky vandal, it really is possible for his edits to sneak through the cracks if nobody is watching. Since your patience with this pest has been exhausted a long time ago, you took an extreme action, but one that I consider reasonable under the prevailing circumstance of consistent vandalism for the past six months and more. I believe that we as editors do not choose which pages to semi-protect or full-protect: the vandals choose for us. Scibaby made his choice, and you made a commensurate response. I supported TimVickers' protection of the Evolution article for the same reason. (See an edit by Special:Contributions/71.174.111.245 to AN or ANI: that was I.) I do not know if full protection was needed for all the pages you protected, but certainly Global Warming and IPCC needed it. I commend you for your reasonable response to a very difficult situation. I find it unfortunate that other users simply fail to comprehend the scale of the problem Scibaby has caused.

I worry with CreepyCrawly that instead of banning people, we may be moving in the direction of banning opinions. CreepyCrawly was accused of being a meatpuppet even if he was not a sockpuppet: that really made me lose my composure. We should never stop anyone from posting to the global warming page a dissenting opinion if that user does so in good faith: BOLD, revert, discuss still applies. But when that person is Scibaby, and when that person has used up your valuable time and patience tenfold, it is entirely appropriate to take extreme measures in response to extreme provocation, and I commend you for making a bold decision despite the criticism. I will support your right to make that decision even if others oppose it. You, of all people, by your tireless work on the Scibaby problem, have earned the right to say, "Enough is enough." Yechiel (Shalom) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

October War categories[edit]

You didn't do the process right for listing the October War categories. First of all, you tacked the discussion onto an existing one instead of creating a new page. Furthermore, if you want categories to be deleted, they go to Categories for discussion, not Articles for deletion. I'll list these at Categories for Discussion for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 17:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - that was me being careless, both for typing AFD instead of CFD, and not noticing that it was a templated discussion (CFD isn't, AFD is). Raul654 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

Raul, I'm afraid that you might think I think poorly of you after I made this comment. That's not true. I think very highly of you, and appreciate all of the work you've done for Wikipedia, in the past, and especially the recent past, knowing that it has built exponentially. Again, thank you for all of your work. —OverMyHead 07:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I took no offense from your comment. Raul654 (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Raul, I was forced to a dialup this week when my house was poltergeisted by a power surge. When Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church reached 340KB, I restarted; it's again over 400KB, with new comments being added to the talk page because the main page won't load. It's impacting the overall FAC page; I couldn't load FAC from a dialup. There are 12 unstruck opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's a monster. Yes, I can take care of it, but what do you suggest? Raul654 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a loss. It has been impossible to keep discussion focused on WIAFA, combativeness and divisiveness have polarized everyone with reviewers stating they're giving up, and I'm unclear as to which issues have and haven't been resolved. I'm concerned about the size of the article (in the sense that it has grown so much at FAC in response to reviews, and I'm not clear if the organization, flow and prose are well thought out or if the article has grown piecemeal in response to FAC pressures, but it's almost 50% larger than it was at one point in one of the FACs). I can't recall any other FA with 30 refs in the lead so I don't understand what that is about; if so much of the article is controversial that the lead needs 30 refs, including double and triple refs on individual clauses, that could be an indication of unresolved issues, but even that is unclear. The biggest issue is that I don't have a sense that the nominators understand that reviewers seek to prevent a mainpage bashing if there is any perceived POV in the article; I'm not sure nominators understand that reviewers have the article's and Wiki's best interests in mind, and this has made it very hard to get parties to work together to assure a smooth potential main page day. I simply can't determine if we have consensus or what issues remain because the FAC has been so combative. Some of the polarization revolves around charges of reviewers being pro- and anti-Catholic, overlooking that even some Catholic editors have opposed. I've pondered whether an unprecedented second restart would help; I don't think so, because it doesn't seem that nominators understand the process. I'm concerned it's going to end up in Marskell's lap if parties don't work together. On the other hand, there have been improvements, parties are almost starting to work together, just when the page is too massive to deal with ... Something novel is needed here, but my last attempt at a novel approach (archive the long page rather than a permalink restart) didn't help, and made reviewers mad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards failing the nomination. Letting it sit fallow for a while might give everyone the chance to cool off, and hammer things out before bringing it back to FAC. Personally, I think there are some things that are over-referenced, like the claim that the RCC has been an important influence on western history (trivially common knowledge does not need to be cited). Raul654 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Time off hasn't cooled it off before (similar issues have repeated, even grown, in each FAC), so a closing note about the process might help. Yes, I suspect the answer to some of the opposes has been to add additional references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I have to deal with electrician, phone company, cable company and tree removal ... back on later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Canada on main page[edit]

Thanks for choosing an article I worked on for main page today. I'm actually kind of surprised because I thought that usually articles that have been promoted a long time ago have higher priority? Gary King (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, explained at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#My_FA_article_is_on_the_main_page_right_now. Thanks anyways! Gary King (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requests[edit]

Hi. There is a request here from a user that you have unblocked before. Also, I wonder if there is any chance that this request could be legit. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He's caught in an anon-only range block. Once he logs in, he should be unaffected. Raul654 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth and death dates in TFA blurbs[edit]

There's been some discussion on Talk:Main Page about whether (birth and death) dates should be included in the TFA blurb for biographical or historical articles. The most recent discussion is at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_123#TFA_without_date_of_birth_or_death. The basic concern was that it becomes difficult to place the information in context without the date, particularly when a date is later mentioned in the blurb (as occurred for George I). My personal opinion is that it would be useful to include the dates, but just the years to prevent things getting too long. Thoughts? Modest Genius talk 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but I wasn't sure how to respond. I started removing DOB/DOD a long time ago. I *think* the reason was blurb length - back in the day, FA blurbs were about half the size they are today. Your suggestion about including just the year makes sense. Let me consider it. Raul654 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, to respond to Zvika's comment there - if he counts by characters, not words, he'll see the two blurbs he mentioned are 1185 and 1206 characters, respectively - almost identical in size. Raul654 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point, although worth remembering the years only take up 12 characters <shrug> Modest Genius talk 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you put in a birth date for today's TFA, thanks! I really think this helps. --Zvika (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church 2[edit]

Dear Raul, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs have asked the editors of this page not to contact those who opposed the page for the last FAC. [24] [25] In response to your message asking opposers to provide a specific list for us page editors to then take our time addressing, we considered some sort of generic message inviting them to the talk page to provide this list. We are now being told that everyone needs a break and we should not contact them. Could you please clarify for us what you want us to do? We do not intend to resubmit this for another FAC until maybe August. Xandar and I have received several unkind messages from Tony and Sandy that are not encouraging us to do any more work on Wikipedia ever. We are not sure you are feeling the same. If you would prefer someone else we can leave the project. Please do not encourage us to bring this to FA if it is not your intention to give it fair consideration. It is very discouraging for us knowing that we have to go through Tony and Sandy after these messages we have received. NancyHeise (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a correct understanding of the discussion, NancyHeise; we've asked that you organize/prioritize how you approach them rather than approaching them all at once.[26][27] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see my response to Tony's kind comment here [28] NancyHeise (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul654, I do think it would help if you could be more hands-on with this article. As can be seen in a series of conversations here, and as I have tried to clarify also on my own talk page, a number of us feel that your closing comments on the last failed FAC for Roman Catholic Church have been misinterpreted.

I would add that I very much fear that, within a matter of weeks, we're going to end up back where we began, with a contentious FAC that will satisfy nobody and frustrate everybody.

Personally, I think that it is vital that the current major editors (NancyHeise and Xandar) expand the team of people working with them. I have suggested User:Ceoil as one such editor who was, at the latter stages of the last FAC, working productively with NancyHeise. However, I think that they should seek others, and that this would help break down the opposition between editors and reviewers, so it does not get repeated at FAC.

I also think that the current major editors should accept that the past FAC failed, and take this as an opportunity for a creative rethink of major issues with the article. The article is no longer at FAC, and pretending otherwise hampers its improvement.

I do recognize that you are no doubt up to your ears with other issues. But the last FAC was a drain on everyone, not least your delegate, SandyGeorgia. I do think this is a case where you proactive intervention would save trouble in the longer term. It would also help make it more likely that this article ultimately becomes featured. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been an unprecedented situation, and finding a way to communicate with two well-meaning nominators has escaped well-meaning reviewers (and me). It seems as if everything anyone has typed anywhere has been misunderstood, misread or misinterpreted. But, Jb, I respectfully disagree that Raul should take a more hands-on approach here; it may be helpful for Raul to maintain a hands-off neutral stance, particularly since the track record has been one of misunderstanding of any commentary, no matter how positive, and a neutral judge of consensus will be needed when the article returns to FAC. Don't worry about it being a drain on me; the only drain has been seeing what it has done to FAC, the reviewers, and the nominators, and feeling impotent to redirect the FAC more productively. The article has steadily improved, so in that sense, everyone can feel good about something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I like JB's idea, I think it would help all of us to know what Raul's intentions are here. I would like to participate in bringing the article to FA with other editors including JB. I appreciate his non-Catholic point of views and input. I intend to work with Ceoil as JB suggested. I posted a star on her page thanking her for her tremendous help and will call on her again when we are at the point of collaboration. NancyHeise (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ceoil is a he, by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just spent the last half-hour reading all the various discussions surrounding the article. First - there are too many discussions occurring on too many pages. I'd prefer to focus all the article-improvement talk back onto Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Second, reading Xandar's message in its current form (for example, at User_talk:Jbmurray#Feature_Article_Candidate_Roman_Catholic_Church) - I don't see anything objectionable to it. It looks like a polite request for remaining objectors to list any outstanding issues with the article, so that he can fix them prior to a renomination. That's exactly what I suggested in my closing note. I don't understand where all the claims of misunderstanding are coming from. (And, just for the record - the FAC nom was most definitely closed as unsuccessful; not suspended.) I've added talk:RCC to my watchlist, so I'll be keeping an eye on it. It looks like people are, in fact, provided exactly the list that Xandar asked for. Is there anything specific I should be looking at? Raul654 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Correct; at my request, Xandar adjusted his message (and re-edited all of the old messages[29]), and the current message is much better. Some of the conversations at User talk:NancyHeise and User talk:Jbmurray show some of the confusion about Wiki in general and FAC in particular that is occurring. For example, Xandar recently posted to Jbmurray that: "Your comments on the RCC talk page need to be the full and complete extent of any remaining oppose. Xandar (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)," (misunderstanding of the dynamic nature of Wiki articles?) I suspect the way forward for this article and nom is to convince experienced editors like Ceoil or Johnbod to help prepare and present the nom, as there is no so much inflammation and misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, you asked if there is anything specific you should be looking at. Yes, please read the answers I provided to Karanacs list of objections to the article. They clearly present the problems we have had with FAC reviewers asking us to do things that we should not be asked to do. Please also read the responses to Awadewit who wants us to eliminate the first section of RCC history to reflect a radical view that the Church did not exist before the 4th century. NancyHeise (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, you are again misrepresenting my view. I have continually asked you to stop this. You are worried about a demand that is not being made. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a section of the talk page where you can see the reaction to Awadewit's suggestions. I've unwatched, but notice that many editors have tried very hard and are willing to help, but are making little headway. It's taken a large amount of some of Wiki's best resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I have suggested a plan that I think might work here. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyrights[edit]

Hey, I noticed in your permissions email for Image:Michael Flynn.jpg, you wrote, "If you paid the person who took it, that makes it a work-for-hire and you do [own the copyright]," but this is unfortunately false in most cases. Per 17 USC § 204 (a), "A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent." A work for hire situation only exists when there is an explicit contract for it, such as an employment contract. If I pay a photography studio for my head shot, the studio still owns the copyright to that head shot, unless they specifically sign the rights over to me. I realize for the photosubmission OTRS queue it means a bit more work to make sure that the sender is actually the copyright holder (and also it means we might have to reject some more photos), but that's unfortunately how copyright law is. Regards, howcheng {chat} 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot note[edit]

Raul, Gimmetrow has taken a short vacation, so I'll have to manually botify anything that gets promoted/archived; Maralia has agreed to help, and knows the ropes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's back (Maralia and I were able to keep up in his absence). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo again[edit]

67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs) locates to Minneapolis, edits the same ID-based articles, attacks in the same tendentious manner, and is probably our old pal, friend, and nemesis, User:Kdbuffalo. I'll do the RfCU if you want. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He bounces around that range a bit (e.g, as 67.135.49.254, 67.135.49.78, and 67.135.49.85) but I see no evidence of sockpuppetry. So, the content of his edits not withstanding, he looks like a legit logged-out user to me. Raul654 (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Should have remembered. It's User:Jinxmchue, who has abused socks before. Is it blockable? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Post concerning you[edit]

I seem to be doing this a lot recently, sorry. I mentioned you in an edit on someone else's user page. See here. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on whether you see your position as any different to any of the other former arbitrators or not. I recognise that some former arbitrators would also not have been re-elected (I think you were the first ever to run for re-election, and I respect you for that - though having checked, I see The Cunctator and Fennec failed in their re-election bids), but I think it boils down to whether the election showed support for you (I think it did), or whether failing to be re-elected should mean anything. More generally, your mention of the arbitration committee mailing list in the block rationale brings up the perennnial issue of access to the mailing list by former arbitrators. If something is discussed on the arbitration mailing list, would it not make more sense for a sitting arbitrator to enact the decision? Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to your questions here. First, I don't consider myself any different than any of the other ex-arbitrators. They choose not to run, where I did. As for the election, IIRC, I got more support than any other candidate except NYB, and half of the objections were to my inactivity rather than my judgement. (And I dont begrudge anyone who voted against me for inactivity, because it was a perfectly valid point - I was inactive in arbcom matters for much of 2007) My non-reelection is a reflection of the arbcom election system (which favors people who have never been involved in any disputes) more so than any reflection on me. So, yes, I believe the election showed support for me in the community as an arbitrator.
As for the arbcom mailing list - unless I am mistaken, several months ago a second arbcom mailing list was created for current members only. The discussion mentioned on the_undertow's talk page occurred on the older one which includes both current and former arbitrators. As to your last question ( If something is discussed on the arbitration mailing list, would it not make more sense for a sitting arbitrator to enact the decision? ) - no, I see no reason why such a rule would be desirable. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reply. I agree with most of that, except the last bit. Thanks for the clarification about the two mailing lists. Hopefully the distinction will become clearer in the future. I had heard that there were two, but I think, unless specifically stated, most references to the "arbitration committee mailing list" are to the older one. That seems to be the one mention at WP:ARBCOM anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very premature notice[edit]

Hi Raul. I'm gearing up for nominating Donald Bradman at FAC. Driving the massive amount of work behind this is that it's the 100th anniversary of his birth on August 27th. Assuming that the article passes FAC, I would very much like it if you could arrange for his biog to appear on Main Page on that date. I'm very hopeful of a success at FAC, given the huge PR and extensive post-PR discussion and consensus-seeking I've had with a number of FAC regulars, copyeditors and with the WP:CRIC community. Mind you, I'm experienced enough at FAC to know that there's a surprise sting in the tail for many a confident nominator! :-) Hope you're well... --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your help would be appreciated in determining consensus[edit]

Hello, I am Atyndall and I am one of the Mediation Cabal's informal mediator. Currently I have taken on a case regarding the naming of the Burma/Myanmar article here. I have decided, after realizing that the article has to be named either Burma or Myanmar, that I need to get everyone to list their opinions and determine the consensus (which I have done here. The problem is, to put it bluntly, I would find it very hard to determine the consensus on this issue as both sides have equally good arguments. So I was wondering, if, after 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (exactly 14 days after the first post) you could evaluate the consensus (along with another 2 'crats) at that page (as crats are good at, having to deal with RfAs) and list and try to detail why you think this at the top of the page in the section provided? Please do not feel obliged to do so, if you are busy I can ask someone else, but please let me know. Thankyou very much and happy editing :-)  Atyndall93 | talk  00:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help. When the discussion is over, drop me a note here and I'll give it a look. Raul654 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou very much.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

mmm[edit]

M&M's Plain.jpg
Snickers opened.jpg

[30] Mario Vargas Llosa The General in his Labyrinth. Pretty please. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 01:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'all are shameless! (For Jb = Sin Vergüenza.) Now I'm going to have to ask someone to upload some giandujas for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Damn, beaten to it! (And thanks!!) giggy (:O) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Aw; if Giggy gets a video game article on the main page, then I'm requesting Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. :) Gary King (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Thundercats2.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Thundercats2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thundercats2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thundercats2.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. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for FAC work[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Too often we reviewers and nominators forget to thank the people who make the FAC process run smoothly. Sometimes I think of you as "the man behind the curtain" in The Wizard of Oz because we so rarely see you, but instead of being a fraud you are a real wizard: you have made FAC one of the few effective and sane processes on Wikipedia. Thank you. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words :) Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wootton Report[edit]

Apparently you have banned user Steve Abrams from editing the Wootton Report article. He is a leading expert and there are inaccuracies needing urgent attention. Please remove the block! Steve's email is steve.abrams@gmail.com

These are in the message he is getting:

Range used by Tile/Eir Witt This block has been set to expire: 23:53, 27 February 2009.

You can contact Raul654 (the blocking administrator) via email --Nick Green (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark, as you will know from your email this matter has been resolved as a DHCP induced block. Steve has rebooted his router and his access has been restored.--Nick Green (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's main page article[edit]

For Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 22, 2008, since when are birth and death years included in the main page text? I find it odd that they are there. Gary King (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Look halfway up this page, at the "birthh and death dates in TFA blur" section. Raul654 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Search engine optimization[edit]

Raul, can you look at this FAR? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Search engine optimization ... concerned about the post referencing litigation, not sure if the FAR is necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed it. Marskell (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow's featured article[edit]

Hi Raul. I have Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow as my home page, and I noticed there was no featured article there yet. In fact, Wikipedia:Today's featured article and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2008 look a bit bare. I'm sure you know, but just dropping a note off in case. Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing[edit]

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 12:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article[edit]

An article you re-nominated for FA gets on the main page? What a strange coincidence! Ho ho ho. Anyway - I'm here to question the use of "sight unseen" in the lead of Bradley Joseph. I've rephrased it in the article but it's still present in the main page summary. What do you think regarding use of american idioms? A quick google search seems to confirm its US only usage. Do you agree? Good choice on Blue Iguana by the way. Thanks Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confused about how FAC works. When I'm promoting new featured articles and a nomination is too long and convoluted for me to makes heads or tales of it, I'll sometimes restart it - essentially wiping out the previous commentary, and giving the nom a fresh start. I'd say when I'm doing the promoting, about 5% of FAC noms get restarted, but I don't have a horse in the race one way or the other. Right now, the FAs I've written that haven't appeared on the main page are Battle of Dien Bien Phu and Parallel Computing. I've written about a dozen or so others that have appeared at some time or another as the main page FA. Raul654 (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
As for the Joseph Bradley article, I've updated the main page blurb to reflect your changes to the lead. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are two very disparate subjects! Good work on both. I have to say I'm not up to speed on the way FAC works but then again i've been told it's not the simplest of processes to understand. I imagine the articles you've worked on will be featured at some point because i assume we don't get a new FA every day (?). Thanks for the featured article work and i hope my update has been useful. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we get a new FA at least once a day. Gary King (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)