User:Raul654/archive7

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

Contents

Wales has no fixed office?[edit]

Wales has no fixed office? I can understand if his primary phone is mobile, but he does not have an office and desk at the Foundation assigned to him? Most executives need a desk to keep important papers in and stuff. And they have a phone handset. If Jimbo sits in a chair in an office, like President Bush does, and does not rearrange the furniture every week or something, then he _does_ have a fixed Lat/Long, just like Bush. If you do not want to talk about it, I can understand. Normally, you should just say "Let's not talk about that".

Giving an exact lattitude and longitude makes sense for fixed structures -- the Empire State Building, for example. On the other hand, for things that can move around (Jimbo obviously being one of them) is more than a little absurd, IMO. →Raul654 06:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, come on. It's not Jimbo we are talking about anyway. It is the chair that he sits in. Think about it: The President sits in a chair. Maybe the chair has been replaced. But the location has probably not changed in many decades. Yes, decades ago, we did not know the Lat/Long/Alt so precisely. The point is that Technology has progressed and now we do know those values more precisely. It is an entertaining and tangible symbol of Technological progress. If they have real meaning, then the extra digits are only a problem if they make you feel bad.

Think about it this way: Why did I hunt down and document Laura Nickel? On the face it, it was simply because it was on this list. Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years. But that is not the REAL reason, is it? What was my motivation? I found her, I emailed her and let her know of the page existed and asked for corrections. She replied. It was lovely, but why? It was because she represents progress. One person. Progress. There was some quote that I cannot find right now to the effect that Chemistry, at the start of the 20th century had a great ambition: extend the knowlege in the chemical Tables to the fourth decimal place. Not a great, creative breakthrough, but a tangible and ambitious goal that reverberated with some workers.

I'm sorry, but your comments still make no sense to me. "It's not Jimbo we are talking about anyway." - erm, yes it is. The article name quite clearly says Jimmy Wales. Setting aside the absurdity of giving longitude/latitude coordinates in someone's biography, the information itself is inherently inaccurate because Jimbo is not always at that location (he actually travels quite a bit - I know he's been to England, Germany, Israel, and India the last year alone). →Raul654 08:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
(Also, please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end of them)

I was not clear: it is not about Jimbo. It is about the Office. Someday he will leave it and he will move on. The chair will stay there, unless the next guy does not want his cooties or something. They will get a new one, but but it will go that that office. It is a symbol of the whole Foundation and he currently occupies the Office. Am I turning the whole building into a Museum or a shrine? Maybe. Why not? We have the techonology. Maybe Wikipeida is important and historical. We are part of it. Again, we have the techonology. Use it. Enjoy it. It did not come cheap. If you get the chance travel to here: Ontario Science Centre. I liked it when I was a kid. It's cool. It's fun. That is why it is there. Amorrow 08:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:FAC: Astrophysics Data System[edit]

Hi - I see you have just done your regular clear out of successful and failed FACs, and Astrophysics Data System didn't make the cut. Now for the special pleading :) As I see it, there was one unactionable objection, three supports, and a list of objections that User:Worldtraveller is working on (see his discussion with the objector on his talk page: indeed, he has been working on it today). Can this nomination be put back for a few days more, or speedily re-nominated? I think it is pretty good (but then I supported it already). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The article has only been on FAC for a week. Norman Borlaug took over 2 weeks to sort out the FAC objections. I think this one should definitely have more time, especially since the 2nd objection was only posted 3 days ago and is so easily fixed, and the nominator is actively working to resolve objections. -- BRIAN0918  17:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Brian makes a valid point, so I've gone ahead and restored the nom. →Raul654 17:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks. I don't usually second-guess your decisions, since you do such a good job, but for such a deserving candidate... :) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I predict GNAA will take at least a month on FAC before it's accepted/rejected :)  BRIAN0918  18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please give Karada a chance[edit]

I have asked User:Karada to undo an unwise action he took in the past few hours. I do not know his schedule, but I would think that if he undoes what he did in, say, the next 24 hours, then no further action is required. What he did was to rename the page Linda Susan Boreman to Linda Lovelace. It is clear that Ms. Boreman would never have wanted that. That was not the correct thing to do. Use your judgement, and I think that you will see my point. Please visit: Talk:Linda_Lovelace

On second thought, give him 48 hours. One cannot expect adults to fix their own NPOV problems so quickly. I should know. Amorrow 18:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

On third thought, since what he did is completely in line with Wikipedia naming policy, lets just thank him for fixing a problem. Michael L. Kaufman 20:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Please read this page: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/children.html and the next time you are in Japan, could you please stop by the Bank and clean up that messy old smudge? Just get a rag and some Lysol and keeping rubbing it until it is all gone. It will be so much cleaner and prettier then. Then that silly man can be just what we all want him to be: a nip that we nuked. It's got a catchy ring to it, huh? Amorrow 09:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

GNAA FAC[edit]

First, I like to apologize for Brain and Ta bu for causing headaches for the nomination process. Second, I think their nomination of the article is causing problems, since Ta bu was the one who did the last VFD vote, which also caused problems. And since they are objecting to every objection with inactionable, it is really hard for me to even the article. If this article comes up for FAC again, I will let you know days in advance. I also wish to know how long do I have to wait to renominate articles? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I would suggest simply tackling resolving the objections one at a time to the best of your abilities and let Raul make his final decision as to whether you've resolved them, since I highly doubt some of these objections will ever be lifted. -- BRIAN0918  20:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I also tried to contact everyone in question, but some of the main objections, like Ambi, is leaving the project. The references have been pruned, images been copyright-ok'ed, added more sections (though my section about famous members have been removed). Of course, we need time to fix everything and that is why I created the To do list. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You can probably take some of the contents of the Famous Members section and stick them in elsewhere. -- BRIAN0918  20:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What the HELL is going on with that CUPS article?[edit]

What's this stupidity about not allowing a logo on the main page? The image chosen is totally inappropriate so I've removed it. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


Re Plautus satire message to Dieter Simon[edit]

Hi, Plautus, re your message to me, I would just like to put something into perspective here. Your statement in Mask: "Masks are also frequently used in snuff films, to protect identities and prevent prosecution", is rather a matter-of-fact statement, as if it were an accomplished fact. "Are also frequently used in snuff films"...? Can you really point to any facts, that is, verifiable facts here. If you have such evidence, you must be able to cite the sources of such facts. You cannot just make a bald statement such as this. Perhaps it might be beneficial to take a real look at Wikipedia:Cite sources. There are many websites referring to "snuff film" phenomenon, but as for real evidential substantiation, not really. Don't forget Internet downloads, often from news programs of videos depicting murders, are not "films in which people are allegedly killed on screen for the sole purpose of creating a saleable screen artifact", see Mark Kermode. Controversial statements need to be backed up by references.

Having said this, I would however also mention to Raul654 and others, that it is easy to call someone a troll or vandal, revert or ban them, when in fact some good advice such as above to the person concerned wouldn't have come amiss in first place. Was this advice ever given to him? I am also posting this to Raul's talk page. Dieter Simon 23:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

With respect, before giving me advice about how to handle Plautus, I suggest you familiarize yourself with his past wrongdoings. His edit to mask, inserting a fringe conspiracy theory and presenting it as an accepted fact, was the sine qua non in his arbitration case after which he was banned from wikipedia for a year. →Raul654 00:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Raul, I see your point, and I appreciate what you're saying, as well as that you have unblocked him in the meantime. He had asked me by email, whether I could do anything about the blocking, and it was precisely with the point you are making in mind, that I was trying to put the above points to him that one of the important things we as Wikipedians should consider seriously, is that we should substantiate what we write. It would take the sting out of making what appears to be pretty blunt statements which would of course cause problems for all of us, if we were taken to task by critical readers. I have posted yesterday's advice on his user talk page. Many thanks. Dieter Simon 01:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

John Philip Sousa media[edit]

I'm not sure if you were the original uploader or not. If not, please ignore this. The sound files that were previously available have vanished (see Talk:John Philip Sousa). I wonder if you know where they went? To the commons maybe? Mirror Vax 02:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at the first thread on this page. Long story short - they got wiped out en masse along with some non-PD recordings. →Raul654 02:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Air Force recordings are PD, no doubt about that. However, the underlying composition (which is a separate copyright) may not be, if it was composed after 1920 or so. It looks like some of the files you uploaded were pure PD, and some were PD as to recording but not composition. Sousa is definitely PD and should not have been deleted. Mirror Vax 02:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. It was quite clearly a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. →Raul654 02:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wow![edit]

I have my own team of TBSDY explainers :-) Thanks! Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice...[edit]

But you just prompted my response. Go look. Think about that the next time you chomp into a hot dog from 7-11. I had one this evening and it was very yummy. Amorrow 06:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

IRC[edit]

I'll do that then. 6:30-7:30 would probably be the best time. Everyking 08:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That time works for me. →Raul654 08:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I apologize; I went in at 5:30 but didn't see you around. After that I was too busy. Everyking 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Must have been on #Wikipedia Fred Bauder 00:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
That's what I meant, I went into #wikipedia at around 5:30...was I supposed to go somewhere else? Everyking 01:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
No, you went to the right place. Once you went there, I would have invited you into the arbcom channel. →Raul654 01:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, we can always set up another time, although I understand if nobody wants to bother taking the chance again with someone who now has a reputation for neglecting his appointments...I should be able to talk pretty much any time tonight through to early tomorrow morning (I may take a nap, but if so it'll probably be a short one), and then I have work so it'll be some time before I can talk again. Everyking 02:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'm on IRC right now. Come on when you get this message. →Raul654 02:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

DuPont hall[edit]

Yep, I go to UD as well. DuPont, (assuming you don't mean Lamont DuPont) is where User:Rydia is working now with Ahmad in the Envronmental/Civil engineering lab tracking groundwater movements of something. I don't know if you're there in the summer but I might check when I go to see my friend. It'd be interesting to meet a Arbitrator -- they must have special powers. You went to summer college too. I didn't know PhD students got offices... wow. gren グレン 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm in the other Dupont (the one facing Gore hall) - 323 West Dupont. I say west with emphasis because if you go to East Dupont (the older part of the building) you'll never find me - the building is an architecture disaster. I'm there about 2-4 times per week in the summer (although my advisor is out of the country right now; there's an unofficial rule that when that happens, the graduate students can take a mini-vacation). If you plan to drop by, just let me know the day before or I may not be there. →Raul654 17:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

FPC promoted[edit]

Hippo skull dark.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Hippo skull dark.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

-- Solipsist 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend a book to you[edit]

Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson (Ballantine Books, Reissue 1989) ISBN 0345359429

I sent a note to Prof. McPherson, explaining to him how important this book of his became in my life, but he did not reply. I may yet try again. If you have the time, and you have not already done so, please read it. It will increase your understanding of 19th Century military history. McPherson looks down, like a god, upon the battlefield, and some event catches his attention, and the next moment, you are down there with them in the struggle. The ease with which he browses over time and space is breathtaking, as is his profound mastery of the subject. Of course, you already know the ending, so the pleasure comes in vistas that are opened up while you are getting there.

I'm actually in the middle of a (particularly bad) book about the history of Islam right now (rather than a cogent narrative, it's mostly a collection of first person sources). After that, I have one on the battle of Okinawa to read :) →Raul654 00:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


Lend me your ears please[edit]

please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Update and see if it might hlep ,my cause. Gabrielsimon 03:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

EK?[edit]

While I'm happy that this RFAr is going to be solved amicably and sensibly, I was wondering how it pertains to the snide remarks made towards people other than Snowy. Radiant_>|< 12:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

In point of fact, it doesn't -- I asked Snowspinner point blank if he thought EK had a tendancy to abuse other people on the AN, and Snowspinner said no. →Raul654 14:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Debate at Jonathan Sarfati with another admin[edit]

In this article there is currently a huge debate going on about whether this person "is a scientist", which an anonymous user and an administrator, Davidcannon, are in favor of stating, whereas myself and at least two other users are against it. I think we've thoroughly laid out our arguments, but this administrator is starting to piss me off, because he is simply calling our edits vandalism, and he is very closed to discussion: "Please do not delete data concerning his qualifications. I consider that to be vandalism, and will revert it." I'm in favor of saying he "is a former chemist", since he got his PhD in chemistry and did work in that field, but hasn't in 10+ years and is now a creation "scientist", which according to creation science and scientist, means he is not a scientist. My version is much less ambiguous, but the anon and admin are in favor of ambiguity. Heeeeeeelp! -- BRIAN0918  13:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

DualDisc Article[edit]

Hello! In regards to your FAC objection, I expanded the introduction quite a bit. I also made note of the changes on the FAC discussion page. If there's more you think the intro should have, please let me know. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 14:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

As noted on the FAC discussion page, I have now added an inline reference for the legal section as well as a list under the references section. --K1vsr (talk) 19:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Lego-Prosthesis[edit]

For one thing, I'm fairly certain that the use of LEGO pieces in prosthetic hands is highly discouraged by any surgeons. Secondly, the anonymous IP creator of the article (user:192.77.198.12) has removed my speedy delete tags from the article two or three times by now, and made comments on the talk page that say, verbatim, "I wrote this article not you, so I should decide if it stays or goes." Can you speedy the article and ban the IP for disruptive behaviour? jglc | t | c 16:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, want to get together some time before I leave for school? I'll be gone by the weekend preceding the 21st, so within the next few weeks would be good. Leave me one on my talk page. jglc | t | c 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you in the area? I thought you were still at Yale. →Raul654 16:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

University of Delaware[edit]

Thanks for your help in reorganizing this article! --Several Times 17:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. You don't, by any chance, happen to go there, do you? →Raul654 21:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Creation science[edit]

FYI: FuelWagon is about to break 3RR. I don't even understand why he keeps reverting, since we were making progress on the talk page (well, I've been trying to make progress and he has been avoiding it). -- BRIAN0918  20:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


Chicago, IL FAC Nomination[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why you moved Chicago to the archived section of the FAC list. The discussion on the page is still live, as there have been 2 more support votes since it was moved and work is being done to address to the objections, I had even responded to one of them today before realizing you had ended the voting. If we could have more time to work out the further objections it would be very much appreciated. Thanks, --Gpyoung talk 21:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, that page is already too big - waiting for every discussion to die down is unfeasable. I typically give each nom about 5-6 days on the page. If there's no consensus after that (and with the chicago nom, there wasn't) then I will fail the nom. →Raul654 21:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ;-)[edit]

Tehe, thanks Raul. I'm glad to be back, and I hope to get back to work as well. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Done with article disputes[edit]

Alright, I'm done with article disputes. We spent weeks crafting that lead section for Creation science, and now dumbasses are coming along and shitting out their mouths, refusing to listen to any discussion (as well as on Jonathan Sarfati), so I'm just letting you know (because I'm sure you care) I'm unwatching these various articles and letting them go down the crapper. I've got more important things to do at this time. -- BRIAN0918  03:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated[edit]

Re: Stonewall riots Earpol 05:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome :) →Raul654 05:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Homestead, Florida[edit]

+ Hi, I have a guy who's trying to add real estate spam and pov into this article. He's threatening to violate the 3rr rule. Would appreciate help and 3rd party mediation/arbitration. I may be in the wrong here. Thanks.--Muchosucko 20:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Disregard my message. dispute attended to by another admin--Muchosucko 21:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
If you have any more problems, you know where to find me; or, you could try the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, which is a page for reporting such problems. →Raul654 21:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:Raul654/Portraits/[edit]

An anon created User:Raul654/Portraits/ - I thought it best to let you deal with it as you see fit. violet/riga (t) 23:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I've deleted it. →Raul654 00:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Atomic bombing and Operation Downfall[edit]

I am not so sure how to put this but will try. I know that I upset you by reverting your new changes to atomic bombing article and making new ones on operation downfall one. Apparently, we have disagreements, which is not a problem. But my problem is that I just wanted you to be reasonable. (I know you think I am the one who is not.) Please understand that I reverted repeatedly your new edit not because I disagree but because it was a kind of final wording we had reached after some discussion. We need to see what others have to say about your changes and I also think it would be unfair for the past contributors if we leave a new version. Put in another way, we can take some time and I don't think there is a pressing need to rush into a major (I think major) change. The poll at this point doesn't count; I don't know why it is so hard for you to wait to see if you can convince me or not (that yours is better). If not, we can have a poll or whatever. This is why I am not reinserting my edit at operation downfall. I think we can agree to stick to the old versions at least for a while. I want to be reasonable so I need you to be so too. -- Taku 04:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to fight, but your edits are (with respect) flagarantly wrong. On the Atomic Bombings article, for example, you've been reverted by 3 editors besides myself.
The connection between the atomic bombings and the cancellation of the invasion is a rather straightforward one. I've already cited one source on the talk page which illustrates that the Atomic bomb was used in the hopes that it would cause Japan to surrender, and negate the need for an invasion.
Regarding Operation Downfall - I've replied to your comments on the talk page. You are removing what basically amounts to an undisputed historical fact on the basis that "some people disagree". The source you cited does not address the point in dispute ("why did japan surrender?") - it merely offers speculation on what would have happened if the atomic bomb had never been used and the soviets did not declare war. You need to supply a reputable source which says Japan *did* surrender for some reason other than the atomic bomb and the soviet declaration of war. I contend that such a source does not exist. →Raul654 05:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Did you read my above comment at all? -- Taku 00:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I wanted you to know that I reinserted my edit in Operation Downfall. -- Taku 04:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar time![edit]

Raul, frankly, you're deserving of this award, seeing you're always getting whined at by trolls who think you're a mean, unloving, self-centered abusive administrator. Well, let's face it: you're not. You're a mean, unloving, self-centered abusive bureaucrat! Good work, comrade. For your troll-dominating and vandal-exploiting deeds to promote the better good of the people of Wikipedia, I hereby award you the Abusive Admin Barnstar. Wear it with pride! -User:Linuxbeak

Congratulations![edit]

Mark, I am so pleased that you are helping Wikipedia so. I congratulate you for your latest Barnstar. Display it proudly! Amorrow 06:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurray! The War has FINALLY started!!!![edit]

Come on down to Talk:Elizabeth_Morgan! We are having it out there! Fun! Oh my! Amorrow 06:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Grant would be proud of me[edit]

I am sure that they never saw it coming.

I am BEGGING you! tell me what to do! I do not wanna be mean to anyone. Almost anyone.

Amorrow 10:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The Three Soldiers[edit]

Hello. I have uploaded your photo on commons.wikipedia with name Image:The Three Soldiers.jpg --Square87 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I am having so much FUN![edit]

Superm40, Tregoweth, and Nunh-huh. You should give them each a Barnstar or somethin'. Amorrow 06:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark[edit]

I'm sure I'll need assistance.  :) Zoe 06:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang theory[edit]

"In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. Hubble proved that the spiral nebulae were galaxies and measured their distances by observing Cepheid variable stars. He discovered that the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds (relative to the Earth) directly proportional to their distance. This fact is now known as Hubble's law (see Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae by Edward Christianson)."

OK, I'm confused. I think you understand this... galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds (relative to the earth - what do this mean?) directly proportional to their distance (distance from what?) Do you have any ideas? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Speed measurements are relative. If I'm driving down I-95 at 80 miles per hour, and the guy in the next lane over is driving at 75 miles per hour in the same direction, I would measure his speed as 5 miles per hour, whereas a guy on the ground would measure it as 75 miles per hour. His speed relative to me is 5 miles per hour, and his speed relative to the ground is 75 miles per hour.
The second point you are confused about is that the speeds are proportional to the distance from earth. Galaxies close to us are moving rather slowly, while the galaxies farthest from us (those at the edge of the observable universe) are traveling almost at the speed of light (relative to earth). →Raul654 16:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Ah! I have rephrase it as "He discovered that, relative to the speed of the Earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the earth." Feel free to revert if you feel that this is incorrect or less clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The fact remains, Hubble discovered only a relation between Luminosity and Redshift. This was interpretted by others as a relation between 'distance' and 'velocity', solely because at the time there was no other known mechanisms for Redshift besides the 'Doppler' effect. Hubble fought against this poor interpretation of his data all his life, publishing books and papers about what he really discovered and explaining how others used his data wrongly, changing the relation into what is commonly know today as Hubbles law. If you go back to the foundations and compare what he actually discovered with current research in the field of plasma based redshifting mechanisms, his discovery is evidence for an entirely different interpretation of the universe. There is a big difference between a Luminosity/Redshift relation and a Distance/Velocity relation, as the latter is a biased interpretation of what Luminosity and Redshift mean, whereas the former is the actual empirical observation that Hubble discovered, completely independent of bias. At one time, the Big Bang article indeed was worded correctly, portraying what Hubble really discovered and the history behind how his discovery was only later wrongly used by others as 'evidence' for the BB. The removal and rewording of the entire Hubble history is just one reason out of many that the BB article should be removed from Featured status. --Ionized 19:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why the revert with no comments?[edit]

There was a great deal of work undone with a simple unexplained revert on Creation science. I have been attempting to provide a reasonable depiction of a position with which I vehemently disagree (writing for the enemy) because that position was unfairly characterized, IMO, and unsourced. In addition, there is language which states as indisputable fact that CS is pseudoscience, when even ID at least states it as the position of the scientific community. I believe that good science is best defended when it stands in open dialogue. The article, as it stands, presents a strawman depiction of the CS position, and that strikes me as exceedingly bad faith. Would you please at least explain your revert on the talk page? Parker Whittle 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark -- I feel that I was on the receiving end of a rather rude and heedless unexplained revert by you on the Creation science page. One of the editors with whom I was debating agreed that the action you took was inexplicable. I posted the above note soon after that occurred, and there has still been no comment. I believe, respectfully, that this deserves a timely response. --Parker Whittle 15:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted because your edits significantly degraded the quality of the article. In addition to wiping out Brian's introduction (which he spent about a week writing and rewrtiing to get others to agree to), you removed the most important problem with creationism (which is that basically *all* evidence presented by creationists is an attempt to bootstrap flaws in our understanding of evolution into evidence supporting creationism). And, by the way, unlike your version, the one I reverted to was not NPOV tagged. →Raul654 16:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I was well aware of the work that Brian put into the article. In spite of that, his statements remained a gross mischaracterization of the arguments as actually put forth by creation scientists. I have provided appropriate sources for my argument, namely that creation science does not argue that refuting evolution constitutes a logical support for creationism. Instead, CS claims (however wrongheadedly) that since neither the naturalist nor the creationist position can be falsified, it is perfectly legitimate to conduct "science" under the assumption that the bible is a literal depiction of historical events. As yet, there have been no citations disputing my point. In addition to that, I thought that it might be a reasonable compromise merely to concisely state in the intro (with all appropriate qualifiers) what creation science was about, and allow the remainder of the article to represent the details of the controversy. As I argued, the position of science is extremely well represented in the article. Since then, FuelWagon and I reached a compromise where the scientific critique was reinserted into the introduction, according to the "write for the enemy" principle of fairness, as well as the point that the scientific consensus is the majority point of view. Brian was representing it as absolute fact, and that, as I read the NPOV policy, is not appropriate NPOV. Allow me to quote a message[1] left by Dunc| on FuelWagon's talk page:

I too feel that to follow NPOV policy, POVs must be attributed. In this case, that's fine. "Christian fundamentalists think it's science, the scientific community thinks it's pseudoscience because of its violation of basic rules of scientific method" is quite fair, in fact it allows a nice little appeal to authority to slip in. That said, I don't really want to get into an argument with someone who is attempting to represent the mainstream POV, because it just encourages the cretinists. Dunc| 16:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

When I made my edits, I made my position clear: fairness and accuracy with the minority position, solid representation of majority position. Few editors seem to have taken my attempts at face value. Instead, they seem to be arguing around the points I'm making, perhaps under the assumption that I am not operating in good faith. It's understandable on their part -- it's a heated argument where cooler heads rarely prevail.
I'm operating in good faith here, attempting to correct a flawed, strawman representation of CS. I've provided a good defense of my argument, and have seen no evidence disputing my point; only veiled insinuations that I'm pretending. That's an unfair, ad hominem attack. All I ask is that my points be treated with fairness and dignity, and argued directly on their merits (or lack thereof), with adequate support.
Respectfully, Parker Whittle 18:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Flag of India[edit]

Since the flag of India clashes with the anniversary, how about Aug 14th instead of 13th? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. →Raul654 17:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul,
I dont think there is any anniversary on August 14.Though, we have our Independnce Day on August 15.From the article The flag was unfurled for the first time as that of an independent country on 1947-08-15. I would really be grateful if you could make this the featured article for 15th of August. I believe that it would be tough to entertain so many requests but please do it if its possible.TIA Gaurav1146 15:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The featured article is not supposed to conflict with selected anniversaries, which is why the 15th is not an option. In lieu of this, the 14th was the next best option. →Raul654 19:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

You have been blocked for vandalism. Er, OK, not really. ;-) Functc ) 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah, Func, go easy on him! I've forgiven him, can't you?  ;) Interesting thing is that there's no way I could "revert" it, because if I revert it to 2, that means the counter has to go up... to 3! Ah, the conundrum! If a tree claps one hand, is it half full? The Literate Engineer 11:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Haha! You have fallen into my trap! →Raul654 04:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Update[edit]

"I have just lodged an RFA(r) against Alex, and wanted to give you the heads up, given our history together. Oh, and with regards to those rather insensitive comments left on your talk page... totally unacceptable. I've spoken to Lir about it, and I'm sure it won't happen again. Anyway, toodles."

- Marmot

Lucky6.9's adminship vote[edit]

Ed Poor has just removed Lucky's adminship application, stating that he didn't think Lucky made it. I don't really know Lucky all that well, though I did vote in his favour, but when I look at the vote itself, 71 votes in favour, and 78% approval, it looks to me like he made it, or if nothing else, that the vote should have been left open. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a few, beginning with "I quit." This is gotten to the point of utter futility. Thanks to everyone who voted. - Lucky 6.9 00:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the nomination has been reposted. Just got an e-mail. Mark, can ya help a brudder? - Lucky 6.9 00:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. Another bureaucrat has pulled it. - Lucky 6.9 01:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would have promoted. Sorry I'm a bit late getting back (family emergency) →Raul654 02:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing serious, I hope? Nevertheless, I thank you. You have been a pillar of strength for me throughout these last eighteen months or so from the time you welcomed me here. Your support is more important to me than I can express and I won't let you down. I do hope the emergency is under control. All the best, Lucky 6.9 04:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, nothing serious. His water heater broke and flooded the 1st floor of his apartment. He discovered it quickly and nothing was damaged, though, so it's all good. It's just a bit of an inconvience. →Raul654 04:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

Hey there. I just added my statement to -Ril-'s arbitration and I was wondering if you could see if I did it correctly. Never done one of these before. For instance, I wasn't sure if I should make myself an "involved party" or just a third party, and also whether it was okay to add a complaint unrelated to the initiating request. Okay, sorry for sounding stupid, and thanks for your help. Dmcdevit·t 05:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. →Raul654 17:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day[edit]

Hi Mark,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Clivia miniata1.jpg will be up for Pic of the Day tomorrow. You can check the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 11, 2005 — although there wasn't much to go on, so it somewhat pre-empts the article ;-)

Also Image:Split Aloe.jpg will be up on Saturday and, being a weekend, is likely to appear on the MainPage. The caption is at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 13, 2005. -- Solipsist 20:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sweet :) - I've been hoping to see one on the weekend. →Raul654 21:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Une571.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Une571.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Ass kissing not weclomed[edit]

Don't kiss my ass, you allready have made your opinion of me well known, [2]. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ]] 22:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I stand by both statements. While I don't agree with your comments on RFA, I think you've done a bang-up job in your article editing. →Raul654 22:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow[edit]

This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of The Two Babylons, which if you remember was cited as a respectable source by User:Cheesedreams. Would you care to vote on the VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates[edit]

Please have a look at this proposal and comment on its talk page. Thanks.--Pharos 04:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for nicer version of an image.[edit]

Commons:Image:LOC_-_Jefferson_building.jpg is a nice picture, but it tilts a bit. I was trying to use Hugin to straighten out the projection, but the image is kind of small for that sort of manipulation. Do you have an larger, original version that I can futz around with? You can send it to me at my username at gmail.com. Thanks! grendel|khan 20:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

(Replied by email) →Raul654 22:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
That was fast. Damn, you're good. I'll see if I can return that favor... grendel|khan 23:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
It's been updated. grendel|khan 15:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

AI prohibited from CoS articles[edit]

And what is the reason for this based on what? --AI 21:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but arbitrators generally do not comment on on-going cases. We allow people to view the proposed decision as a courtesy. →Raul654 22:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

proposal for FPC[edit]

Raul, just wanted to let you know that I put up a little proposal on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates regarding making it more like Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates in that giving instructions on the page so that regular users can take part in upkeep on nominations that have passed the voting time, as well as listing a concrete time (barring extension for lack of votes etc...) that articles should be listed. As I see it there isn't really a reason why a person would need admin access or anything to do this but I may be wrong and if that's the case please comment on that and/or why it wouldn't be feasible and/or any reasons why it would or wouldn't work. Thanks. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've commented there. I think it's a really, really bad idea. →Raul654 00:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah RFA[edit]

Hi Mark: Since you rejected the Keetoowah RFA on the grounds that it was a one time incident, I apologise for wasting your time with my oversimplification (in a misplaced attempt at brevity). I have now expanded my statement to make the continuing and various nature of the problem more apparent. —Theo (Talk) 23:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Edit Warring[edit]

hello and thanks for your message. I have explained to the user Edwardian that i do not wish my real name to be shown on here. However, he kept posting my name on his talk page, so i was changing it back. He is the reason that i asked my user name to be changed and i thank you very much for this. I do not have any reason to go to any meaningless edit war with that user but everytime he will be writing my real name on his talk page or anywhere else, i will simply keep changing it. --etronic 00:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article Main page date[edit]

Hi Mark. I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) that we document the date of publication to the Main page of featured articles. This would allow a user to easily view the evolution of these articles since their date of Main page publication. Also, I added the Main page date to the talk page of the last four MP/FA's. I'd appreciate your comments about this. Thank you, hydnjo talk 04:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, I don't really think that this is necessary. Almost all the featured articles that have appeared on the main page can we found at Wikipedia:Featured articles (the bolded ones). I mean, if someone else wants to do it, that's fine, but I don't really see a pressing need for it. →Raul654 04:20, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there not a need but rather a strong want. When I read a FA the question of when enters my mind and I often search the history to get some idea of the vintage. If others share this curiosity well then it may be a worthy addition. If I'm the only one well then ... hydnjo talk 04:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, just an observation - if you see a burst of 50+ edits in a single day from a whole bunch of different people, 99 times out of 100 that means it was either the featured article that day or it was a current topic in the news. When I'm looking at old FAs I know I put on the main page but cannot remember exactly when, the edit history is the best way to quickly tell. →Raul654 08:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Not exactly. For example, the Battle of Jutland article achieved featured status on 29 October 2004 but was not published on the Main page until 12 August 2005. My interest is to review the article's evolution since Main page publication, the date that WP gave it major prominence.
Another example of the difficulty in using the edit history as a source is easily demonstrated with the Evolution article. I know you have some familiarity with this artice so see how quickly you can find that the featured date was 4 February 2005 (hundreds of edits ago) and this still doesn't help me know when it was published on the Main page. hydnjo talk 12:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Help me defend Wikipedia noble principles of Consensus decisions by Principled Negotiation, not Tyranny of the Majority[edit]

Bananas is leading a cabal with Blowbite Nate Badd and SasSquat and CarBite and others to impose a Tyranny of the Majority on Truth True Epistemology and Knowledge. They make personal attacks against me. All their comments are ad hominem/poisoning the well type fallacy. They commit the fallacy of conflation of belief and knowledge, two completely different things. This is part of their Obscurantism. They refuse to include my view that the only reasonable thing that can be said about truth is that "Snow is white" is true is redundant in as much as it says nothing more than is said by "Snow is white", so truth is just something that is in accord with an actual state of affairs in the particular case. They started a Request for Arbitration against me. They started an injunction against me to unfairly prevent the minority view from being presented. They block me at the drop of a hat because I am in the minority. Please ban all of these users, so Wikipedia can return to the noble principle of consensus decisions by principled negotiation and no personal attacks. The cabal has others user:Curps user:Jtkiefer McAttack FoolWagon JimWae Byped Canderson7 Essjay Meelar Spangineer CryptoDerk Asbestos BaronLarf Veratien Ancheta Wis WhiteC Ravenswood Asbestos Christofurio Kzollman Gkhan - 207.200.116.203

Based solely on your report, I have banned all of the cabal members indefinitely. Carbonite | Talk 18:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh my God, I'm in the cabal and I didn't even know it! -- Essjay · Talk 09:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Haha he forgot to list me, the only real cabal member. I mean, there is no cabal <.< Redwolf24 04:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Walsh[edit]

Thanks, I was searching for the correct template, wanted to avoid having the criticism rv'd again. I put the warning notice up instead. - Gorgonzilla 19:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Listing articles on the VFD isn't vandalism, so I don't think it's appropriate to be putting that template on his talk page →Raul654 19:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I noticed that the FAC Sealand is claiming peer reviewed status where it seems that it was exposed to peer review for about 12 hours. Is this OK or is someone cookin' the books? hydnjo talk 19:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think there;s anything suspicious going on. He probably put it there, and then realized that peer review wasn't going to be very helpful or something like that. →Raul654 19:26, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I just thought that if that were the case the PR notice would have just been removed rather than substituted with the (misleading?) notice of having been peer reviewed. I'll go ahead and review the article on it's merits then. hydnjo talk 19:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan[edit]

Have a look at what I've added to Surrender of Japan. —wwoods 20:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's extremely well written. I'm honestly impressed. →Raul654 20:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

AIDS[edit]

The AIDS article is rapidly heading back down the sewer, and seems to be attracting more denialists. What should we do about it? --Robert Merkel 23:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yuck. I agree completely. I suggest you revert to the version from early July and whack anyone who tries to undo that revert. →Raul654 00:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Most are actually sockpuppets of Sci guy, like Fred2005 and various IP addresses. JoeSmack (talk) 17:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done so. Do you see anything worth holding onto that was lost in the revert? (I don't...) →Raul654 00:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The version of early July is not as full as the version now being worked on. If we keep reverting back to such an old version, we will lose a lot of new material and definitions being added now. Why don't we try to keep the new version, but lose the denialist propaganda?--Grcampbell 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
THe problem with the new version is that the introduction has again turned into crap, and the references have been deleted. →Raul654 21:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
It is better, and more accurate, than the pseudo-scientific BS that was there before. --Grcampbell 01:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

IndicText template[edit]

I think this template is a very good and useful idea. Please don't remove it from the articles that need it the most! Look at history of the different articles using indic scripts and you'll understand... BernardM 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wario[edit]

How much longer will the FAS process take for Wario? It has more than enough supporting votes. --Fenice 19:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I usually leave all nominations on the FAC for at least 5 days in order to people suffecient time to comment on them. As of this writing, the Wario nomination has been there for 4 days and 18 hours. So, to answer your question - I will probably be promoting it the next time I clear out the FAC. Since I just did it yesterday, it probably won't be for another day or two. →Raul654 20:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

DualDisc Article FAC[edit]

Hi. I noticed that DualDisc fell off the featured article candidates list but still has the template on its talk page. I was just wondering if you were going to promote it or not and when that will happen? Thanks! Cheers. --K1vsr (talk) 02:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The nomination failed. VioletRiga usually handles the failed-nom tagging. Sorry about the mixup. You can always check Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log for the successful nominations and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations for the failed ones. →Raul654 02:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks. Just out of curiosity, what caused it to fail? All the objections were addressed to people's satisfaction... Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 02:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not simply enough to address objections. It failed because no one supported it. →Raul654 02:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Raul's laws[edit]

Raul: I'd like to propose a new law:

The frequency and fervor of any given user's insistence that a cabal exists is inversely proportional to the liklihood said user would be aware of the cabal if it existed.

I'm sure it could be polished a bit, but I think the general sentiment is useful. Your thoughts? -- Essjay · Talk 09:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've added it (you didn't need to ask here, really). Go ahead and polish it up as you see fit. →Raul654 20:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

DotSix Counter-RfAr[edit]

Are you deleting the DotSix counter-RfAr because it consists largely of insulting epithets? If so, maybe a statement in the edit summary to that effect would be helpful. I don't know whether The Donald is actually a DotSix sock-puppet. If he is not, then maybe he has a real question as to why you are deleting it.

Of course, what DotSix would be more reasonable to do would be to submit such a statement as a reply, or to submit a properly worded RfAr that could be either rejected or merged.

Thank you for agreeing to accept the DotSix RfAr. Robert McClenon 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I made a statement to that effect when I first reverted it (and in my block messages). In addition to posting bad-faith RFARs, he's also insulting people on their talk pages →Raul654 18:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


The user accounts, User:DotSix, User:Donald R. Alford and User:The Donald should be terminated. They were created by a despicable imposter trying to pose as yours truly,67.182.157.6 19:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.--67.182.157.6 19:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

date of feature status[edit]

Hi - I'm helping user:Hydnjo figure out how to determine when an article was featured on the main page. I've suggested a google search of the form site:en.wikipedia.org "today's featured article" "article name", which works for finding the date an article was featured on the main page. S/he would really like the date to be available via the article's talk page. What would you think about adding the featured date as a parameter to {{featured}} (procedurally, when adding {{featured}} you'd add {{featured|~~~~~}}). Actually, without changing the template this would work now, preserving the date in the wikisource. Please let me know what you think about this. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If he's trying to tag them all, then he needs to start in the current archive (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2005) and work his way backwards (to February, 2004, when we switched over to the current main page layout). If he wants to find out when a particular article became featured, he needs to go to the talk page history, and look for an edit by me with "{{featured}}" as the edit summary (although I only started doing this last july so it will not apply to some older ones) →Raul654 23:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Going forward, would you be willing to add the date when adding the featured tag? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

I've formed a sort of 'evidence' page for a RfC or maybe a Wikiquette alert (im not sure which is more appropriate) for Sci guy and his sockpuppets. I've yet to file one of these, how would you suggest I present this for maximum effectiveness? JoeSmack (talk) 00:00, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think we may need mediation actually. The talk page has sprung out into personal attacks between "reappraisalists" and "scientists". JoeSmack (talk) 16:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Thanks for the welcome. I'm enjoying the writing and will certainly have lots of questions as I head into unfamiliar areas. I'll take you up on your offer. I work at New Castle County, live in Newark, and have lots of UD connections.

stilltim 02:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments[edit]

I responded on my talk page. Agriculture 08:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please Ban[edit]

I request a ban for User:Agriculture for at least 48 hours. Agriculture 16:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems[edit]

I noticed this at the Wikipedians for Decency VFD page: "Alright, I would just like to admit that I am in fact SchmuckyTheCat, I was put up to this by FCYTravis, A Link to the Past, and Raul654. They wanted me to be a Strawman Sockpuppet on the Big-breasted models pages, because they wished to have them kept, then when they saw this VfD go up, they sent me here. They will deny this vehemently, trust me, I know, but it was then. I guess I will leave this page now. -DavidsCrusader 04:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)." He made the edit at [3]. I thought the VFD was contested enough, but my God, I think it has gone to hell in a handbasket. Sorry for causing a problem at Wikipedia and I also apologizing for maybe causing the death of VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a really easy solution, Speedy Delete the damn WP:WfD, and get it all over with. Agriculture 04:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

stats[edit]

to answer both your question at once: initially, they were based on all hits from only the Amsterdam squids. however, it's now (and has been for a while) based on all hits, since there's a system in place to move the logs around in the right way. —kate

History of South Carolina and WP:FARC[edit]

Sorry to you back to such mundane matters (I hope the beach was good?), but would you mind adding 2p (or 2c) to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of South Carolina. The article was promoted a couple of weeks ago: its the first WP:FAC nomination failed, but it was re-nominated a day or two later and passed; there are now concerns that objections to the first nomination were not addressed. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


FA[edit]

Hi Raul. As our resident expert on all things FA, I though I would ask you a couple of FA trivia/history questions. I've recently added some content to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics page, about mathematics articles which are or were FAs (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics#Featured and former featured articles). There I list four articles (Information theory, Ordinal, Statistics, and Game theory), which are listed in the earliest version of Wikipedia:Featured articles that I can find here: [4], when this list was called "Brilliant Prose". However all these articles were removed from that list on Jan. 19, 2004, prior to the the start of the formal FA removal process, which started I believe in March 2004. My questions are, in your opinion is it "correct" to refer to these articles as "Former featured articles"? And if so then should the "FormerFA" template be added to their talk page and should they be added to: Wikipedia:Former featured articles? For the purposes of the Mathematics Project, this doesn't really matter since the intent is to list articles that used to be though "brilliant", but no longer are. But I was just curious what you think. If all this seems too trivial to be concerned about I'll understand. Paul August 22:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Here's my memory of the timeline. Brilliant prose was started sometime in quarter 2 or 3 of 2003. Anybody could add an article they thought was good to the list; there was no formal process. From November 2003 until January 2004, there was a big vote, with seperate ballots for every BP article. At the end of the voting, most (80%-90%) of the old brilliant prose articles were removed, and the list was renamed and page-moved to Wikipedia:Featured articles (which is why the articles you mentioned show up in the early versions of the article). The formal featured article process started in January or February of 2004.
So, to answer your question - articles that were removed prior to or during the transition should (in my opinion) not be referred to as former featured articles (nor should the template be added). It would be better to refer to them by their old title of Brilliant Prose articles. →Raul654 23:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August 02:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yakov Dzhugashvili[edit]

It's a stub, but I done what you asked. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to Flag of India[edit]

Hi Mark. I noticed that you removed the italics around ad hoc from the flag of India article. I thought that since the phrase is not English, it should be italicised. Am I wrong? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - it is a regular english word (albeit borrowed from latin). My electronic copy of American heritage dictionary says: ad hoc (²d h¼k“, h½k“) adv. 1. For the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other. --ad hoc adj. 1. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose. 2. Improvised and often impromptu. Furthermore, the manual of style section on italics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Italics) makes no mention of italicizing foreign words, which I presume to mean that they aren't supposed to be italicized. →Raul654 04:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation regarding "ad hoc", Mark. I would like true foreign words to be italicised, though. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Foreign words should be italicized, but words that have become assimilated into English are not. Of course, the distinction can be tricky; for instance, I would italicize id est, but leave "i.e." in roman type. As Raul mentions, if the word is in an English dictionary, you're probably safe leaving it without italics. "True" foreign words, and especially phrases, like je ne sais quoi, are best italicized. I agree with the roman type "ad hoc". — Knowledge Seeker 05:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Not being a native speaker of English, that was even more trickier for me. Thanks for the explanation. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rogue Admin[edit]

Raul:

I noticed nobody has called you a rogue admin in a day or two, or accused you of being in the cabal, and I'm afraid you may get lonely without someone saying so. Therefore, I hereby accuse you of being a rogue admin and a member of the cabal: Rogue admin! Cabal member!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled editing. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 06:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a level 6 rogue admin. One more block against policy and I'll level up. →Raul654 06:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

How do I get to level 6? I wanna be level 6! -- Essjay · Talk 02:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the Day[edit]

Hi Mark,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Cleistocactus strausii2.jpg is up for Pic of the Day tomorrow. You can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 23, 2005. -- Solipsist 08:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:FAD and FAC voting[edit]

I realise that the folks from the Feature Article Drive are on their first legs with their project, but I think some feedback about their participation in the voting process may be appropriate. The first article they've put forward as a project article is History of Arizona, which I've already argued on the voting page isn't up to snuff. I do not mean to lobby you here for an outcome on that vote, but I would like to indicate the nature of my objects: research quality and documentation (citation/verifiability). What concerns me is that I see a number of participants from the project voting with comments of the form user "has worked very hard on this article". What I see as a risk here is uncritically supportive voting from project participants because they want the article to get featured because that is their project goal and want to support the efforts of participants. I think this points to shortcomings in their process, as I'm not convinced that they have embedded an adversarial critical function in their project process, resulting in votes that are not the most well-informed or honest criticisms of the result.

There is also the prospect that, although project participants are not exactly conspiring to work as meat-puppets, cheerleaders belong on the sidelines. Voting on the basis of hard work smells a lot like voting on the basis of self-esteem validation and not article content. You'll have to excuse me if I overemphase this point, but, given that social promotion is an abiding problem in American education, I'm tempted to see such a similar dynamic here with effects that may be just as pernicious. In other words: I don't think the way project participants are voting is a considered matter of policy on their part and cannot therefore be construed as deliberate gaming, but I do think it might still add up to that in how it impacts the FAC process. Something to this effect needs to be said to the project participants, and I'd reckon that that's my problem, at least in part. I would, however, argue that, at a minimum, project participants should be required to disclose their participation when voting for a project submission so that there is some basis for evaluating whether the project needs further improvements to their editing process to produce FA-quality articles.

What do you think? Buffyg 11:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd commented on something similar when Chicago was put up on FAC last month. WikiProject Chicago extolled its citizens to vote for the article despite it being of a non FA-standard. My oppose vote was lost amid quite a few supports. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Some further comments made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured Article Drive. Your 2p, Raul? Buffyg 22:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Response from FAD[edit]

In response to these concerns, we are proposing the following:

  1. The Featured Article Drive team will have one vote, made on their behalf
  2. This vote will clearly link back to the FAD participants list

Incidentally, our editing process is quite demanding; we discuss in-depth in our IRC channel what needs to be done, making use of the Talk pages for articles to get other editors (non-FAD) involved where appropriate, and as a bare minimum, all Tasks (on the project page) for an article must be completed; and the article must pass through a Peer Review, with all issues raised by that process being addressed before we permit the article to move to the "nomination phase" of our procedure.

I hope this addresses some of your concerns. If you have any further queries, you are of course welcome to contact a project founder or leave a note on the project talk page. Rob Church Talk | Desk 12:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Daily-article-l[edit]

Hello Raul. I'm really sorry for dumping the responsibility of the mailing list on you for so long- I hope it hasn't been too much trouble. I went to vancouver rather suddenly, which is why I didn't tell yelyos before. I'll be back home tomorrow. I'm assuming that my internet connection should be working again by the time I'm home, but just in case, I'll try to contact you after I arrive.

Warm regards, 24.81.217.220 06:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Frazzy. There's some issues you should know about. The old email address, the one you were using (daily-article-l at mail.wikimedia.org) no longer works (although I'm told by the devs that it should, but it does not for reasons unknown). You have to use daily-article-l at wikimedia.org. I've just sent today's (August 23), so you can take over starting with the August 24 one. →Raul654 06:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nice links[edit]

I have come here to thank you and I reached here after seeing a message on my page about links in your page. I found very useful links. Really nice work. --Bhadani 14:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome :) →Raul654 16:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jean Schmidt[edit]

Raul,
I've submitted my Jean Schmidt article as a FAC (the page is here. I hope to get it featured by September 6, the day she will be sworn in. I wonder if I could ask you to save the date so it might be the featured article of the day on the sixth should my nomination prove successful. Thanks for your consideration. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sure - drop a note on Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article →Raul654 17:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Canonization[edit]

For being a saint.

I knew I should have been by to give you this before, and I'm kicking myself that it took so long, but you need to know you're a saint here, level 6 rogue admin and all. Keep up the great work, we really do appreciate all you do. -- Essjay · Talk 07:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Idw[edit]

Template:Idw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Idw. Thank you.  Denelson83  22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Epigraphs[edit]

I recall there was previous discussion on the use of epigraphs in articles, but I can't find it now, except for somehintg in your talk archive. The subject has come up again on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Introductory Quotations. -Willmcw 23:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance! + I unfortunately found minor problems w/ 2 of 3 of your edits...[edit]

I did reply on both talk pages, the Schiavo one and the Fac one, but here is a reprint:

In reply to Raul654's post on the talk page, right before my reply here, is now recopied here:

OK, Mark, I've reviewed and tweaked all of your edits. After all of the fuss over the lack (or deficit) of a sufficient number of sub-articles, I don't see why you wanted to remove the sub-article box present. Plus, after all the fuss over "article length," I don't see why you like all that white space between the table of contents (left side) and the photo. I fixed both of those. I prefer the Table of contents RIGHT -as Jesus has, but I am flexible and am OK with your preference to put it on the left side. I appreciate your interest and knowledge on the issue, but please make sure your contributions don't remove positive elements and "make the natives restless."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

In short, my summary is as follows:
1 - You made many good edits. GOOD.
2 - You resisted the urge to make a lot of bad changes / deletions. GOOD.
3 - You produced a lot of white space by monkeying around with the table of contents. BAD.
4 - You removed a useful too (sub-article box), which is both useful -AND agreed upon by concensus having long accepted it. BAD.
5 - You prefer the left-hand version of TOC, which could be bad, but I accept it as an alternative, but please note that other articles, at least one (see above) use TOCright A-OK, and no problemo, but I will overlook and ignore. GOOD.

FYI, I have training in biology and Chemistry from Florida State University -double major with honors (Bachelor of Science, 3.310 GPA) and Electronic Technology (Valedictorian with perfect attendance and 4.0 GPA) from what was called United Electronic Institute, and I say this not to brag -but only to assure you I too am educated and disciplined in logic and reason.

I hope you find my edits paletable.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Jarlaxle wants "proof"[edit]

Check out User_talk:JarlaxleArtemis. He wants proof that you/the ArbCom authorized a lengthened block. Mind if you take care of him? Thanks, Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

message rec'd - where shall I reply?[edit]

I got your message in both the edit comments and also the talk page.

Also, I was wondering about your objection to the use of the sub-article box, which you deleted. It should be available for the readers to "see other" sections. Also, i noticed you deleted the large links section. it was the subject of much work, and alomost complete in my view.

How do you address this situation where both the links "sources" section and the info box is useful?

1) If you feel the "sources" section is too large, you might make it a sub-article, where you could "click here to see outside websites," however,

2) the info box, that shows sub-article ("inside" articles) is a wiki finction, and I don't know how to link to an external "info/sub-article" box. Besides, it is small and useful. I think it shoul dstay somewhere.

What do you think can be done to address both concerns?

PS: 3) If I have a brief question / comment to ask you - shall I reply here or in the Schiavo talk page?

Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 02:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply on the talk page. I've just posted a description of all the big changes I've made, as well as reasoning for deletiong the box and the "sources". →Raul654 02:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I had been planning to made a few further improvements to it, but I guess it's OK, and I may never get around to making those improvements since it's not as convenient for me to do the research as it was when I wrote most of it. Everyking 03:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

had problem - need help[edit]

I know you watch the talk page, but here's a copy of such, so you can quicky see it -you can delete it later -no need to archive -anyways:

I was placing links to references, the proper method that Mark taught me, when I came upon a senond link to the SAME Newsweek website. Well, I could have placed the link to the reference, but it would have caused the numbering system to be messed up.

Here's what I mean: There were seven links to seven references -each link had the SAME number to it's reference below. OK, so far.

However, when I was about to put in the link to the Newsweek site, it would have been link EIGHT, but there were only seven references below -because the newsweek reference was already there (It was number ONE), so the number EIGHT link, in the text, [5], which turns into [8], up top in the article, then links to [1] on the bottom, and then the next number in the text (number [9] in the top of the page, in text, that is) would link to a reference on the bottom of the page numbered eight [8].

Therefore, I don't know how to handle this -unless I simply make a "Newsweek2" link just like the first one -but that would be duplicative and take up extra space. I don't know what to do, so I am stopping and asking for help.

PS: I'd rather not monkey with the references section: It's large.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

list by number of featured articles[edit]

Hi - A common objection to Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits is that it can be viewed as encouraging users to compete on edit counts, leading to editcountitis, which really doesn't help wikipedia's overall goals very much. Is there a similar list of users by number of featured article candidates, either nominated or accepted? If people are going to use metrics to compete, it seems we might as well give them one that matters. I'm not sure such a list could be generated automatically, but I might be willing to give it a try (I've been playing with scripts of various flavors). If there is such a list already, can you let me know where it is, and if there isn't can you let me know what you think about the idea of creating one? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no list, and it would be virtually impossible to generate one automatically (unless you implicitely assume that the nominator of the article is the one who gets the point if it gets featured). On the other hand, when this has come up in the past, it's always been a no brainer - Lords Emsworth leads the count by miles and miles (with over 50). I think Worldtravller and Mav are next with around 10 or 11 each. →Raul654 16:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of separately countng both nominations and featured where the nominator gets the "credit" in each case. I think the net effect might be to encourage more nominations (which take work) and, if the ranking is by number of resulting featured articles, also encourage followup required to achieve featured (ultimately resulting in more featured articles, which I think is a good goal). This might tend to increase the activity at WP:FAC. You didn't say whether you thought this was a good idea or not. Yes, no, maybe so? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I really can't see a downside to this. It would hopefully encourage people to who make pointless edit-count-building edits (stub sorting being my personal pet peeve) to make more useful one (like bringing articles up to FA status). As long as someone [else] maintains it, it sounds good to me. →Raul654 01:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I've built a draft, see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. The logs are, let's say, less regular than I'd prefer. I haven't exactly given up on autogenerating this yet, but it's looking to me like it might take a fairly large amount of manual effort to complete and keep up to date. Please take a look and let me know what you think. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
A few things - (1) my count is radically higher than it should be because you are crediting me with lots of noms that aren't really mine (once in a while, I'll renominate an article that was too hard to promote or remove), so my count should really be closer to 8 or 10. (2) The logs are not regular because a handful of featured articles are from the old brilliant prose list (3) Filocht and Bmills are the same person →Raul654 03:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cerebellum FAC[edit]

Thanks for your rapid reponse as well! I agree, there was not consensus. However the two objections were such they seemed to be moving toward supports if given time : the one "oppose" was due to image position, text bolding, citation, and links... very minor things that were all easily and quickly fixed; the "weak oppose" had several points which I addressed. Unfortunately I was not able to address those points until last night. The FAC guidelines state that "if enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived." To me it just seems that 28 hours of silence on my part in addressing the issues, and then only 13 hours for those who raised opposition to respond is not a reasonable amount of time. If this is the standard timeframe, then wikipedia moves a lot faster than I am used to, and I will remember this in the future. On the Featured Pictures Candidates pages, the pictures are given two weeks, and users only have to look at those; no reading involved! :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I was dismayed at your decision to remove the FAC from the cerebellum article. I left on friday for the weekend when the article had 3 supports, when I came back two opposes came in at the end tipping the balance without having a chance to address their issues. I see users Semiconscious and Tony essentially responded to every remark that was made. And still the FAC status was removed, this seems rather biased to anybody who chimes in at the last minute. It is also a great way to discourage new users from making any significant contributions to Wikipedia. Is it possible to re-instate it? Nrets 01:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Per my previous offer to Semicoscious, I've restored the nom to give it a bit more time to 'cook' →Raul654 02:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. I have a good feeling about this one, so I don't think your kindness is for naught. Thank you my friend. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You see! Plenty of support. The folks just needed a spare Monday night, it would seem! :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Nrets 14:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


Raul's laws[edit]

I'd like to suggest another law, but have so far not found a good wording for it. I am talking about the fact that nobody ever is banned or blocked because of extreme opinions, but many (most? all?) fanatics/monomaniacs/POV pushers eventually get banned or blocked on grounds of behavior. (This does not seem to be due to circumventive tactics on the side of their opponents, but to the fanatic's inability to remain within the limits of civilised discourse whe constantly challenged to defend their views.) What do you think? Kosebamse 11:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added a first draft →Raul654 22:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

status Schiavo whipped into shape, but with controversial areas...[edit]

Mark,

you will find that I have whipped Terri Schiavo back into shape, and she is almost ready to come back from the grave and kick Judge George Greer's butt! In case you wondered how I knew how to navigate these seas, these sites will verify that I almost saved Terri's life in my recent court petition. Yes, I went to court for Terri and almost won:

...regarding my recent court battles, in which I lost a "next friend" petition to save Terri's life by a 4-3 margin. I did better then the governor, who lost 7-0 both times he was permitted before the court: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf

  • The most notable area of improvement is the newly added references section.
  • Also improved is the addition of a "see also" section.
  • I added some missing court battles in re the Oral Arguments and corrected numerous spelling, puntuation, grammatical, and factual errors as well.

Areas of controversy still are present.

  • Most notably, a small passage that appears in the Chinese and Spanish wikis, gleaned from an earlier version of the English wiki reads: "The judicial and legislative battles over the removal of her feeding tube spawned considerable media coverage during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over euthanasia, bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights, both in the United States and worldwide." That is factual -uncontroversial -straitforward, and even boring, but it had rubbed some anti-Terri folks the wrong way, with them claiming it was somehow POV or something, so be aware of this. FuelWagon and Neutrality were the major critics, but a recent vote on the issue Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive32#Distinguishing_one_dispute_from_another here was 4-2 in favor of some version of that passage.
  • Also, there has in the past been opposition to me listing any links to stories that I have written. You know that the Wikipedia policy discourages vanity linking, but it does not outright prohibit it. In a few cases, I found that The Register, the paper I used to manage, was the only news media to appear at some Schiavo court functions, and so indicated in the edit comments when editing, in case someone is curious, but the items need to be included.
  • Lastly, less lentient, but still important in the world of "vanity" is the fact that I also wrote commentary that stands up there with the other "blogs," and it should probably be included in the "outside links," so I am making my request for you to look this over when I expand that "outside links" section. OK?

Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 15:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Jean Schmidt[edit]

Raul,
Thanks so very much for your help with the Jean Schmidt article. I did a bit of editing on the text for the main page, changing it to reflect that she's to be sworn in on the sixth, the day it's to be featured, giving it a bit more immediacy. I left the article itself alone for the moment. Again, thanks for featuring this on our front page. PedanticallySpeaking 16:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Protect Request[edit]

per my prior post, I request a protect request on Schiavo while we all can look over the disputes. You are welcome to review the page before you protect it: Maybe I inserted something objectionable that needs to come out before it is protected.

by the way, the page -at my last edit (before Wagon removed a small section) was ready to be a featured article candidate AND a featured article -not just a candidate. "Protect Request"--GordonWattsDotCom 16:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I maybe should reduce my "Red Alert" here to a Yellow Alert because things seemed to have calmed down (maybe Schiavo doesn't need to be protected -yet) The article continues to improve -and is good, except for any (possible?) image copyright issues; I think that length notwithstanding, or mabey BECAUSE of the length, the Terri Schiavo article is excellent.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you so much for processing my username change!! Happy, happy! :-) - Pete C 23:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

username change![edit]

hey, thanks alot for chaning my username. means alot to me! CrazySunshine 23:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways - FAC problem (too little attention paid to it)[edit]

I have nominated the article for a second time due to the fact that it didn't get a lot of votes or comments (the first time it got one comment and one support vote). However, I have a feeling that this article might get the same amount of attention, if not less, as the first FAC attempt. Do you have any suggestion for this problem? Thanks. Pentawing 23:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry to bother you on this, but can you suggest anything for the problem? Thanks. Pentawing 01:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is, unfortunately, not the first time that this problem has occured. (Johnleemk nominated Smile (album) 3 or 4 times before it got enough supports that I was confortable promoting it) There's no magic bullet. Normally, after 5 or 6 days on the FAC, I'd fail that nomination, but I can sympathize with where you coming from, so I'll leave it up there a bit longer than I normally would. Also, you might want to drop a message to user:Taxman or user:ALoan on their talk pages asking them to take a look - I particularly value their opinions. →Raul654 01:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

W00000000T![edit]

<3 Iron Maiden.


This message was pointless...


Redwolf24 (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

WikiThanks.png Thanks for changing my username. I would add a barnstar but "Secretlondon" claims I do it for bribery. V. Molotov (talk) California state flag.png 14:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, who cares what someone that arrogant thinks.

I, User:V. Molotov hereby give you this Working Man's Barnstar. as you are always willing to go the extra mile to help Wikipedians.

Working Man's Barnstar.png

Take care,

V. Molotov California state flag.png


20:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"see also" is deprecated?[edit]

I noticed this in an edit comment from you on Terri Schiavo. I don't see any reference to such deprecation in Wikipedia:Manual of Style, nor in the associated talk page. I'd be grateful if you could point me to the relevant discussion - it sounds like important reading. Hv 23:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I don't remember where I first read it. The logic behind it is that if it's sufficiently relevant to merit a mention, it needs to be in made as a prose statement (and not a list); if it's not worth making a prose statement, then it's not worth mentioning. →Raul654 23:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
(chiming in) I think sometimes "see also" can be quite useful to highlight a broad article on a related topic, even if it's linked to in the article, but it can also be quite overused as well when linking to more trivial or overly generic things.--Pharos 23:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I'd have to say they certainly can be valuable. I think there are plenty of situations that don't warrant discussion in the article because it is simply not high enough on the priority list to make it in, but the topic is related or similar enough to be valuable as a see also. For ex, something that is covered in a sub article. It's especially valuable for developing articles and less so for FA quality I suppose. For ex, every non fully developed article should have see alsos to every important related topic that is not yet fleshed out in the article. Sorry for the butting in, but I wanted to voice my support of them. Anything that increases the connectedness of the encyclopedia is valuable. - Taxman Talk 02:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
"...if it's sufficiently relevant to merit a mention, it needs to be in made as a prose statement (and not a list)" It was a prose statement, one that you had approved, but recently FuelWagon has removed that vital introduction: this diff here, the Revision as of 17:15, 30 August 2005. You also may have later removed it, but I don't recall. However, when it was removed and all efforts to restore it were resisted, I put the relevant info in the "See Also" section. I am the one who created that section, and this was the reason why: Relevant related materials should be somewhere in the article. You recall that I left you a message here about this very topic, but the Ghosts of the past now haunt us, because I received no support for this particular repair of the article, back to it's uncorrupted state.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard[edit]

Mark, I have created a new project page at [[]], and user:SecretLondon suggested that I tell my fellow bureaucrats about it. It's designed as a forum where users with bureaucrat rights can discuss difficult situations, either beforehand (for advice about what to do) or after taking action (for review and feedback). It's similar to another page I created, which is starting to catch on (e.g., Jimbo used it this month): Wikipedia:account suspensions, which is not for 3RR or simple vandalism but for close calls and disputed blocks.

Please take a look at these new project pages and give some feedback. Good idea? Bad? Needs improvement? --Uncle Ed 11:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Per some of the comments on the talk page there, I'm not really sure it's necessary. →Raul654 22:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar School[edit]

This article's nomination has lingered in limbo on the Tomorrow's featured article suggestions page since July 20. I figure there must be a reason why it hasn't yet been featured, and this doesn't bother me too much (I could probably guess the reasoning), but if you could give me a quick explanation as to why it hasn't be featured on the Main Page and whether it is likely to be I'd really appreciate it. Don't worry, I'm a realist :) Thanks. Harro5 11:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Harro - I actually owe you an apology. I've been meaning to discuss this with you. Long story short - I am unsure whether or not to put that on the main page. People complained when we featured a Vanilla Ninja on the main page in July. I think featuring Caulfield_Grammar_School would cause a (much larger) uproar. Also, I think it would also exacerbate a lot of the tensions surrounding VFD, as well as causing a similiar balkanization on the FAC. →Raul654 19:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks for the explanation. I figured some people would get pretty annoyed if another school was featured (eg. feedback: "I went to South Philly High and why isn't it on the main page?" "Yeah, what about my school? It's got an article.") Anyway, I can still have it featured on the Schools Portal and it's still a fine benchmark for other high school articles. Feel free to remove it from the Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article page if you like. Just drop a note in the edit summary linkiing to this conversation if you wouldn't mind, so others know the reasoning. Thanks again. Harro5 21:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fairuse[edit]

I was wondering, can we use AP Images under the pretext of fair use, or are AP images a no-no? Also, I tried creating an ap templete sample, which can be viewed here, and I was looking for some input on whether or not it would be a good idea to use this. TomStar81 00:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule when it comes to fair use - it always depends on the specific circumstances under which you use the copyrighted picture. There's a checklist somewhere that you might find useful (it asks you questions and you use the answers to judge whether or not your use if fair use). However, I am not sure where it is. →Raul654 15:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
What about creating the ap templete? Do you think thats a good idea? TomStar81 19:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so. Quite frankly, I think the last thing we need is yet-another-template. →Raul654 19:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
So frank. So Honest. Why can't everyone by more like you? OK, I I'll scrap it. Thanx for the input. TomStar81 19:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

what now?[edit]

I saw your old comments on the Schiavo page:

  • Object strongly. Here's the short list of what's wrong with the article: TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming, the article has no introduction, it has no references section to complement the inline linking, it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted), every image used in the article is fair use, and it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles. →Raul654 04:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

And the only thing that remains regarding the fitness of the article is your concerns that all the images are fair use. If it would be helpful to get a photo of the grave, I would like to know: I rarely go to the Tampa/St.Pete/Clearwater area of Florida because it is distant and unfamiliar, and (especially considering price of gas), my 1984 Chevy Monte' Carlo doesn't want to make the trip --not counting costs of camera, film, and developing + scanning to upload the image(s) at a Kinko's copy. (I don't have a scanner.)

Costly. Time-consuming. Stressful. Necessary?? What now?--GordonWattsDotCom 15:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is still unbelievably long, it has no copyleft compatible pictures, and the external links section is a mess (also, the titles of the references are capitalized, which is a terrible style, IMO) →Raul654 15:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Article length: I addressed that, here, in the Fac talk page, by comparing the article to another article of good quality.
  • Copyright-compatible pictures: I will meditate on this further. It has two sides to it, namely (a) that we are following "Fair Use," and are OK; and (b) that we have "higher standards" for a Featured Article, and must strive to get as little of Fair Use as is possible. (I will think on it...)
  • "the external links section is a mess" Huh? I don't understand.
  • "the titles of the references are capitalized" Yes, they are, in some cases, because they were capitolized in the original; I am merely being faithful to reproduce what is in the original, but I am "neutral" on the format used. "Either way is OK," that is, we can either display them "as in the original," or we can "make them look 'normal' by using standard capitolization.
--GordonWattsDotCom 16:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite DYK, but. . .[edit]

Hey Mark, if you get a chance take a look at Pancho Barnes and Happy Bottom Riding Club. I found several interesting facts for these articles, but, alas. . . these are not brand new articles. Could some factlets nevertheless be featured somehow? Or is there a way to get these pages some extra exposure short of FAC? (smile) --avnative 19:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to try wikipedia:Peer review, which is an optional step prior to the FAC. →Raul654 22:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

DEAR GOD! MY EARS![edit]

Okay. Image:Marriage_of_Figaro.ogg has to be one of the worst renditions of this piece that I've ever heard. I'm not a huge Mozart fan, but I do enjoy that piece, at least I used to... now, I will never get the mental image of ninja squirrels playing kazoos out of my head. I'm convinced that a half decent rendering from a midi file would be preferable... or maybe I could sorta drum it out in my kitchen using a cheesegrater and a spatula. --Gmaxwell 10:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Beggars can't be choosers :)
It might not be the best, but it's the best available for our purposes. →Raul654 17:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Request for information of Image:Smith chart.jpg[edit]

Hi, Raul654. I request for licence information of Image:Smith chart.jpg because following:

  • Smaller version made by MediaWiki's graphic resize engine is copied to ja.wp.
  • I thought to copy Image:Smith chart.jpg to commons and delete ja.wp local version.
  • But Image:Smith chart.jpg is now {{unverified}}, so I can't copy to commons.

--ja:PiaCarrot 12:18:59, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

I remember extracting that picture from a PDF file, but I cannot remember the source. I have been meaning for some time to replace it with the one from the german wikipedia here →Raul654 17:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for information. de:Bild:Smithdiagramm0.PNG seems licensed under GFDL, so I copied it to commons:Image:Smithdiagramm0.PNG. --ja:PiaCarrot 00:07:20, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Memo[edit]

I left a barnstar at my old message on this page in case you might miss it.

V. Molotov California state flag.png


20:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Good job, unthanked one![edit]

Raul, I think that you and Fred are doing a good job on arbcom. It is indeed a thankless job, even more so than medcom.

I appreciate the good advice I've gotten from arbcom members about how to be a better admin / bcrat, and I admire the wise and sensible decisions you and all the others have made to settle disputes.

I intend to help you out more in coming months by devoting more attention to the medcom, so incidents don't "skip steps" in Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Uncle Ed 23:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ed :) →Raul654 02:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy theories[edit]

Mark, if you look at the article you'll see that almost all of the Jewish/Israeli stuff is now duplicated. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is some redundancy now. Unfortunately, that was the inevitable result of collapsing 3 conspiracy articles together. They need a very hefty copyedit now to cure that. →Raul654 03:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Most of images are now NOT "Fair Use" in re Schiavo[edit]

Mark,

In case you missed it, I fixed the problem on Schiavo by ensuring that MOST of the images (well over 50%) are NOT "Fair Use" by replacing the offending image, and, in it's place, using several others.

(I prove that these are MY images to release under GNU Free Documentation License, by going to special efforts to include a few "extra" pictures depicting me or a sign with my name on it --next to Terri's grave or her former hospice home. That was very hard. Of course, these pics are not useable for the article itself, but they are **mandatory** if someone wants to verify whether or not I stole some pictures under "Fair Use," and I verify my claims on the image pages, as I am required to. What else now, eh?)

I did my part, and accordingly, I posted a message to your friends, Violet Riga, at this permanent link, responding to his recent edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violetriga&diff=22595846&oldid=22595787#Our_editors_have_addressed_your_Fac_editor.27s_concerns._What_gives.3F

--GordonWattsDotCom 04:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody Believes You, Raul[edit]

You slandered me in 2004 by calling me a "troll" and saying that my articles were "far from original". Oh, and I well remember how you "entitled me to my opinion". Let's see, "political correctness is something I despise" and your reference to my supposed "PC pushing" show how tolerant you were of me. Sure, Raul, my only problem with a link to a deviant site solely focused on a private area of Jennifer Love Hewitt's anatomy is that it's "provocative". I'm sure that old close up of Kylie Minogue was really essential for the article to be informative. Oh, and it's also perfectly fair and certainly not a POV to list women's "measurements" but not men's. C'mon, you don't seriously believe this nonsense? I edited out unprofessional, biased garbage from some articles and you lied about me for it. As I said before, if you have a sister, would you want her written about or photographed in that way? People on Wikipedia know too much about this stuff, Raul, so give it up. Case closed. Felix Frederick Bruyns 05:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

First, regarding the "far from original" comments, I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't believe I ever made such comments. (If I did, I apologize). I did call you a troll, which might have been a mistake, in the sense that your actions were misguided-but-well-intentioned (well intentioned, I think), whereas a troll's actions are misguided-and-ill-intentioned.
Second, you should be made aware that Wikipedia may contain content you find objectionable, and that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. These are not negotiable. If you find you cannot work within those principles, then you should rethink your participation in this project.
Third, you might also want to rethink your tactic of ranting against the people you had bad encouters with last time. It seems to me that you are trying to settle old scores. This will lead to conflicts with long-time users (that, given the facts of your case, you will most likely lose). These are users who are, contrary to what you probably think, not out to get you. I suggest you try editing articles for a while (without, for that matter, resorting to the censorship behavior that caused all the problems last time).
Fourth, I note that your recent work on articles (like your work last time) has been rather good. Amaturish (in the sense that, from reading them, it's clear that you are unaware of our prefereces for formatting) but with the potential to get better. →Raul654 05:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

First of sorts[edit]

As you know, I want to gun for the dual status FL-FA. Since your the F-Dir, please do let me know the % of prose required for the article to be counted as FA material. Thanks. Awaiting yr response. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

There's no real hard and fast number. When I sit down and look at a featured article, I don't expect to be bombarded by lists (which don't really meet the "Well-written: Compelling, even "brilliant" prose" requirement). If I had to pick a rule of thumb, if more than a third of the article is lists (this includes references), then I think there's a problem. →Raul654 06:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try and expand the article and submit it for your approval. The list in this case could be essential to the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Your POV Bias, Not Mine[edit]

I didn't "censor" Wikipedia in the sense of imposing a point of view on it. Writers like you write everything with a biased point of view. Furthermore, you didn't mention the fact that some very mainstream users agreed with me about the Hewitt and Barrymore articles. Nor did you address my specific points about the blatant POV in those articles. Do you mean to tell me that the Jennifer Love Hewitt link wasn't a POV? Or that if I opposed that vile photograph of Kylie Minogue I was opposing vital information? Are you affirming my sarcastic remarks about the "measurements" bias? Oh, and I'm not trying to "settle a score" with you, Raul. You made dishonest comments about me on the administrative noticeboard. Otherwise, I would have left you alone, period. As a matter of fact, I had just written to Robin Patterson "To Raul654's credit... he has stayed silent.". A few minutes later I found your noticeboard comments. The fact is, Raul, that you'll have to face it: It may be unconscious, but you have the bias, you have the agenda, you have the point of view. Obviously, you're not alone. I can honestly say that if I went through ten articles on certain subjects I could find ten genuine libertarian points of view in each one. If I tried to impose my point of view on Wikipedia (actual censorship, by Wiki's definition), an article on Minogue would focus almost exclusively on her early years and lament the recent ones as tragic exploitation, an article on Barrymore would focus on her terrible childhood and express how that caused her later behavior and an article on Angelina Jolie would emphasize her mental problems and how the ruthless Hollywood machine has profited from them. Those, in fact, are my points of view. But I would NEVER try to change Wikipedia articles to express my points of view. I would suggest that you look over some conventional encyclopedias and compare them with Wikipedia. You will see that all I did was make some Wikipedia articles more like their articles (i.e. without a point of view). I will be honest with myself. I do have a hot temper. Now you be honest with yourself. You do have a bias. Perhaps it isn't conscious, but it is a bias nonetheless and I would ask that you not describe any opposition to it as "censorship", which is a very serious charge on Wikipedia by the official definition and something in which I never have and never will engage. Felix Frederick Bruyns 06:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a rule of thumb you should start applying - more facts are better than fewer facts. If you find yourself removing true information from article on the basis that you think it's "POV" or biased (like you did here), then you're probably in the wrong. →Raul654 06:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Absurd Logic[edit]

If I applied the "more not less" rule, if I were writing an article about a celebrity, I would include every bit of tabloid material (so long as I could confirm it) and if I applied the "true information" part of your response, anything that anyone ever did would be equally relevant to an encyclopedic article. Again, if you want a "rule of thumb", read Britannica, Encarta, Compton's or any other more conventional encyclopedia and see if they do it. If they don't, then it's probably in the wrong. As for the Cary Grant article, all I did was remove some disgusting story that was irrelevant to his overall biography and was unprofessional, if nothing else. That was perhaps the least of my complaints, however, and you still haven't addressed what I said about Minogue and the women actors. Felix Frederick Bruyns 07:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC) ==User Talk Damage== Since you probably dislike me anyway, I know that you won't hold back if this is true. A user named Knowledge Seeker says that I am somehow damaging other people's user talk pages (something about pressing the "enter" key when I shouldn't). Am I causing misalignment on your user talk page? If I am, it's not intentional. Felix Frederick Bruyns 08:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for this. I feel flattered. Kosebamse 10:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome :) →Raul654 05:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

Mark, as part of my involvement with the asthma article (that you've graciously promoted to FA, thanks) I've been reading the various FA processes and policies. It seems pretty apparent that you're doing an enormous amount of work here. Appreciation of good work is not as often expressed as it ought to be, so I just wanted to say thanks for a job very well done. Rgds—encephalon | ζ  10:19:44, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories articles[edit]

Hi Raul. I completely agree with your massive merge the various 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. However, please see 9/11 U.S. complicity theories, especially the history [6]. There are a handful of editor trying to eliminate the mention of the term "conspiracy theory", leading to an extended period of page moves and a huge number of redirects (and double redirects). I'm not sure how much luck you'd have dealing with this, but I'm out of ideas. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

featured article lists[edit]

Hi - Per the thread above (new topic so you don't have to figure out why "new messages" showed up), I've posted lists of featured articles by year (Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003, 2004, and 2005) and a revised version of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. The list by nominator can be automatically generated from the by year lists, which were partly generated from the FA logs. I noticed in March 2004 mav (and some others) added the featured tag on a whole slew of articles which I've listed as having been "nominated" in March 2004, even though they don't seem to have been done that way (and a relatively high number of these have been defeatured as well). I don't know the history of what happened then. I also haven't listed (can't find) nominators for about 100 or so of the articles. Please let me know any comments you might have on any of this. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty nifty :)
To answer your qustion directly, not all featured articles went through the FAC. Check out my response to Paul's question from a couple weeks ago for more detail here.
The edits you are talking about in March 2004 was mav going back and retroactively tagging featured articles with the then newly-created {{featured}} tag. →Raul654 21:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit[edit]

Hello - as you requested on the article's talk page, I've expanded the lead section of Quatermass and the Pit to include some details of what the serial is actually about. I hope it's what you're looking for - if not just drop me a note and I'll have another go. Angmering 19:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


Pic of the day[edit]

Hi Marc,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Wfm stata center.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Pic of the day on the 9th September. I've reused the caption from last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 9, 2005 (nice one by the way, but then I'm biased towards architecture...). -- Solipsist 21:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken.[edit]

you are the one that is mistaken. please read the policy guide lines and take some time to think about what a wiki is and what is required to get along with tohers and work cooperatively. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, since you claim that such a policy exists, please cite it (with specificity). I want to see exactly where it says that a vote is required in order to merge two articles. →Raul654 21:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
then read it. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Which policy? You haven't actually answered my question. Please provide a link to said policy that you claim exists, that requires a vote in order to merge articles. →Raul654 22:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am protecting the page from vandalism. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm reporting you for violation of the three revert rule, and unprotecting the page. →Raul654 21:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Raul, after listening to Sasquatch's outside opinion, I am going to unblock User:Kevin baas, provided that he not edit any of the disputed pages. I feel that this is a good example of following WP:IAR; I don't see the need to keep him blocked for 24 hours as long as he doesn't touch those pages. I urge both of you to reconsider your options next time and not become locked in a bitter revert war. Sound fair to you? Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

Hello Raul. As the guy with power to loose and to bind on FA noms, your opinion would be especially valued at Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold_in_updating_pages#Poll? JDG 23:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeez, well that backfired. Would you take a look at the poll again and reconsider in light of my comment inline with your vote? JDG


Be Bold / FA changes[edit]

Can I ask you to pull back that change to "Be Bold" for the time being? The guideline is applicable to an outgoing, heated editing dispute that's led to an RfC, and user:JDG, who solicited your input, has been trying, for the second time this year, to change the guideline while a dispute to which it applies is running. That's why the page was protected and poll begun. Monicasdude 01:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was protected. I've gone ahead and removed it and posted a comment on the talk page to that effect. However, if no one actually disagree with the change in 24 hours, I'm going to unprotect the page and add it back (and consider the dispute resolved) →Raul654 01:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's 24 hours. Is Mdude's objection going to keep you from adding it back?... His characterization of the situation is of course completely misleading. The page was protected due to his never-ending revert warring. In case you don't know, this user has been causing severe problems for many other editors since he registered this name last May. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Monicasdude. Also, I would like to know what is wrong with soliciting input. You make the same error on the RfC, Mdude. You seem to think there's something underhanded about alerting people to a dispute, with a view to getting their opinions. There isn't. JDG 03:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

Thanks for your compliment, I really appreciate it. You do great work too. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool[edit]

Congratulations on being made a bureaucrat! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools#Navigation_popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Raul654/archive7/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 02:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Suburbs of Johannesburg[edit]

Hey there, sorry to bother you, but I was just wondering if Suburbs of Johannesburg could be promoted off the FAC. It has three support votes and one inactionable oppose, and has been on FAC for nearly 20 days. Thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 18:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism[edit]

You seemed to have rather strong feelings and notability and the complete lack-there-of so I figured you might want to partake in voting if not the debate. If not ignore this. gren グレン 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Schiavo Fac nom.: I told you so[edit]

Mark, (and I shall cross-post it to Violet Riga’s page -and the Schiavo talk and nomination pages)

As the Terri Schiavo nomination was being considered, I hinted (and may have outright said??) that its nomination would actually increase stability (even though you thought that the article was indeed moderately stable at some point).

However, the lack of nomination has de-stabilized it. All out edit warring and a PAGE LOCK has now occurred. ~~ I told you that the article should have been nominated -and accepted -I told you so. (No offense meant.)

Here, to prove my allegations that the "Front Page" status would stabilize it are these diffs:

In these diffs, the creation of a new template to handle this problem has been suggested and -even after much exposure -not opposed -and why should they be? Since it is fair to "lock" images on the front page, why not articles as well -to avoid, for example, pornographic or foul language vandalism.

Anyhow, I wanted to give the article time to be reviewed, but now I regret my decision to wait: It was ready for Fac status, but now it is sliding in the opposite direction -and the edit warring was due in large part to FuelWagon, who has, in the past, opposed clear concensus -and, yes, I provide the diffs to verify my allegations.

The page is locked, and (other than one over-worked admin who has a second job AND college classes), NO HELP IS IN SIGHT.

I made blood sacrifices (literally, due to the energy/stress expended) to obtain a relevant "references" section and non-Fair-Use images and clean up the article.

This problem happened on your watch: Help.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My proposed solution:[edit]

  • My proposed solution would be to do this, and in this order:
1: Re-Nominate Terri Schiavo, a sentiment shared by many.
2: Feature it as a Featured Article.
3: Lock the images with the existing tools.
4: Lock the article with "Gordon's Tool," the newly created template, shown at the diffs above.
5: Grab a cold one, most preferably non-alcoholic, and relax for a well-earned rest.
--GordonWattsDotCom 23:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you remove the vfd on Sam Sloan[edit]

Unless there is some other process..., could you remove the vfd on Sam Sloan? It seems that the "keep"s won. User:PhilipO sez that only admins are supposed to remove the vfd.

Terri Schiavo FAC[edit]

Gordonwattsdotcom renominated Terri Schiavo for FAC. It's protected due to edit warring, which means it definitely going to fail. Please remove it- it's only going to end really badly. I'm concerned that tempers might flare. Borisblue 17:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Boris Blue means well, and there is a strong sentiment against Terri Schiavo, but please take note of the fact that nomination was not my idea at all -it was the idea, principally of Neutrality and also to an ancillary degree, others -and this was back in the 1st and 2nd peer review. The article had improved then -and it had improved even more with the combined efforts of your editing, my various contributions, and help from others, such as Fuel Wagon and Ann Heneghan, etc.
While I know you want to bend to peer pressure, doing what is right and not accepting nonactionable requests, is more important -principal.
If you and the wiki-gods want to delete my nomination, even though Nichalp has assured me that it is policy to let me nominate (hinting you would violate policy), I will not make "legal" arguments, only common sense ones:
If you want to do what is probably wrong and not feature an article that was good and is now better, I will not vigorously oppose you -so long as you and the colleague decision-makers review the evidence I've laid out in my rebuttal.
I get a rebuttal, don't I -or is life really unfair?--GordonWattsDotCom 19:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Girl page layout edits[edit]

Hi there -- can you please explain your recent edits simplifying the page layout on girl? Is there a style guide that I'm not aware of that advises against efforts to reduce wierd-shaped white spaces? Thanks in advance for helping to educate me as a relative newcomer. Mamawrites 22:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your solution didn't look bad in my browser actually, but (as a general rule) you want to avoid html and complex table layouts (like you had) because (a) they tend to break on some browsers, and (B) while they might look good on Wikipedia, they tend not to transfer well to other wikis. →Raul654 00:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Xenu space plane.jpg[edit]

Something very strange going on with this image's coming's and going's. A couple of us tried several times and thought the problen was fixed, it isn't. The image is intermittently on the Main page, Article page and edit previews without any edits going on. At first there seemed to missing end brackets but that all seem in order now. Any ideas? hydnjo talk 04:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Almost certainly an issue with the image server. Give the devs some time to iron it out. →Raul654 04:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Fine, it was getting frustrating. I'll leave it be. Thanks, hydnjo talk 04:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure there's nothing you can do about it, so there's little sense in getting frustrated. →Raul654 04:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Main page lead-in[edit]

Needs to be changed to reflect your latest edit to the article. Although space opera is bolded "Scientology" precedes it and will no doubt be the article link first picked by some (me). hydnjo talk 04:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't me - that was actually Lowellian who made that change. I have reverted and told him basically what you just said - that the first linked term needs to be the featured article. →Raul654 04:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

YELLOW Alert: Main page img blank[edit]

Mark,

I'm keeping your pg on my watchlist, I nocice the front page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page here has a blank image for the Scientology plane, and since you're the admin apparently involved, I am giving you the heads up. (PS: A lot of people think Scientology was involved in Terri Schiavo's death, but I hold no opinion, since I don't know for sure, what a coincidence, hmm.)

Anyhow, on the Schiavo matter, thx for keeping an open mind; If you want a "Natural buzz," just read the Schiavo Fac page twice -I'ts picking up SUPPORT vote(s) as we speak.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

About the blank image - look up two threads, at hydnjo's comment and my response. →Raul654 04:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not expert, but the "HTML" "wiki" code on the front page looks ok -thx for the response, and good luck & buen suerte.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: In addition to the building support (not that it makes a difference) in my FA nom., please be advised that at least one user has admitted to not having studied the Nominations page before voting!
  • Ow! Here's the diff: [7] (Revision as of 05:06, 10 September 2005). Cheers.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on the main page for Fac[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&diff=22962113&oldid=22961898

Is this appropriate?

1st: If there is sporadic opposition like there is now, even though there are beginning to be positive votes and positive reviews -and people working on fine details -should a candidacy be prematurely removed?

2nd: If the Schiavo nomination should fail, I would like an explanation from you, because you are the decision maker here, not the other editors: If their votes are non-actionable (that is, already addressed or nonsense), then you can and should ignore them. You bear responsibility for your decision, not the others who are voting on this:

  • If you feel that concensus should be followed here, please tell me so
  • However, if the Fac nomination by you is made on merit, then I would like to know the specific reasons for failing it -Pack Mentality does not count, unless you are bound by rules to follow the pack (concensus), but if that is the case, I would like a cite on the Wikipedia policy.

I am sure this must be trying to you, but view it as a "test" of your skills: Since ALL of your objections have been answered in the re-nomination (Eg "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status"), then I would expect, to be fair, either a Featured Article -or an explanation.

Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 08:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to Girl![edit]

WikiThanks.png An Award
For your contributions to the CotW focusing on Girl in September, 2005, I, Mamawrites, award you, Raul654, this THANK YOU.

Habitat for Humanity International[edit]

As the creator of Wikipedia's article on HFH, I thought you might be interested to know that it is currently nominated for improvement at the Article Improvement Drive. If you would like to help expand Wikipedia's information on Habitat further, please consider voting for it on the AID page. Thank you, MC MasterChef 12:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson FAC nom[edit]

Raul, I think the Ashlee FAC should have been given more time. The vote was progressively moving closer to decisive support and I think it would have if it had been given a few more days. Everyking 22:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

After looking at it more closely, it was closer than I thought, so I've gone ahead and restored the nom. →Raul654 23:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was surprised that Raul put it back... looks like he removed the album though. Wonder what happened there.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see (should look before commenting :)). That's a difficult one.... 5 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose (1 empty, 1 unactionable, 1 might be actionable, and worldtraveller who was going to get back to me on it tomarro). Oh well, those must be difficult to close :(. Better luck next time I suppose.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

FAC criteria[edit]

In regards to this edit, if this is not a valid criteria then why is that stated as a valid objection on the GNAA FAC? How am I meant to action their objections? I cannot influence external sources in my capacity as a Wikipedia editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

First, I want to mention that this is purely academic since Zscout has withdrawn the nomination. Now while some people made (what I consider) inactionable objections to the GNAA nomination, there were some perfectly actionable ones presented by: Worldtravler, Tony, OpenToppedBus, Sean Curtin, and Rje, Nuhn-Nuhn, and Fieari [among others]. Most of these had to do with the lack of good writing or lack of references. It didn't fail because of some unwritten criteria - it failed because it doesn't meet the ones already listed there. →Raul654 03:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
All right. I respect your opinion and stand corrected. - 211.30.181.143 11:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Voting booth at set up: Your voice counts[edit]

Help needed at:

Talk:Terri_Schiavo#THE_Voting_Booth_on_SEVERAL_POINTS_OF_CONCERN--DISPUTE

--GordonWattsDotCom 22:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Tynwald Day[edit]

Thanks for selecting an old featured article for a change, but it is on the Main Page without an image. There are two in the article, one of Tynwald Hill, where part of the proceedings takes place, and the other of the Manx flag. I have moved the hill image up the article to the lead beceause it is slightly more specific and more interesting but it I wanted to check whether you had any objections to the image being addedto Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 13, 2005 too. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

On the main page, you should be seeing the Manx flag (I do). However, the image servers have been buggly lately, so it could be a problem on the server. Try refreshing and seeing if the picture appears. →Raul654 03:23, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Oh well, I didn't the image then but it works now. Is this a hardware issue (that the latest fundraising/server purchases may resolve)? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is a hardware issue. I saw on the village pump that one of the servers had a hard disk failure on or about the 14th, so we were running on fewer resources than usual. It should be fixed now. →Raul654 03:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Debate-closing for Sam Sloan AfD[edit]

Hi. I fixed the debate-closing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Sloan - you did not put the {{subst:vt}} at the top. BD2412 T 04:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Columbine Massacre Front page[edit]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that the summary that is set for Columbine High School massacre on its "tommorrow's featured article" page (September 18) has a word missing. The word "the" is missing before "role of violent movies and video games". I can't fix the error since the page is protected. Also, the article's introduction has recently been rewritten for better wording, so if you'd like, you can recopy the new intro to it before it is placed on the front page this Sunday. Considering the article undergoes childish vandalism whenever it's given a lot of attention (such as on April 20, or whenever there's school shooting), would it be possible for you protect the article from editing just on the days it'll be linked to the front page? Thanks. PRueda29 10:33 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the typo, and because I've had to answer this question ("why don't we protect the main page featured articles?") so many, many times, I've made a template for it - User:Raul654/protection →Raul654 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuber arbitration[edit]

Mark, before Yuber's case is closed, can I ask you to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, and specifically my post here? I feel that Guy should be allowed to present evidence if he's to suffer the same penalty as Yuber, and should have been told that Fred had compiled evidence against him. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't thank me yet - I only changed my vote to give Guy more time to comment, per your suggestion. →Raul654 08:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pretty picture[edit]

Believe it or not, I'm generally not all that stressed.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 18:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen[edit]

I believe Sun Yat-sen was promoted prematurely. Discussion over my objections were still ongoing and keeping the candidacy active would have allowed some of these objections to be addressed.

If you note the "support" pattern, you will see a bunch of bandwagon unexplained votes (due to campaigning on the part of the nominators). My objections came rather late into the nominations and well after these "votes" had already been cast.

I think it will only be fair if discussion be allowed to continue.--Jiang 08:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your photos[edit]

Hey Mark, your two photos are not *Free*. Should I list it in IFD? ;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha! I'm just worried about pictures like that showing up on some third-party website and me not having any kind of recourse to have it taken down. →Raul654 03:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Blade Runner[edit]

BOOOYEAHHH!!! Now that's what I'm talking about! <play We are the champions here> Je voulez communicay en faible Francais, je we tres jubilant avec le decision pur le article j'ai nominay. (Grade 7 french immersion.)

It just seems to me when people talk excitedly in another language, you can really tell they're excited even though you don't know the words. :"D Thanks a bunch! I'm relieved and satisfied.

Now its time to kill some brain cells since I obviously don't need them anymore. You're awesome, Wikipedia rules, Jimbo is bearded and I'm way too happy right now.

- RoyBoy 800 21:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're happy :) →Raul654 03:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bhadani[edit]

Unfair!!! I wanted to promote Bhadani, and you beat me by a few seconds!!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrr. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You gotta be faster :P →Raul654 07:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
You're supposed to be sleeping. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
That's a nasty habit I gave up when I entered grad school. →Raul654 07:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd handpicked the nomination time last week so that it would expire when other b'crats were asleep or offline. Why do you want to spoil a perfectly nice Sunday by getting up late? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The only thing worse than spoiling a sunday by sleeping in is to spoil it by getting up early →Raul654 08:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
For beating me to the promoting and grinning away, I award you a nice set of Raul's teeth. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Getting up early? Wait until you have small children... (if you do already, you will understand what I mean) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Mark's date of birth is 19-Jun-82. I don't think he'll be having many kids so soon. ;) ALoan, that explains the reason why you seem to be editing 24 hrs a day. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I've improved your smile. Purge cache if you can't see it. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

two questions[edit]

Hello, Mark/Raul654. May I ask:

  1. how come your talk page is protected ? Deliberate ? Avoiding messages from non-admins ?
  2. why the switch at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 15 ?

-- PFHLai 09:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. Um, a mistake. Last night, I was protecting my talk page archives (linked from the top of this page) and I accidentally protected this one. →Raul654 16:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Because I recieved a complaint on OTRS about the lack of a mention about the 16th street bombing. →Raul654 16:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what is OTRS ? Not OTRS, I suppose. The 16th Street Baptist Church bombing page is rather stubby .... -- PFHLai 20:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I meant OTRS. Wikipedia has one because we recieve *lots* of email feedback. And the complaint had nothing to do with the stubbiness of the article (which I wrote, btw), but more that it was important and relavant enough so as to deserve a mention on the main page. →Raul654 21:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I guess I don't know my US history well enough .... Thanks. -- PFHLai 21:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Anytime. →Raul654 03:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Blue moose[edit]

Raul Mark, what can I say, that is just brilliant! I shall put it at the top of my user page with pride - thank you! Martin 18:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Aww - thanks →Raul654 03:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The proposal I've mentioned on IRC during the downage...[edit]

...is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Metadata. Well, actually I feel a little stupid spamming this to your talk page now, but I've said I'd note this here. Have a look. ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 01:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

IRC questions[edit]

Thanks for answering my Qs at IRC. Regards, --Irpen 02:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome :) →Raul654 03:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I am happy[edit]

Hello Mark, yesterday I wanted to convey my happiness to you to be afforded an opportunity to function as an administrator. But, when I wanted to post my message on your talk page, I found that it was “protected” – though I as an administrator would have posted there, I refrained by applying the principle of “to err on the side of caution”. Now, I find that your talk page is “free”. Having "explained" “my position”, I thank you for allowing me to become an administrator. I shall continue to come to you more frequently to draw from your experience. Thanks again. --Bhadani 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost[edit]

Hello, Raul654! The Wikipedia Signpost is doing a special series on the 2005 ArbCom elections, and the first article in the series came out on Monday (check it out!) Anyways, next week's edition covers the history of the ArbCom, and I was hoping you could help me out here. I've read all the relevant pages, and tried searching through the old mailing lists, but haven't come up with that much information. If you have any links, information, or ideas about the history of the ArbCom, would you mind forwarding them to me? I know you are busy, but I would appreciate it if you could either point me in the right direction or tell me someone who would be able to do so (I know Jimbo's quite busy, so I haven't asked him yet). Feel free to email me if it's more convenient for you.

Thanks for your help; I appreciate it!

Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just to let you know, all of the arbitrators' efforts are sincerly appreciated. You guys do a great job. By the way, just curious, but on your user page wishlist, are you wishing for articles on those pieces, or complete soundtracks? (I'm a classical music lover as well, and I share many of your favorite pieces) Have you ever heard Overture to Nabucco or Overture to Corsair? Two great pieces. Anyways, I'll stop rambling now... Thanks again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here's the history of the arbcom in a nutshell. The arbitration committee came into being in February, 2004, when (and as a result of) the dispute resolution process being ratified. Until then, Jimbo was (exclusively) in charge of meting out punishment. However, he became involved in disputes so rarely that it would take months or years to get rid of problem users (Helga, Michael, 'etc).
So, in early 2004, the dispute resolution process was adopted, and the Jimbo delegated his authority to the arbcom. He appointed twelve respected members of the community to the committee (Fred, Mav, Jamesf, Cunc, Epopt, Delerium, Nohat, Camembert, Myreddice, Gutza, UninvitedCompany, and Eloquence. UC and Eloquence turned down the offer, and Jwrosenzwieg and I were elected in a pick-up election in August 2004)
Now (and I mention this as a purely personal observation) it was right around this time that one Plautus satire started terrorizing the community. Plautus was, in my opinion, the most disruptive user of all time (see user:Raul654/Plautus) [Except possibly Wik/Gzornenplatz/NoPuzzleStranger, who last summer attacked Wikipedia with a page-move vandalbot]. Now the timing here is very important. If someone like Plautus were to join wikipedia today, he'd find himself banned within an hour. However, back then, the arbitration committee was brand new and its role was largely undefined. There was this great popular outcry against "vigilante" admins - admins who didn't strictly adhere to the letter of the blocking policy and dispute resolution process (which, especially back then, were voluminous and baroque). So despite being utterly, fantastically disruptive, it took 6 weeks (and a he-goes-or-I-go ultimatum to the mailing list by me) before the arbitration committee would hear the case. (for the first few months, the arbitration committee would only here cases remanded to them by Jimbo) I think by comparison, the complaints that people have about the arbitration committee today are, um, small fries.
By the same token, the arbitration committee's cases for the first year (from about March 2004 to January 2005) were mostly clear-cut trolls. However, since then, I want to note that the cases have become much harder. Back then, the cases were all very-obnoxious-troll-vs-good-user type cases. Now, for the most part, they're much more complicated, and much harder to sort out. →Raul654 00:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia[edit]

As for you, Man, you will be a naked tool all your life I also think of you as an upright and dedicated editor. Kudos, as the pointy-haired boss would say! Eixo 02:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Pasboudin[edit]

Hello, Raul, sorry to bother you. Please help me, Pasboudin is deleting my information on the Hypnotize article. He is also fond of claiming that the information the article is inaccurate; it is not. However, he has been told to leave here since he kept reverting the article and I do not understand why he does not give up. I have been tired of him since he kept coming back. So if he comes back next time doing it all over again, I think he does deserve to be banned. Please help me! -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, thanks for the protection! -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't thank me - I only protected your version because it happened to be the one that was there when I protected. I'm entirely unsure which is the 'right' version (although considering that 4 people were reverting the other way, it's entirely possible that I protected m:the wrong version). →Raul654 02:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You made the promise, but how do I ...[edit]

You made the promise that it would be OK to renominate after a few weeks: discussed here and referenced, but here, Worldtraveller says to "see FAC instructions - move old nomination to an archive, make fresh nomination; please don't re-insert old nomination discussion."

What is the right procedure here? Renominate or replace? Neither or either or both?

(PS: I may take WT up on his offer in the interim -and leave it in your capable hands; I don't edit much as Terri Schiavo any more, and am more objective, and the edit war has disappeared.)

--GordonWatts 12:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia on Main Page[edit]

The lead section of this article as it appears on the Main Page contains a spelling error (origins). If not already generally done, I'd suggest that these sections be put through a quick spell check before they are protected; as well, checking grammar, phrasing etc. probably wouldn't hurt.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 17:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) NB. Incidentally, at what time is the TOFA changed daily? 0:00 UTC?—encephalonεγκέφαλον 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a reason these things are queued up and viewable days/weeks in advance - so that people can fix these things in advance (or that admins, at any rate). I change them when I am notified, but (with all due respect) the last thing I need is one-more-thing to do when scheduling them.
Second - yes, the main page featured articles and selected anniversaries change at midnight UTC, although because of server and client side caching, it is quite possible to get an out of date copy. →Raul654 17:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Quite understandable. Thanks.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 18:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence[edit]

A couple weeks ago, I added new evidence that discusses AI's belligerent article revert warring and intimidation. AI has unapologetically verified (on the evidence page) that I have quoted him/her accurately. I noticed a motion suggested to close the arbitration, but I hope that the new evidence will be considered beforehand. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks, HKT talk 19:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Signpost[edit]

Thanks for your help! Just to let you know- I probably will be in touch with all of the current arbitrators in a week or two, because an upcoming article profiles the current arbitrators and their thoughts and opinions. Thanks again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

All right - glad I could help. →Raul654 20:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidacy[edit]

Congrats on candidacy - qualifying exams are fun, aren't they? Did you finish today If so - time to go and get drunk, not edit Wikipedia :) - Guettarda 21:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :)
I took and passed the qualifer in June (I'm told I had one of the highest scores) but the paper work took a long time to process. Apparently they didn't like the first batch of filings I sent them, so I had to resubmit them. →Raul654 21:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well; I'm going on a wiki-break, but not before telling you that you are now qualified -to build an ignition coil shocker to zzap friends and complete your training as an "Electronic Jedi!"

PS: I quoted you extensively, in support of my renomination; Go and see. Terri Schiavo lives!--GordonWatts 21:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for protection[edit]

I created a templete for Category 5 Hurricanes ({Category5}) to help stop an ongoing edit war on the Hurricane Rita page; now I'm wondering if you could protect this templete until after Rita makes landfall. Protecting the templete will help keep people from messing with the sentences so we can get back to writing about Rita. TomStar81 01:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, It was handled. Thanks anyway. TomStar81 03:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Erm, sure - sorry I wasn't back sooner. →Raul654 20:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Afd for Jet Blue Flight 292[edit]

Hi Raul654, I'm writing to request an early end to the Afd for the above article. There is already overwhelming consensus to keep, it is pointless to clutter the article page with the notice any longer....Regards, Fawcett5 02:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Mark, I have delisted this myself, my reading of the Afd guidlelines suggests that delisting before end of lag time is acceptable if article remediated or consensus becomes overwhelmingly established. But thanks in any case. Regard, Fawcett5 02:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry I wasn't back sooner to help - what you did is fine. →Raul654 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mainpage date[edit]

Raul, I'm told that you're the front page guru, so I thought I'd raise this with you - I recently started adding Template:mainpage date to the talk pages of all articles that have appeared on the MP. Hydnjo noticed this and has started working from the other end - we both arrived separately at the idea that articles of this status (first among equals, as I like to think) deserve recognition for being of this quality. I don't know if this has been mooted to you before, but do you think that the adding of the template might be 'institutionalised'? While I'm not asking you to ask someone else to do this (I'll carry on doing this myself), it would be unheard of for a featured article not to carry Template:featured on its talk page, and in my humble opinion, an appearance on the MP is as worthy of note. If there are official guidelines on the treatment of MP articles, I would like to suggest that the adding of the mainpage date template be made standard practice and would be keen to hear your thoughts on this. Many thanks for your time! --High(Hopes)(+) 17:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hydnjo asked me about this previously, and my answer to you is pretty much what I told him -- I have no objection to someone else doing it (adding the main page notice to the talk pages of articles that have been on the main page), but (with all the other stuff I do around here) I'm not keen on doing it myself. →Raul654 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely - hence I said I'll carry on adding the template myself! I appreciate that you're busy and it's something I'm happy to do. I was merely suggesting that if there are any official guidelines on FA or maintenance of the MP (I haven't been around long enough to be aware of where these things are) that a note might be added that the template exists and that it should be added to the talk page - just in case Hydnjo and I are away, it just maintains the consistency. No need to reply; I'll leave it with you if you feel it's worth making a note on the guidelines about this. Thanks for your time, --HighHopes (T)(+)(C)(E) 11:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
No, there are no such regulations. I try to make sure that the featured article process is run smoothly without the bulky written rules that plague AFD and RFA. →Raul654 13:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article[edit]

Just out of curiousity, isn't the featured article supposed to be protected? Curious newbie who has reverted vandalism to article today: Psy guy (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The write up for the featured article (the blurb you see on the main page) is protected. The article itself is not. This question ("Why don't we protect the featured article for the day it is on the main page") actually gets asked a lot, so I created user:Raul654/protection which explains it. →Raul654 19:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing FA template[edit]

I just noticed that the featured template is missing at Talk:Space opera in Scientology doctrine. I didn't want to put it back without your say-so. --hydnjo talk 18:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was missing - it probably got accidentally delete.d I've fixed it. →Raul654 19:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We've reduced Terri Schiavo to 45 Kb by splitting the article, etc.[edit]

We've reduced Terri Schiavo to 45 Kb by splitting the article and paring it down. Marskell and I each did about half the work, and the only substantive changes were use of contractions (couldn't, didn't, etc.) and numerals (like for 2 years instead of two years).

The article';s stability looks unaffected.

It's now ready (or almost so) to be Featured.--GordonWatts 18:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Help! It's not displaying + good news: art size is 45 Kb[edit]

a) I went to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Terri_Schiavo (with the # --from the main page)

and do not see all the conversation; If you notice it only goes down to the Interim Update there, but on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo (with the / --the subpage)

it goes all the way down to the conversation between me and Marskell.

b) We've reduced the article size to 45 Kb primarily by splitting it; No sustentative changes were made (except contraction and numerals --like "blah blah could not eat for two years blah blah" would become "blah blah couldn't eat for 2 years blah blah"

So, since the article was not changed in substance, it is still stable -and the article length is down.

I made no apparent errors. Can you check my work --and please could you tell me why the nomination page does not all appear in the FA main page?

Thx!--GordonWatts 19:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion spree[edit]

Looks like you lost Image:Upenn flyer.jpg. --Calton | Talk 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's unfortunate (I found it rather funny) but it's no big loss. →Raul654 13:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

RealPlayer[edit]

Yes, RealPlayer stinks. But it's still some people's favourite media player. I reckon we should still list this as an OGG player on Wikipedia:Media help, even if we put a warning up there as to some of the criticisms. It's a fact that some people stick like glue to their choices of media player. I believe it's better to allow people to choose RealPlayer than lead them to believe that RealPlayer doesn't support OGG, which isn't true. I reckon that there may also be NPOV issues with leaving RealPlayer off there. TreveXtalk 15:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Image permission[edit]

As you took Image:Danny.jpg could you also release it under a free license please. Otherwise it will end up being deleted... Justinc 18:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've relicensed it to use my standard meetup license (GFDL-if-people-pictured-agree-Wikipedia-only-otherwise) →Raul654 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

proposal consensus[edit]

Mark, I don't know if you've paid any attention to the by-country category titles discussion that's been underway for a few months. There's currently a "proposed" policy about this at wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). I've solicited comments in all the usual places, and there basically haven't been any. The question is - what happens now? Wikipedia:How to create policy#How policies become official says "Jimbo decrees", "supermajority poll", or "all objections dealt with". Seems like the 3rd case applies here, but who decides and what exactly happens? I'm tempted to just mark the page as "policy" and see what happens, but thought I'd ask you first. Please let me know what you think about this. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Everything looks kosher to me - I've gone ahead and marked it as policy. →Raul654 13:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
So, is the answer that it takes a bureaucrat to declare the consensus and mark the page as policy? I'm OK with that - just trying to understand. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Um, no, it's not that simple. (How do I put this?)
Making policy on Wikipedia is ugly. There really aren't any hard and fast rules (Wikipedia doesn't have any equivalent to congress or parliament). I marked it as policy because it looked to me like the proposal was rather clear, straightforward, had no objections, and had been in effect for quite a while. Anyone could have done it, but I did it because it looked like the right call to me. The same applies to any policy, really. In practice, however, it is the people who have been here a while, who know how this place operates, that can switch something from guideline to policy without people grousing. (I can hear the accusations of cabalism now...) →Raul654 19:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Given how many editors Wikipedia has these days, do you think it might be a good idea to formalize this? When there were only a relative handful of editors, many of whom knew each other, I think "consensus" meant something far different than it means now. I suspect there wouldn't be much resistance to "nobody but a bureaucrat can mark a page as policy" (which would makes things more, well, "bureaucratic"). Leaving it undefined and potentially up to anyone probably makes it actually harder to establish anything as policy. Just a thought. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
You're correct that these days, it is harder and harder to get change the way things work (Raul's 7th law in action). However, I don't think your idea is a good one - first, there are a lot of people who would call it a power grab, and it would further institutionalize bureacracy, which is a bad thing in itself. →Raul654 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

IRC admin[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you could make me an IRC admin (I would mostly help change modes and ban troublesome users). Thanks! (p.s. ID is registered as SasquatchW). Sasquatcht|c 23:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Request granted on IRC →Raul654 13:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoo[edit]

Woo-Hoo! The suspense was killing me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're happy →Raul654 13:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Operation Downfall[edit]

I noticed you had put in a rfd for Operation downfall so I took a look at the comments and added some. Basically I agree with what your saying in terms of the reason for Japan's surrender. Anyway, I thought I'd just say hi and let you know I put some comments on the talk page. Davidpdx 9/25/05 13:11 (UTC)

That's actually not necessary, as the dispute there has quieted down. →Raul654 13:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Raul, yeah it looks like your right in terms of things settling down. I think if he persists though you should take it the next step futher. It seems like someone has made some edits recently that took out some of the information. Davidpdx 9/28/05 15:05 (UTC)
Here is the diff from August 24 through today. I don't see any removals. The largest change (in regard to the naval forecs section) was me taking out an inaccurate statement about Japan's naval forces. →Raul654 15:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Re multiple instances of the same link in one article[edit]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) - repeated links can be okay. ··gracefool | 14:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Bath[edit]

imho, I had to protect Bath. it was being hit by a team of vandals. that attack was pre-planned and orchestrated. although i blocked the username and IP address being used, i did not know whether another attack was coming.

cheers, Kingturtle 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Bath[edit]

imho, I had to protect Bath. it was being hit by a team of vandals. that attack was pre-planned and orchestrated. although i blocked the username and IP address being used, i did not know whether another attack was coming.

cheers, Kingturtle 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess![edit]

Care to review? ;) --Cool Cat Talk 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I see some problems that will need to be addressed, or I can guarnetee this will not make it through the FAC:
  1. It needs an expanded, more detailed introduction.
  2. It's very list heavy towards the end
  3. (Most seriously) it has no inline citations, and the "sources" section (which should actually be a references section) is far too small. →Raul654 07:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Jarlaxle[edit]

Thanks a lot for telling me Raul. I totally support that decision :-) Cheers Anthere

I'm sorry, but can you help?[edit]

According to my Recent RfA (which failed), my user name is now against username policy due to connotations with the Molotov Cocktail. May I please change it to User:Juan. Thanks, Molotov (talk) California state flag.png 14:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please help us poor portal maintainers....[edit]

Hi Raul, Could you please have a look at Template:MainPageIntro, and perhaps revert it so that it includes the Wikipedia portals again? I started a discussion about this here.. Jacoplane 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your deletion of some older stuff[edit]

I saw that you deleted a lot of the talk from the User:Cool Cat et al ArbCom Proposed decision page. I have created an archive of the deleted material and added an archive link to the main talk page. I have also fixed some of the links that were broken by your deletion and will try and find the others that have been broken. Frankly, I expect better of an ArbCom member. — Davenbelle 07:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The page was almost 400 kilobytes - it needed to be cleaned out. And you're not supposed to archive everything. I saw no need to archive it, so I simply deleted it. →Raul654 07:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Mother and child in the Ubud Monkey Forest
It's an open case and we've put a lot of work into the posts there. I agree that it was getting quite unwieldy and had considered archiving it myself. I did not, mostly because we've had a *lot* of trouble with User:Cool Cat re archiving talk. What I ment by "expect better" was that I do expect archives for such talk, not deletion, and that I was disappointed that you broke links to the page and within the page in the same manner User:Cool Cat did when he did global search-and-replaces on his User ID. See this section of the talk page (please note the use of "#"-style links and this diff where I fixed some).
— Davenbelle 08:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I've added some examples of non-Turk/Kurd disruption.
P.P.S. I don't believe we've ever really met, so "Hi". I'm really not a bad guy; just one trying to do what's right and undo what's wrong. Have a cookie →
Just so you are not surprised, I will soon be proposing an alternative remedy to the ones currently listed there. It is a combination of probation and the mentorships we have previously tried, but it will be limited in scope to Turkey and Kurdish related aritlce (because, based on the evidence page and the answers to my question, I don't think there's a whole lot of problematic editing outside of those areas) →Raul654 21:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Those are the primary areas of disruption. Please be sure to include Armenian Genocide. If it's for longer than 3 months, I might prefer it. FYI, I have no intention of editing those articles in the future; I've hardly ever edited Armenian Genocide. — Davenbelle 04:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Main page search box[edit]

Hi Mark. I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at my proposal at the bottom of Talk:Main Page. You are, after all, Main Page-declutterer-in-chief, and I am suggesting more clutter... Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 19:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Image source[edit]

Hi Raul. Could you please provide the source for Image:Smith chart.jpg, before it gets speedy deleted? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 22:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't actually remember the source. The German Wikipedia has GFDL'd alternatives ([8], [9]) which I've been meaning to put into the article but haven't had time to. →Raul654 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for defending my points as I'd requested[edit]

Thank you for defending my points as I'd requested, Mark, regarding the use of some pretty pic(s) for Terri Schiavo and her (our) article.--GordonWatts 00:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed all material (eg alleged "vanity" links") that may seem inappropriate from my pet project, Schiavo. This should prevent the "Natives from getting restless," so to speak. The face of the water is calm -for now. No storms in sight.--GordonWatts 01:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Unusual[edit]

I wasn't going to say anything, since I am not prone to superstition, but seeing the new turn of events, I will "spill the beans" and let the cat out of the bag.

In our (EST) time zone, it is slightly after midnight and Thursday, and (best I recall) you appeared to me in a dream Wednesday afternoon and picked me up and shook me (in a "younger brother" manner) and said: "What am I going to do with you, Gordon?" (Referring to your frustration with the Terri Schiavo nomination.)

Since you showed that some portion of my dream (the "frustration" part) is true, I will respond:

You may think that lack of edit wars prove stability, and that edit wars are bad. (To some extent, this is true.)

However, consider this: Do we have any edit wars in articles like Underwater Basket Weaving (if there is such an article)? No! You know why? Nobody cares about this mundane, obscure stuff.

In Terri Schiavo's case, the edit wars, while bad, are reflective of the high level of interest in the issue: A "good" thing.

Regarding Calton and FuelWagon, I think they acted disruptively. (Should they be disciplined?) If you removed the troublemakers, you will remove the trouble.

Lastly, I am not perfect, and wish no harm upon my opponents, but I have acted in a "higher-standard" way in considering the thoughts and concerns of others above my own.

Does that not count for anything? (From the bad -to- The Unusual: God Himself may have spoken to me about you in a dream.) --GordonWatts 04:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there a line for Heidi and me to get into? "Lord knows I can't change, Lord help me I can't change." ... Geesh... --hydnjo talk 04:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Joe! ... there's a long line ahead of you, lol ... Anyhow ... PS: Mark, if the edit war here was an "actionable objection" (e.g., one I could correct by action), I would not be bothering you; but, since I can not control these other editors (I can not block them as an admin, which I am not), then this is not an actionable objection. Therefore, all jokes aside: (a) The dream really did happen; (b) It proved true and correct (you were frustrated) -and (c) I have done all the "action" within my power, and seeing no actionable objections and my concern for other parties -Does that not count for anything?--GordonWatts 04:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm not fact? I've just received a word from the great spirits: If Terri Schiavo is Featured in its current state, the world will come to an end and unimaginable tragedy will occur. Just a heads up. Sarcasm or fact? PS: This was a joke, but the dream mentioned here really did occur.--GordonWatts 04:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

That'll learn ya to mess around with the Template:MainPageIntro. Fix it the way that makes sense to you and then lock it for a couple of weeks. If anyone persists after that time well perhaps they have a legitimate beef. You can't go changing it every day because of a difference of opinion. You know about the whatever it was that was made by public opinion or committee. Take your best shot and then protect it for sanity's sake, heck somebody has to do it. I'd rather it be you. --hydnjo talk 06:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Just curious, but...[edit]

Hello, Raul654! About an hour or so ago I updated the main page to include the swearing in John Roberts, and I saw that a picture of the ceremony had been uploaded: Image:Robertsoath.jpg. I noticed the licensing of it, and considering the photo appears to be an AP photo (see here), I was wondering if the license was used correctly. Even if the license was used correctly, could those types of photos be used on the main page? Thanks a lot. I'm just curious about all this, and you seem to be both the main page guy and the pictures guy. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

While the image page doesn't make it clear, it's appears (to me) that it's copyrighted by the AP. It's use in wikipedia is (probably) fair use, but (1) should be avoided where possible and (2) should especially be avoided on the main page. →Raul654 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

sorry...[edit]

Sorry I missed your PM on IRC, I was otherly occupied for a while. Kelly Martin 02:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Toucan[edit]

Shall I write an article for Chestnut-mandibled Toucan? jimfbleak 08:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great if you could. →Raul654 08:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

Hi Mark. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article has apparently been hijacked by a member (perhaps two) of the 9/11 Truth Movement and turned into an advertisement for their group's views. I have proposed that your original NPOV version of the article be restored. Please see Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#This_page_is_a_disgrace for more details. Jayjg (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please delete Category:Martin Luther[edit]

I ask that as an administrator you delete Category:Martin Luther it was created by mistake by one of us, and saved--a mistake by me. I apologize for this. Of course, please do not delete our Martin Luther article. --drboisclair 11:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Crazy in Love[edit]

Hi, I noticed "Crazy in Love" disappeared from from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates but the article talk page has not been updated to show it as either a failed or promoted candidate. Not sure if the oversight was not updating the talk page, or maybe deleting it from the FA nom page by mistake. cheers Rossrs 13:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

VioletRiga normally does the fac-failed updating. She must be running a bit behind. Give her a day or two. →Raul654 16:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9[edit]

Nice to hear that this might be making an appearance on the main page! Unfortunately the problem with images of the comet itself is that it was very faint, and the image at the top right of the article is about the best that is available. Might Image:Montage of Jupiter and SL9.jpg be good for the main page? Or one of the impact site images? I'll have another trawl through NASA's various SL9 pages but I don't think I'll find anything much better than what's already there. Worldtraveller 10:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo arbitration[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but there is one key unresolved issue (finding of fact one way or the other) that is not currently being voted on in the proposed decision page. Please see User talk:Fred Bauder#Stevertigo arbitration: one key finding of fact is not resolved. -- Curps 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Admin promotion[edit]

Thank you sir! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Costa Rica[edit]

I came across your favpics/Liz section. I'm planning to go to CR next year, so I should be able to ID the anonymous hummers etc (birds only!). Are you happy for me to write the articles for them, as time permits? I noticed that at least one of the images was by another photographer, can you confirm it is also in CR? Jim 07:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

provisonal hummer IDs. hummingbird4.jpg looks like a male Green Violet-ear, hummingbird.jpg is a male White-necked Jacobin, hummingbird3.jpg I think must be the same, although it looks very blue. hummingbird3.jpg is tricky. It looks most like a male Ruby-throated Hummingbird, but I think that's fairly uncommon in CR, and the red seems a bit subdued - maybe a young bird? Can't find any other CR hummer that has a red gorget and green-spotted white underparts without a buff hue. Jim
Yes, absolutely, write articles on all the species there :)
About the pictures taken by other photographers - there were 3 of them that occured as a result of "naming collisions" - I uploaded those three pictures to commons and en already had pictures with the same name. I've sorted that out now. In addition, I also added some captions for additional clarify. →Raul654 23:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
hummer5 is a male Magenta-throated Woodstar, missed that image first time around. i'll start with that I think. Jim

former featured article image[edit]

someone changed it to something kind of different. see Image:Cscr-former.png. What do you think :)? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the previous version better, myself, but I can live with the current version. →Raul654 23:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

FA picture[edit]

Yikes, sorry; thanks for catching that. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections[edit]

Hello, Raul654/archive7. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
5. Weaknesses?
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


  1. Are up for re-election this year? - No, I was elected last year to a 3 year term. My term ends in two years.
  2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election? - (See above)
  3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom? - Although this may sound immodest, I think I have had a positive influence on the committee. While individually and as a whole, the arbcom has made mistakes, when you consider the sheer volume of cases we have to process and the difficulty of each one, I think that's understandable.
  4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? - One strength is that the members of the arbitration committee are held in high regard in the community. Another strength is that rather than being an assembly line for handing out bans, we try very hard (and not always successfully) to craft remedies that suit the merits of a particular case. Also, so far, the arbitration committee has had a quality of good-faith colloboration. By that, I mean that arbitrators are very cooperative and trusting with with one another (knock on wood). Infighting amongst the arbitrators is almost unheard of (I can think of one relatively minor exception but I won't go into details). One of the primary reasons the arbitration committee is possible is because the members trust each other (remember, given the current arbitration committtee rules, it's emmintenly possible for a minority of 3 or 4 arbitrators to "game" the system. However, that would never happen, at least not with the current members).
  5. Weaknesses? - The arbcom has a great deal of difficulty dealing with certain classes of cases. POV pushing on technical subjects is very difficult to arbitrate (the meteorology dispute); so are cases involving diputes between good users (EK-Snowsinner), good users who screw up (Ed Poor) or good users who have one bad habit that requires arbitration (Jguk).
  6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why? - There are several improvements that could be made to make arbitration faster and more effecient. In order (most important to least important) they are: less bureacracy policies for accepting and resolving cases, alternate lower-order venue(s) for cases to go to (a replacement for the mediation committee, which has never worked), more helpers, and (Mav's idea) a pool a reserve arbitrators to take over when an arbitrator resigns. Just to clarify - when I say more helpers, I mean non-arbitrators who help us sort out a case. This is in contrast to, for example, the AMA, which has never (that I can remember) done anything useful in a case. As Fred (a former lawyer) has said previously, they never actually argue the merits of their case (and given the people I have seen them representing, that's no real surprise). The AMA represenatives simply complain about how horribly unfair the proceeings are, how arbitrators S, T, U, V, and W should recuse themselves because they are horribly biased, how the decision is fraught with inequity and is a giant overstepping of power, 'etc. They exclusively argue process instead of proceeings.
  7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not? - No, I do not regret accepting the position (or I would have already resigned). As I said above, I think my presence has been positive influence. I ran for the arbitration commitee as a result of the Plautus debacle, and since then, things have gotten better (although you wouldn't know it from all the bad press we get).
  8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why? - <joke> DON'T DO IT!!! </joke> Seriously folks, it's a lousy job. The pay ($0/hour) sucks, the hours stink, and the work is difficult. Very good users will think bad things of you [10]. The job is hard -- very time consuming, difficult to manage, bureacratic, and easy to screw up.
  9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain. - See my previous answer
  10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
  11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? Being on the Arbitration Committee is the most thankless job on Wikipedia. It is absolutely impossible to do it such that people are happy with you. If you are doing a bad job, people complain; if you are doing a good job, people don't notice (or sometimes even then complain). All of your actions are examined under a microscope. People expect you to be the Oracle of all truth - to work miracles no matter how complicated the case, no matter how how bad the evidence, no matter how hostile and stubborn the disputants. And of course, there are the accusations of cabalism. - Raul's 9th law. Delerium (accurately, IMO) called it "the most karma [reputation] damaging thing you can do on Wikipedia" In partincular I find it hurtful when someone like (
  12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable? Being on the arbcom has so many frustrations, it's sort of hard to single any one of them out. Being vastly overworked is probably the worst part (and the sense that the work is neverending; that there will always, always be more case to arbitrate). As for being enjoyable, as I'm sure I've made clear by now, there's not a whole lot there to enjoy. I suppose I "enjoy" (and I use the word loosely) being on the committee in the sense that I have some sort of control over what we do with troublemakers. Given the choice of working on the arbitration commmittee and the alternative I experienced last year (being powerless while Plautus was running amok), I suppose prefer being on the committee. (Is that power-tripping? I'm sure there are some people who would say it is, but I think it's a very common sense position to take)

Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

peer review[edit]

G'day Mark,

what with your recent posts to the list on "taking our eyes off the ball", I saw fit to approach you on IRC and ask you to take a look at Lang Hancock, the article to which I've contributed to the most and the first such that I think might be worthy of FA-ship. It's up for peer review at the moment. You asked me to leave a note on your talkpage so you didn't forget, and I ... um ... well, I forgot. So, here we are.

Can you please take a look at Lang Hancock and let me know what you think could be done to improve it? Cheers, --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat decision[edit]

By my count the prohibition on User:Cool Cat editing articles articles related or referring to Turks, Kurds, or Armenians for three months, plus Wikipedia:Probation for one year passed with four in favor: Jayjg , ➥the Epopt, Theresa Knott, Neutrality. If I misunderstand something, please let me know. — Davenbelle 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, plus the caution to not interfere with his mentorship. — Davenbelle 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I anticipated that little happenstance. The arbitration rules make no allowances for such a contingency (where two mutually exclusive rulings pass). So, (figuring that that is what would happen) I emailed the arbitration committee mailing list 4 days ago asking if everyone was OK with the mentorship passing instead of the the 3.0 and 3.1 (because the mentorship seemed to have the most support, all of it unqualified). Since one objected to closing it as such, that's how I closed it. →Raul654 02:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as the caution (2.1), it was an alternative to 2.0 -- 2.0 had 6 supports, 2.1 had 5 supports; thus, I closed it out with 2.0 and not 2.1. →Raul654 02:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well, off-the-cuff, I'd say that passed is passed and I don't see how the two decisions are mutually exclusive; indeed the mentorship text refers to "administrator-imposed blocks" and the mentors as an "an avenue of appeal" — presumably for action based on the other decision.
I strongly feel that the prohibition on Turks, Kurds, or Armenians articles and the Wikipedia:Probation needs to be imposed and that it has passed. — Davenbelle 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The mentorship and probation are inherently mutually exclusive (and I say that as the architect of both). The mentorship was presented as an alternative, it passed with far more support than the probation, and (just to cover my bases) I emailed the arbcom and no one objected. So while you are entitled to feel strongly about it, it has not, in fact, passed. →Raul654 02:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the exact wording is "In addition, the mentors may overrule or modify administrator-imposed blocks on Coolcat stemming from this decision at their prerogative". The administrator imposed blocks are a reference to an earlier part of that same remedy - "If Coolcat should disruptively edit articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds (or on mostly-unrelated articles with sections dealing with Turkey or the Kurds, such as the Armenian Holocaust on Holocaust), an admin may block him for a short time, up to three days." →Raul654 02:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I somehow misunderstand, I thought the mentors were for Coolcat general participation in Wikipedia, since this was proposed after Fred proposition of a year ban(from every articles) was found to be too strong, while the proposition of three months(for things related to Turkey) was accepted and not found too strong, in fact, if I remember, Jay proposed that after he has abstained from another proposition and Fred asked him to present an alternative. The conclusion here is not my problem, but rather, I believe things are unclear. Also, was the mentorship not proposed for Coolcat general participation? If not, so why has it been proposed as somehow an alternative to Fred general ban proposition? What I understand is that the situation in which we are, Mentors will only have a say on his participations regarding matters that concern Turkey, directly or indirectly, while Fred told me to bring my problem with Coolcat hitlist to his mentors, when according to the final decision, they do not have a say here, which seems to not be what was planned and discussed previously. Fadix 03:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with coolcat's editing basically boils down to the fact that his editing on Turkey/Kurdish related articles was bad, but his editing outside those areas was generally good (mostly good but admittedly not perfect). So here's the solution passed in a nutshell:
  1. Any admin may block coolcat for up to three days if he disruptively edits a turkey or kurdish related articles
  2. The mentors may overrule blocks arising from part 1
  3. The mentors can prohibit coolcat from editing any article they believe he is causing problems on. →Raul654 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarify things. Fadix 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
To which I'd add another point: The mentors also have discretion to block Cool Cat. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle should bear in mind that, together, the sysops and the mentors have far more extensive prohibition powers than those contemplated under the probation and ban. The Committee found that Cool Cat has a long history of POV editing, particularly in relation to the articles about which Davenbelle is concerned, and the mentors are bound to take that finding of fact very seriously. Under the mentorship, administrators are permitted more discretion in blocking, using their own judgement as to when Cool Cat's edits are disruptive; the mentors may mitigate instances where they think that such judgement has erred. In the proposed probation, the administrators would have had to show reasonable cause for a complete ban from editing an article. If they can show this, then under the mentorship they can petition the mentors to perform such a ban, which in my opinion should not be refused without equally good reason.

Of course the purpose of this case is to ensure that Cool Cat is able to rehabilitate himself and continue to perform the useful work he has done, without causing further problems for other editors. It means striking a balance. Disruptive editing won't be tolerated, but Cool Cat should otherwise be permitted the space he needs to continue to develop ways of working with the Wikipedia community, for which he has already drawn much praise. I know that Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix will take their own responsibilities under the committee's decision seriously, as I intend to take mine. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, for me the cases will be really over, after that Coolcat hitlist gets deleted. For some, this may not be a big deal, for me it is. Since you are one of his mentors, can you do something about this? Fadix 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I, too, still want that page gone (and yes, I realize that delete just means hide from non-admin view). Fadix, please note that User:Cool Cat will be free to edit Armenian Genocide so long as he plays nicely. — Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you realise that the mentors cannot overrule WP:MD. I have voted delete in that debate. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mark (Raul), and Tony, thanks for the clarifications. It is my hope that all parties can disengage to a large degree and work together civilly where mutual interests bring them together. For now, I think we need to let the dust settle a bit and see how things go. I like the suggested mentorship page idea and feel that the parties and the mentors should make a few agreements there. I look forward to suggestions. — Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek; Mark, if you would, please... — Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Middle East POV pushing[edit]

If you think it is "POV pushing" not to agree with your POV, Mark, by all means convene the kangaroo court. Don't threaten me again. I have the same right to edit pages as you do. You are an inveterate edit warrior who will not even discuss the issues. As usual, you opt for bullying. Grace Note 03:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Tried[edit]

Not just tried but succeeded, actually. I'm satisfied with the outcome. -- Curps 05:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't be so sure, little things like a poll or two or six haven't been known to hinder you-know-who before. →Raul654 06:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

UD[edit]

Hey, I'm using proxify right now... becuase, for me and my two roommates (and another UD student) wikipedia isn't working. I just figured it was down until my friend at UMD told me it wasn't. By any chance do you know what's going on? Was our subnet blocked, which would be odd... but... anyways, IP is 128.175.29.XXX Any information would be nice. You can e-mail me. User:Grenavitar as gren グレン 07:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What I said above is a lie. I just found an anonymous proxy so, I'm not anonymous. However, without a proxy it doesn't work. gren グレン 07:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you getting a you-are-blocked message? →Raul654 08:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyking et al.[edit]

Hi Raul - I'm trying to work out something with Everyking/Snowspinner. See User_talk:Snowspinner#Everyking_et_al. and User_talk:RN#Everyking - any advice/help you could give would be appreciated :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot[edit]

Thanks for the informative comment defending Wikipedia. I still feel that there are a handful of simple tools that, when implemented into Wikipedia, will make it closed to criticism (except for the ever-present "anyone can edit?!?!"). Hopefully, we will see such tools in future upgrades. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-7 11:37


Europe first[edit]

I'm sorry, I don't understand – I'm perfectly able to accept if I've made a mistake, but how are the two paragraphs you reverted back into the Europe first article after I'd removed them not complete word-for-word cut-and-paste copies of passages already appearing in that section? I'm going to remove them again, I'm afraid, as it's clearly an error on someone's part. Angmering 21:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops - I mis-interpreted what you were doing. My bad. →Raul654 22:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
No problem – just glad to know I hadn't gone mad and wasn't seeing something that wasn't there! :-) Angmering 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing edit summaries[edit]

moved from userpage. Who?¿? 09:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Is it possible to edit the edit summaries that appear of the history pages? Or maybe delete one revision? Jmturner included his email address in his summary on history: USS Elliot (DD-967), and on reflection, would rather not have done that. —wwoods 08:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The developers can delete individual revisions, and have done it in the past, but only rather exceptional circumstances (like when Perl posted a bunch of Angela's personal information (name, address, phone number, where she worked, 'etc). If your friend would like that particular revision wiped (or possibly the edit summary modified, although I am not sure if that's possible) then he'll have to go to #wikimedia-tech and ask the developers. →Raul654 09:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency[edit]

I removed it from the list of featured articles because, in its current state, it appeared to be obviously a far more serious embarrassment to Wikipedia than either Jane Fonda or Bill Gates was. I'm not going to jump through hoops on this. If you disagree with my assessment of the article, fine. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just getting around to doing this (sorry for the 24 hour delay) but I see WorldTraveler beat me to it. →Raul654 04:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

E9[edit]

E9 doesn't mention billion. --nixie 05:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed both the article and the write up to go to Billion#10.5E9 →Raul654 05:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

NYC meetup pictures[edit]

Hi Raul, most of the pictures at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC1 are speedyable under CSD I5 (non-commercial use, not used in an article). If they can't be released under a different license I'll have them deleted... which would be a pity... Coffee 06:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, same with Wikipedia:Meetup/DC1. Coffee 06:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll look into this sometime this week. →Raul654 05:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Any word from The Man? Coffee 11:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?[edit]

They should be, because A Link to the Past dropped your name in a ongoing debate on my talk page. ALttP said that you agreed with him on at least one of his objections to WP:FICT; I'm not sure about the details (and as such can't really make my own case), because your conversation was apparently conducted via IRC or e-mail.

A sane voice (even one that disagreed with me) in this discussion would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Dien Bien Phu[edit]

It doesn't look too bad to me. What in your view is the problem with it? Adam 06:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't think the article has any significant issues, although:
  1. It's very incomplete. In the last few days, I've rewritten/expanded the introduction, background, and operation castor sections (see this diff), but I still haven't touched the battle and aftermath sections.
  2. It lacks references. Right now, I'm relying very heavily on a single source (albeit a good one - Phillip Davidson's History of Vietnam)

The reason for my request on your talk page is that, not being a historian myself, I wanted to get a second opinion on it before I submitted it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. For the sections I've written so far, have I omitted or understated anything important? →Raul654 06:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim any particular expertise on the French Indo-China war. All I meant was that it read OK and it didn't seem to have any POV problems. No doubt it needs vetting by someone who is expert on the details. Adam 06:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: your snide comments about "consensus" on Clitoris[edit]

We simply differ on what a "consensus" is. I think it's a general accord, not simply a supermajority. I think that there was an "agreement" to keep the picture on the page because you blocked and harassed editors who didn't want it (including me). You didn't address the arguments that were put forward, which were far more compelling than "we won a vote, yah boo sucks". As I said on the talkpage of clitoris, Mark, those who are in a majority generally like to bellow about having a "consensus" represented by votes. They tend to prefer compromise when they feel they are less likely to win a vote. But is that a good way to resolve issues? Is your aim simply to win, regardless of the bitterness caused? I guess it is. I've never seen any sign that you actually welcome solutions that are inclusive. I tried very hard to work towards a solution for clitoris that would genuinely satisfy both camps. You didn't. You worked to silence dissent and to ensure that the voices of the people who find those kinds of pictures offensive (however misguided) went unheard. You can yell all you like about censorship, Mark, but censors work in all sorts of ways. You've made it so no one who disagrees with your stance on the picture can be heard. And when it was voted on, it was nowhere near unanimous; leaving aside the truth that you must be aware of that distaste for the picture is probably more widespread in our potential readership than it is among the rather unrepresentative sample of it that edits Wikipedia. -- Grace Note

The arguments put forward amounted to "but think of the children!!". Wikipedia is not censored. This clear and unambigious policy statement didn't seem to deter you in the least (and let's not pretend there were a lot of people pushing to remove the picture - the arbcom finding of fact was clear on this point). By the same token, why should we (the many people who opposed your crusade to censor that article) compromise our not-censored policy? You say that "silencing" people who don't want to abide by established policies is censorship, a laughable claim. By your logic, the police are practicing censorship when they arrest criminals.
As to the distaste for the picture - yes, it must be rather bad, since we've recieved exactly 0 complaints about it on: OTRS, wikien-l, talk:Clitoris, talk:main page, 'etc. Phew - the complaints just keep rolling in. →Raul654 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the Day[edit]

Hi Mark,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Hippo skull dark.jpg is due up for Pic of the Day on the 15th. As this will be a weekend, it will also appear on the Main Page. You can review and correct the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 15, 2005. It was a bit of struggle to get several of the pages save (especially on page protections), so something could easily be out of wack. If I get a chance I'll double check the page protections before Saturday, when response times are a little better. -- Solipsist 20:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Beethoven sonata[edit]

The titles should be normalized. The piece you asked about is in C Major. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

IRC[edit]

Sorry, I'd ducked out for a little while. Feel free to email me about whatever it was you wanted to mention. Ambi 10:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: A request[edit]

I'd be happy (and honored) to do it, but just one problem: my computer isn't hooked up to any recording devices. Is there any way I could record using a tape player and then transfer it to the computer? (Probably not, but it's worth a try. If you can't tell already, I've never recorded audio onto a computer before...) Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, the best way to do it (without a recording studio) would be to hook a mic into your sound card's mic input.
If that's not an option, then you need a casette player with a headphone out. You record your performance into a cassette tape, and then you connect the headphone out of the tape player to the mic input of the computer; start recording on the computer, and then start playback on the tape player. The quality won't be great, but if all goes well, it shouldn't be too bad. I suggest you use Audacity to capture the recording and encode the ogg - see Wikipedia:Media →Raul654 01:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sheet music[edit]

If I submit instrumental music to Wikipedia, does it have to be played from public domain sheet music? --HappyCamper 19:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I talked with Jamesday about this a while back. Even if the original music itself is not copyrighted (like one of Beethoven's sonatas), the sheet music you use has to be "musically identical" to the original (.e.g, no changed notes). →Raul654 19:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
As such, Mutopia is a good source for such sheet music. →Raul654 19:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Some pieces I can play are not there. What if I wrote everything out so it is "musically identical" to the original, released the picture of it as GFDL, and played from that? --HappyCamper
That would be fine. →Raul654 20:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, wonderful! Thanks for your help. --HappyCamper 20:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify - if you write the music out, you don't have to release the picture under the GFDL at all -- you only have to do it if you want to put it on wikipedia. →Raul654 20:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I see. But then, how would an external person be able to verify that the recording was produced in a way which is compatible with the GFDL? --HappyCamper 20:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
They would cite the copyright tag on wikipedia. While not necessary, I suppose having the sheet music readily at hand would make hte verification process smoother. →Raul654 20:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Raul[edit]

I am very sorry to bug you, but I think I may need to change my name again. I was informed that my user name is borderline to the "username policy" because it insinuates violence (i.e. Molotov cocktail)and refers to a historical figure. I think I ought to change it to "Encyclopedist" or something of that nature. I really don't mean to bother you or "jump in front" of other people in line - but I just wanted to personally tell you this. Molotov (talk) California state flag.png
03:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have bad news for you, but the change-username function is disabled now and for the forseeable future (and may never come back). But I don't really see any problems with your username. I mean, yes, it's obviously similiar to those things, but who cares? I consider it a non-issue. →Raul654 03:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


Raul, a question about FAs[edit]

Raul, being in the position you are in, you are probably the best question to ask this to. My question is this: at the moment, are we promoting enough FAs to "cover ourselves", in the sense that every week 7 articles appear on the Main Page and thus we should need to promote 7 a week (or more, because some will probably never be on the Main Page) to keep pace. Is that happening currently? Batmanand 10:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Last I checked, we had promoted 295 featured articles in teh first 280 days of 2005. So yes, we are promotong just over one per day on average. →Raul654 15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Excellent news, thank you. Batmanand 16:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Texas rangers[edit]

Dear Raul! Thank you so very much for your discernment and good judgment, in deciding that it was consensus.--Wiglaf 17:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting[edit]

Thanks for the instructions. By the way, you might want to block me for my severe vandalism. [11] 172 | Talk 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/SV[edit]

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed_decision#Ommision_of_fact

I understand that some are quite busy and may have missed recent discussion and questions regarding my Arbcom matter. Ive taken the liberty of posting here to remedy any inadvertent oversight regarding my case. Sinreg, St|eve 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Mainpage Article for October 30[edit]

Hey Raul654, while adding the mainpage date to come templates to the articles your currently adding or just finished adding, I noticed that for October 30th the article's main link redirects to Speaker (politics) when it should go to Speaker of the British House of Commons. I think it's better if you change them because the one it redirects to right now is not the featured article that is intended. Thanks. PRueda29 00:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

'Fixed. (In the future, you don't even have to ask me -- feel free to fix obvious mistakes like that) →Raul654 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the page was protected and I don't have admin privileges; when I do have themm, though, I'll be sure to remember that. PRueda29 00:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Take no offense[edit]

But Wikipedia is your life, right? You spend a lot of time on it. Is your work actually appreciated here? I mean, I would never edit so much. Anyway, what yourn doing is great.

Dirty tricks[edit]

I see that you reverted my addition of the NPOV tag at Dirty tricks. Do you deny that my edit summary comment is accurate? Indeed, as I see it, my comment it is accurate; that article is "screed" and is POV. Please get back to me with your thinking about this. Thanks.

Rex071404 06:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop?[edit]

Regarding what you wrote on PZFUN usertalk, I have to disagree with you. The classic template we use on talk is obviously a monster not fit for mainpage, but something like his Template:featuredarticle seems quite appropriate to me (although it can use some work to make it more pretty :) ). While I've been thinking of a template to go near the lead/header, if you find this appalling, I guess we can compromise at putting the template near the end of the article. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I do find it (the whole idea of having a template on the article itself) appalling, and here's why -- a featured article is supposed to demonstate the best practices we have on wikipedia. This means it's supposed to be easily redistributable. Putting metadata into articles runs directly counter to this -- it makes it difficult-if-not-impossible to run a good mirror of wikipedia. That's why I oppose putting metadata in all articles, especially the featured articles. It might make it slightly better here (on wikipedia), but such templates cause tremendous problems elsewhere. →Raul654 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice if folks could pull all wikipedia metadata from an article "before shipping".... hmmm.... actually there might be a way to set that up, or it might even already exist. I do wonder if it would survive tfd though :-P.
At the same time though, the german wikipedia apparently uses these discrete stars on featured articles. Maybe we should check de.wikipedia and see what's up. (Delphine keeps telling that she's utterly jealous of these folks, so I tend to think it might be interesting to steal their cool ideas too ;-) ) Kim Bruning 06:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: A Request[edit]

Sorry, I just saw your response above this post. I'll try my best, but hooking up my computer isn't high on my list of priorities. It may take a while. Also, just for your information, the issue featuring all the current Arbitratiors came out in this week's Signpost; if you want to read your fellow Arbitrators' full responses, you can find them here. Thanks again! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Ali Sina[edit]

Hey, sorry... but could you check this out. Not sure would you could do but you will notice that User:OceanSplash's comments are completely uncalled for, referring to my Jihadi brothers :), haha, but more importantly it's just the endemic FFI problem resurging. See http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12838 for a new thread about it all. I'm not sure what you can do about this but... if you at least talk to people higher up let them know that good editors are put under undo stress because of this crap. gren グレン 07:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let us not forget http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11216 I know offsite problems really aren't your issue, but could you at least let me know if Jimbo and those highly involved see this kind of thing. I know Raul mentioned advertising campaigns hitting wikipedia. Thanks again. gren グレン 07:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I just pasted that to User:SlimVirgin but inso doing realized that this kind of thing is far too frequent to pester admins about. I wanted to know what the reaction to this kind of thing is. If nothing else I wanted to make you explicitly aware that this kind of thing is going on in case you didn't know. Hope you're having fun in the lab :) gren グレン 07:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12815&highlight=wikipedia too. gren グレン 07:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yikes - gimme a sec. →Raul654 07:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just mentioning what I had posted to Sarah. It wasn't meant to be pressure. Thanks for responding there. (I have to get used to you responding on your own page -- I would watch your page but it would always be at the top of my list you get so many messages) gren グレン 05:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

John Gotti Image[edit]

Hello I write on behalf of the Open University and have been directed to you regarding the image of John Gotti found on the following weblink. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Gotti.jpg .I was told that you might be able to tell me where you got the image from since you uploaded it. We request for the copyright details for its re-use by our course team.

Many thanks t.adekunle@open.ac.uk

Sorry, but I do not remember exactly where I got that image. I uploaded it back when we weren't emphasizing the need for image-sources like we do today. It was from some site on the web I found using the google image search. →Raul654 21:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Isaac Newton[edit]

Thanks for featuring the Isaac Newton article. However, there were some issues brought up in the FAC that I don't think I've dealt with adequately, and I can't spend to much time on WP this week to fix them, so can you please don't put it on the main page until I tweaked it a little bit, maybe this weekend? Thanks. Borisblue 17:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledged. →Raul654 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Imfamous Felix the Cat Incident[edit]

Hi, Raul. On Wikipedia talk:Featured articles you mentioned the "infamous Felix the Cat incident" as one of the reasons that various parts of the main page are now protected. I was out of the country when Felix the Cat was on the main page, so I missed this, whatever it was. Can you give me the details or point me somewhere I can find them? Thanks! BrianSmithson 17:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure of the chain of events, but it goes something like this -- I scheduled felix the cat for the main page. While it was on the main page, some anonymous vandal uploaded an unpleasant image over Image:Felix.jpg, which was used on the main page at the time. I *think* he used the goatse image (but I'm not positive). Someone reverted him, he reverted back to goatse, and a melee ensued. After that, I started protecting all main page blurbs as a matter of course (and other people started taking care to protect the images as well). →Raul654 22:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Poor Felix. And poor man with enormous . . . well, poor man. At least they helped improve Wikipedia. :) And thanks for the info. BrianSmithson 02:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider[edit]

The William Lynch Speech or Racial portrayals of Jesus for the Featured article someday, and if not those Ranks of the People's Liberation Army? Molotov (talk) California state flag.png
22:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. Ranks of the People's Liberation Army is very list heavy (e.g., it's one big, long list) which is bad. You might want to consider nominating it as a featured list candidate.
  2. Racial portrayals of Jesus is NPOV disputed, which is very, very bad.
  3. William Lynch Speech needs references, and probably needs more information on its origins

I hope that answers your question. →Raul654 22:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No the second one was a tag I had just added - since I am the only contributor I had taken it back off. The third I had added sources. Thanks Raul!Molotov (talk) California state flag.png
22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone had added that unappropriate cleanup tag to William Lynch. It was only a mistake in words - the speech itself is not copyrighted, and should thus be kept in its form. Thus, I simply created a POV tag on it - but still taking it out of the pick. The Racial portrayals of Jesus is brand new and I think I had done a good job on it. Molotov (talk) California state flag.png
22:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's just forget I said anything about this. I will nominate that William Lynch Speech as soon as the dispute blows over. I thank you for all that you do

Original Barnstar.png Molotov (talk) California state flag.png
22:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Virtual Tour sister project[edit]

I've started a proposal page for a sister project called "Wikitour" that would lend itself directly to Wikipedia. Whereas Commons hosts individual images of places/things that have articles on Wikipedia, Wikitour would host "virtual tours" of these places/things.

The basic idea is as follows: a user submits numerous photos of a notable place, which are organized into pages/subpages to create a navigable environment similar to that in Myst, Riven, or the graphical Zork games; the navigation system would be on Wikitour, while the files themselves would be on Commons, with a link in the respective article on WP; examples include castles, museums, caverns, mountains, college campuses, typical mosques or churches, archaeological sites, etc. Basically, any topic that has an article on Wikipedia has the possibility of its own entry in Wikitour. Users could also submit photos of an object from various sides/angles/distances, rather than a place. For art galleries, this could instead consist of previously uploaded images of paintings/sculptures, which are organized into a single page, representing the contents of a specific art gallery. Please leave your impressions/suggestions at Talk:Wikitour. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-21 20:06

(CC'd from that talk page) I think it's an interesting idea, but I'm not convinced of the usefulness. Those concerns aside, my suggestion for the first place to do it would be for the mall area of Washington DC - lots of landmarks in nearby areas with pictures already available on commons. Raul654 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Schabir Shaik Trial[edit]

Hey there, I saw that Schabir Shaik Trial was taken off of the FAC page, but I was wondering if its nomination failed or was successful. I know that there weren't that many votes either way, mosly comments, but I'm curious so I can know about whether it was successful or if I should consider relisting it at a later date. Thanks! PZFUN.

It failed - there was no notification because I leave fac-faileed tagging violetriga (which usually takes a few hours) →Raul654 21:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Boothy[edit]

Hey. Going through my RfA I was surprised to see so few opposes. When I got my first from Boothy443 I was wondering what I needed to fix since I have not ever really seen them around before despite their numerous edits. I asked him (User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5#My_RfA_as_well) about it and he responded (User_talk:Grenavitar#RE:VFA). I was wondering if you could tell me if this is something I should be worried about. I really did want constructive criticism and the response was to withdrawl my nomination and I could not get anything more out of it. Right now I just don't understand. gren グレン 05:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not thing it is something you should be worried about. →Raul654 21:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste move[edit]

The article on Beethoven's sonata already existed with two different names. I only deleted the content of the improperly named article and replaced it with a redirect. If I understand how things should be done, I didn't do anything wrong (at least there was no other way to fix the problem). Greetings, --Missmarple 07:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

True, it did exist, but one had a very tiny history (like 4 edits) and one had a major history (dozens of edits). In that kind of situation, you want ot preserve the one with the long history. →Raul654 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Something Before I Leave Again[edit]

"If memory serves, shortly after I renamed this account a few weeks ago, I saw it mentioned somewhere that the original holder was transferring it to his brother. Is my memory of this correct, or am I crazy? →Raul654 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)"

Before my name was changed to Private Butcher, I took a wikibreak, and asked if while I was taking the wikibreak could my brother use the account. I was told no, so he did not get my account. Just so you know, now I'm going to continue with my mental breakdown, thank you. Private Butcher 00:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Short note: Private butcher was thinking of letting his bro take over, but did not -I think[edit]

Short note referring to the quote above: "If memory serves, shortly after I renamed this account a few weeks ago, I saw it mentioned somewhere that the original holder was transferring it to his brother. Is my memory of this correct, or am I crazy? →Raul654 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)"

Mark, I saw your post on Private butcher's RfA page (he used to be the Fascist Chicken). Private butcher was thinking of letting his brother take over (he asked Jimbo for permission), but later just used the page himself I think. While letting several editors use one account is technically against the rules, don't Heidi & Joe do the same thing? (In other words, it's not a big deal, so Joe and Heidi, if you're reading this, rest assured that I'm not saying anything against you.) In any case, his RfA failed, but he seems liek a good neighbor and good editor.--GordonWatts 07:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Private Butcher - I'm sorry to hear you are stressed. I hope you enjoy your wikibreak, and come back refreshed. →Raul654 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
No Gordon, Heidi & Joe do not do the same thing. For openers we are a married couple with one computer. Heidi is blind so I include her in our signature not because she is a separate entity sharing one IP address but rather to include her thoughts in our edits. As our edits are indeed a collaboration we decided to reflect that with our WP signature. --hydnjo talk 23:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC) ...follow

Apology on the Comment[edit]

Apologies on the comment, I removed it since my only concern is civility, and in that I forgot that he's a newbie(only skimmed over his contribs). I'm just not very tolerant of those who are not tolerant of others. Karmafist 21:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. →Raul654 21:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bounty Board[edit]

Mark,

I've been thinking for a while about starting a Wikipedia:Bounty Board, where people put up monetary bounties for articles to become featured, but where the money all goes to the Wikimedia Foundation if the conditions are met. I have a draft at User:Quadell/bounty.

It seems to me that the positives would be that it would encourage donations and encourage the creation of featured articles, and it would fill a gap - that people tend to look for a psychological "reward" when they've worked hard for Wikipedia. But my questions are: 1, Do you think there are any legal problems with this? 2, Do you think this goes against the Wiki philosophy? And 3, Do you see any other problems? (I'm asking several long-term and knowlegeable Wikipedian about this.)

Thanks for your input, – Quadell (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


  1. I am not a lawyer, but as the foundation is only a 3rd party to the arrangments, I don't see how it could have legal issues
  2. Since no one is being rewarded with money for writing, I don't think it's anti-wiki. It sounds a lot like the old wikibank.
  3. I don't want to rain on your parade, but I'm not really sure getting someone else to donate to wikipedia is suffecient motivation to get someone to get an article up to featured level. →Raul654 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I ONLY snap back, mildly enough, when personal attacks are launched against me. I NEVER use derisive, or pompous, language, first. EVER.

You may block me - that is, in fact, your prerogative. However, the FINAL WARNING thing should have been done PUBLICLY. So that others could form an opinion of my actions, those of my opponents, and YOURS too. That would have only been the DECENT thing to do.

I repeat, if you have nothing better to occupy your time with, go ahead and block me from editing. I have quite a few fascinating article ideas in mind for Wikipedia, and I will especially regret my Five Greats project in which I plan... planned... to improve, or rewrite, the articles on Puccini, Wagner, Bizet, and Tchaikovsky, from which improvement a whole bunch of folks interested in the subject would probably benefit ... wrong tense... which would have been a source of great joy and intellectual satisfation to a great deal of men in women. But - since you figure that your notions of what is a personal attack and what isn't are more important - go ahead and do it. I have enough problems with self-important editors in the real world. I thought I'd be kind of ... uh ... protected against fatuous expostulations directed at me by conceited fools - here. As it has turned out, I was mistaken. So be it.

The whole issue, by the way, is laughable. I never actually thought that the article would make the Featured Articles category. As I mentioned in that intro everyone got so pissed off about without actually reading it carefully, I nominated it in order to keep a clear conscience. A Quixotic gesture, wouldn't you say? As it turns out, that gesture is going to cost me my editing privileges. You've taken the conceited fools' side - that, I suppose, is your loss. There may have been benefits for both of us in our future editorial relationship.

As a matter of fact, this is MY final warning. I'm warning YOU. It is for a reason, perhaps, that you take certain matters pertaining to Wikipedia seriously. And - you do it for free. And that is, in fact, quite Quixotic of you. As one windmill damager to another - do you want to be a Second Renaissance man; or do you want to be a boring bureaucrat, one of those charming dudes whom you find in key positions in today's Establishment no matter where you look and who are doing their best to bring about the end of the world? The choice is yours. Godspeed.Ricardo the Texan 21:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo RFA[edit]

I think you may have to clarify your position there. He's getting some "Support I trust Raul654's support in nominating him" votes. Borisblue 03:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Newton now mainpageable[edit]

Re: [12], I'm done with the revamp, and I think the article is now suitable for the main page. Thanks!Borisblue 05:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledged. →Raul654 03:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006[edit]

I certainly want to attend. I can't promise for certain because the dates aren't settled yet as far as I know. I have a family vacation planned for around late-June early-July, which would cause problems if Wikimania is too early. So I'm hoping it will be in August again, although obviously scheduling can't be for my benefit alone. --Michael Snow 06:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent admin promotions[edit]

Raul654, Early this morning (UTC) you promoted two new admins, User:The wub and User:Titoxd. I've found a few problems with the manner in which you accomplished these tasks.

In noting the above, I mean no disrespect. All the best, --Durin 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion! The caps thing was probably my fault since its what I wrote and linked on the RfA page, I prefer to write my username in all lowercase. It's worked fine anyway. the wub "?!" 18:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In reply to the second point - I left no notification for Titoxd because I told in real time on IRC. →Raul654 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A little protected-page edit needed[edit]

Hi! Noticed a sentence that needed a little fixing in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2005 (Cheese).

"Different styles and flavors of cheese are the results of using different species of bacteria and molds, different levels of milk fat, variations in length of aging, differing processing treatments."

Should be "...variations in length of aging, and differing processing treatments."

Hope this was an appropriate place to bring this up. Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is an appropriate place to bring it up. I have fixed the problem. →Raul654 03:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul. I appreciate the work you do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo RFA confirmation[edit]

I just wanted to let you know as a courtesy that as per the consensus on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship to delist, I have closed and delisted Stevertigo's adminship confirmation and put a request on m:Requests for permissions for a steward to remove his sysop privs as per the arbcom ruling. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 01:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and the links. Hope all is well. -St|eve 03:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Addition to your rules[edit]

This isn't exactly a Wikipedia rule, but a more general rule, combined with a prophecy of sorts:

  • Law: Throughout history, major conflicts have originated from misunderstandings.
    Prediction: World War III will start from a mistranslation of This people-related article is a stub.

BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-26 14:26


EK3 proposed decision[edit]

Please stop with the voting and respect the request for time. Everyking 00:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Theresa Knott's sentiments in this regard. →Raul654 04:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rita Picture[edit]

I have nominated the picture Rita 2005 five day track.gif for deletion because it is not needed anymore. The image's page says that one of your user space pages links to it. Just letting you know so you can delete it from your subpage. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 20:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That was a proof of concept page that was no longer needed, so I have wiped it out. →Raul654 04:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Il barocco siciliano[edit]

Whoa ha ha hoo ho hoo! But won't this make someone even more cross! Oh well should be an interesting week, perhaps I'd better take it off my watch list. Thanks - you've restored my faith in human nature. I'm not that het up, I believe in this project, and I won't quietly see it dumbed down. Giano | talk 21:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque FA[edit]

Could you explain the reasoning behind promoting it? I count four supports and three objects, all based on perceptions that the language was florid and, well, baroque :-) The language had been improving, then we had a rollback, breaking the portions of the objections that had been addressed. I'm not understanding something. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It looked to me as if most of the objections had been resolved (I admit I could have been wrong in this regard); before promoting I skimmed the article and I didn't see anything that struck me as partincularly objectionable. →Raul654 04:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
See Tony1's edit in [13] his RFA for a sizable essay enumerating some badly-written prose. I realize it's not fair to try to continue the FAC process over in that RFA, so perhaps this is of limited value, but I find he nicely summarizes why some of the language is objectionable. OK, I better stop this before people start accusing me of being Tony's sockpuppet :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet split[edit]

The article has been severely chopped about since I last worked on it but I will see if I can find some references. Adam 04:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, great :) →Raul654 04:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about FA[edit]

Hi, Raul, I was recommended to you by User:Rossrs to ask your opinion on a matter concerning the status of an article possibly being a FA. Currently, there is a debate concerning personal taste over how charts should be presented. In a recent nomination, "Cool (song)", the primary author of the article gave into pressure from other users and unified charts against her personal taste. I don't mind fixing other things, but this is something I really don't think should be changed. Others have agreed with me like Rossrs who stated, "I truly believe that it's a question of personal taste and because it's not policy - either official or unofficial - that basing a vote on that issue alone is not fair". With that in mind, I'm just wondering if it would be feasible for an article to pass FA if all other obejctions are met. OmegaWikipedia 09:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

FARC assistance[edit]

User:Jiang brought up Sun Yat-sen on WP:FARC. I speedy delisted it as the article was promoted just last month. Your input has been requested here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind about Sun Yat-sen for now; if Jiang can get more support for Farc-ing it, then we'll just IAR and let it go through.
Of more immidiate concern is a controversy with Sicilian Baroque. The article which was literally just promoted has been put up on FARC. I've reverted two attempts at putting it up. If you can, we really need your input here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

rIPping vandals (publicly revealing IP address of the most disruptive vandals)[edit]

I have posted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#rIPping_.28and_ToSsing.29_vandals, calling on User:David Gerard to publicly reveal the IPs of the vandalbot socks that have been reverting Sealand, which I believe to be in keeping with item 5 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy.

More generally, I believe that revealing IP (rIPping) vandals should be an option in the most disruptive cases of sockpuppet vandalism (especially vandalbots) that prevents Wikipedia from functioning normally (causing articles to be permanently protected, for instance). This would be an alternative to the earlier proposal to give more users Checkuser privilege, with the advantage that the privacy of ordinary users (and even garden-variety vandals) would be as secure as before.

Publicly revealing the IP would allow the grunt work of liaising with ISP's abuse contact person to be delegated to a "ToS committee" (Terms of Service) of ordinary users (without checkuser privilege), so reporting of terms of service violations to ISPs and followup could be done more systematically and effectively than is the case today. -- Curps 20:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article question[edit]

Hello. I recently worked on an article that achieved featured article status (Cool (song); Talk:Cool (song)), and was informed that you are aware of the dates that articles will appear on the Wikipedia front page. I was just curious to know if you know when "Cool" will be the featured article of the day? Thank you for your time. --Winnermario 22:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

ATLAS experiment image[edit]

Hi Raul,

PRueda29 just told me that main page images are typically limited to 100px, after I put a 120px image next to the ATLAS experiment main page proposal. Getting perfect pictures to illustrate the article, especially for that small a size, is extremely difficult (CERN images aren't public domain), and I think the image I put with the proposal at 120 px is the best that can be done. However, if that would be too big, I'm more than happy to work on cropping to different dimensions, trying other images, etc. All this assumes you end up deciding to put the article on the Main Page at some point—I like it, but then I'm rather biased, and I know there are lots of other articles waiting too. -- SCZenz 18:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

November (film)[edit]

The article November (film) is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/November (film)), and currently has five support votes and no objects. I am writing this message to you because I have just realised that November 7 is the date that an extremely significant event in the film (which it returns to several times) takes place. This may sound silly, and you don't have to do this at all if it is too much work or if this request is out of line, but I was wondering if the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 7, 2005 page could be saved for the November (film) article, so that it is featured on the main page that day. I would be delighted if this was to happen, as I feel that that date is the best and most suitable date to represent the film, even more so than its various release dates. If you have any problems with this proposal, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, and I will not pursue the matter further. Thank you very much. Extraordinary Machine 23:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision[edit]

Would you please answer my questions on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Proposed decision page. Thank you.

help[edit]

Raul, sorry to bother you with this but i have a question... I suppose you are a bureaucrat here and i suppose that you have access to the same special pages i do, as a bureaucrat for wiki.pt. Can you have access to user rights? Because i know that bureaucrats (at least in theory) can control who has the right to move pages. I'm asking you this because i cant find how i can do this and we (at wiki.pt) are trying to start a discussion about limiting the move page function, after a spree of moving vandalism. But in order to do this we need to know how it works and nobody there knows! Do you have any idea about this, or where or who can i ask? Thanks, muriel@pt 08:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[As I understand it] Mediawiki supports fine-grained user permissions. Setting and unsetting these permissions is done through a special page whose name I cannot remember at the moment. On Wikipedia, use of this page is restricted only to the stewards -- see m:stewards. →Raul654 08:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks for my first clue to the mistery. by the way, if you are wondering which featured article would be nice for tomorrow, here is a sugestion: 1755 Lisbon earthquake. It will be the 250th anniversary of the event. Cheers, muriel@pt 12:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen FA[edit]

If you get a chance, could you check out Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen. A user who objected to the article's original FA vote a month and a half ago is trying to now remove the article from FA status. He says you ignored his objections when you promoted the article. I disagree with this statement, feel consensus was reached on the article's promotion to FA status, and have encouraged him to raise the issues he was with the article on the article's talk page. He has so far refused to do this. While I'm trying to assume good intentions here, I suspect that he might have a political agenda. I think it would help for us on the FARC page to get your perspective on the article's original FA vote and why the article was promoted. Thanks.--Alabamaboy 14:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am the unnamed "user" in question here and would also like to see your take on this controversy, namely, 1) was the original nomination promoted prematurely and was consensus achieved in that nomination and more importantly 2) is it appropriate, given the circumstances of this particular article, to nominate Sun Yat-sen as a farc only a month and a half after it was promoted. And please as much authority to your comments as appropriate. Thanks, Jiang 13:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Daily Featured Article[edit]

Why can't it be protected? Must we keep having to vandal Gay Wolf/Gray Wolf vandalism all night? If it's good enough to become featured, it shouldn't need to be edited so soon, at least not on the day it's on the main page. Acetic'Acid 19:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

See user:Raul654/protection →Raul654 19:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah... I hadn't realized it was today's FA. Still, although vandalism is cleared up quickly, this article is being vandalized at a disturbing rate, and I'm one of the watchers for this article. When a watcher notices the vandalism *lang* before the FA status, perhaps there's something wrong with the process.... - UtherSRG (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

New idea for videos[edit]

Before, when we started putting videos in articles, it was debated whether they should be inline or at the end. It was decided to put them at the end because that blocky video box breaks the flow. Well, I think I know how to go with the flow. Let's say you're doing someone's biography, and you have video of an important event in their life, so you want it to be next to the event in the text. What you do is take a screencapture of the video, upload that, place the image in the article next to the event's text, and in the caption of the image, say something like "Still shot from footage of the Wright Brother's flight. See here for the full video." That caption would provide a link to the video, maybe with some sort of mini icon in the caption to indicate that there is a film clip. In this way, the flow wouldn't be broken up anymore than an image breaks up the flow, and the article isn't left with a bunch of videos randomly clumped at the end. How does that sound? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 03:28

FAC process[edit]

It appears that the FACs removed in this edit [14] don't appear in the archived nominations lists and still have {{fac}} on their talk pages. I didn't check every one of them, but all of them that I did check were in this semi-delisted state. So it looks like they skipped a step in the process somewhere. --Tabor 06:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

'Fixed. →Raul654 07:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Just using this header to save some space, but you can remove the current Sleepy Lagoon Murders FAC nomination, as the user who started it has withdrawn the nom and sent the article over to peer review. Harro5 07:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

FAC question - concerning addressing an objection[edit]

I have recently been trying to address the concerns of Monicasdude with the Boston, Massachusetts article. However, it doesn't seem that the user is responsive (I've already placed messages on the user's talk page), and if he/she is responsive is asking for more to be done without being specific. I have seen this user critique other articles on FAC in the same way, and was wondering if you have any ideas how to deal with this user and if one object vote could fail an article's chance at FA, even when others support the article's candidacy and one tries to address that user's concerns. Thanks. Pentawing 01:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Everyking IRC discussion[edit]

I suppose this means my offer was rejected? I think the ArbCom should give someone a chance to present a defense, if not out of integrity then at least for appearance's sake. Everyking 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

When? Now? Everyking 06:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am on at this very minute. →Raul654 06:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Behavior of Ted Wilkes[edit]

User:Ted Wilkes is still removing my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See [15] and [16]. He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule. I think the arbitration committee should place a note about this behavior on his talk page. Thank you. 80.141.255.90 20:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sannse's ArbCom Resignation[edit]

Hello Raul, acting again as a reporter for The Wikipedia Signpost, I noticed that you removed Sannse's name from WP:ArbCom, citing her resignation. If you don't mind me asking, was her resignation within the ArbCom mailing list, or was it somewhere else? Thanks a lot for your help. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

She announced her resignation on the arbcom mailing list yesterday (Nov 4), citing an inability to put in the necessary amount of time. →Raul654 04:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Singular/plural inconsistency Today's FA[edit]

The final sentence of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 7, 2005 is currently inconsistent - the first verb is in the singular and the second in the plural. Presumably you want both in the singular (complying with American/International English), although the preference in British English is to use the plural - there has been a little further discussion on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 7, 2005. Qwghlm 19:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Human[edit]

People have expressed concern over your promotion of Human to featured. They feel there was insufficient consensus. Could you please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Human? Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 20:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia)[edit]

Hello! As a respected admin, I was wondering if you could remove the copyright tag and replace the article with its temp page. All partieis agree that this appears to be a carbonb copy of text from the Institute of Heraldry and a good temp page was made as a compromise. Thank you! -Husnock 15:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Morris Library[edit]

Hey, since you took the picture (and I will presume you added it to the page with the current caption) of Morris I was wondering if you could corroborate that it is the largest library between New York and Washington D. C. I really have no idea about UPenn's library, but I have been in University of Maryland (College Park)'s McKeldin library and I'm sure looks can be deceiving, but, it surely seems like it could compete. I was just curious if it was you that got that fact, and if so, where from? gren グレン 22:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I heard it a LOOOONG time ago, back in the dinosaur days when I took the campus tour. →Raul654 22:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Resumption of "Be Bold" disputes -- please review[edit]

Despite your efforts at resolving the "Be Bold" disputes in September, the dispute has picked up again, with users inserting new and more restrictive language without prior discussion or notice. I didn't agree with the way you resolved the last round of this dispute, but respected the process and haven't tried to alter it. The new language, which virtually guts the policy with regard to all articles (not limited to controversial subjects or Featured Articles) is on its face incompatible with the clear consensus in discussion only a few weeks ago, and it's really inappropriate to have major changes made to the guideline without the prior discussion and consensus that existing policy regarding such guidelines calls for. Monicasdude 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom decision[edit]

Why has ArbCom decided the case when I have not completed listing my evidence or indeed even listed my defence? I left a clear note that I would not have time to do this before December. I have been subjected to some vile personal attacks and bullying by some very determined and, in one case, bigoted editor, and have been harrassed by a sockpuppet account for some time. The denial of the opportunity to give me sufficient time to defend myself and to argue my case is a complete denial of natural justice.

I request the case is reopened so that I can answer the charges, jguk 07:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, that sounds familiar. The ArbCom seems to like this process of putting things through quickly enough that serious analysis and discussion is made difficult. What I don't understand is why, if they want the case shoved through to achieve a practical result (stop something problematic), why not just use a temporary injunction to achieve that result and then allow the involved parties all the time they need? Everyking 06:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured Articles[edit]

Hey, Raul... or Mark, just wanted to let you know that if you need any help with featured articles or mainpage articles I'd be willing to help you in any way, thanks. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 23:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Rex071404[edit]

Some of us think he's in violation of his first 2 arbcoms. Would we need to start a new arbcom case to get this going? Or is there something else we can do? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


In regards to this:[17] Is it your position that #7 is not in fact an enforcement against me which expired when the six month "no revert" restriction expired? And if so, are you saying that I am permanently barred from any doing any revert of any kind? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 06:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did. →Raul654 07:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Super. So now Rex can revert as well as all of the other stuff he does. So Raul, do we need to open up another Arbcom or is there some way of commenting or reopening an old one. I'm an admin but I haven't done enough arbies to know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

141[edit]

Would you be so kind as to examine my edits to James Dean and Nick Adams? As one of his assigned mentors, I have attempted to distill onefortyone's edits, which I consider, in these two cases at least, to be well-sourced, balanced, verifiable and encyclopedic discussion of the actors' sexuality. They are repeatedly being reverted (and I've now been taken to WP:3RR as "violating the ArbCom order." I do not consider them to do any such thing. I would appreciate your input. FCYTravis 22:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

PA parole[edit]

Hello, regarding my arbitration case, the remedy is a personal attack parole: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/REX#Personal attack parole. How long is it for? A month? A year? Rex(talk)Flag of Albania.svg 22:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As there is no expiration listed, the parole is indefinite (or until we issue a ruling that ends it) →Raul654 22:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh! OK. Rex(talk)Flag of Albania.svg 22:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wack Them[edit]

Raul, I'm just curious about your comment on the arbitration page where you say, "wack them." Who are you referring to? I'm afraid to ask who will be the wacker, so I won't. Anyway, I'm just interesting in clarification. Thanks.. Davidpdx 06:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified the statement. It's a directive to admins to whack the sockpuppets, and Johnski too if he won't behave. &rarr;Raul654 06:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to confirm that at least some of our allegations are true about the sockpuppets. I was concerned that they would be thrown the way side. I'm concerned he will create other accounts and that no action will be taken. Thus far, it has been impossible to get anyone to help. If the case is declined by arbitration (which we don't know yet if it will be) I would appreciate advice on who to contact to deal with this in another way other then bring the case to arbitration. Putting all this information together is time consuming and frustrating. Fortunately, since I've posted this stuff things have calmed down. I doubt that will be the case for very long though. Thanks again~ Davidpdx 06:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Raul, regardless of how it looks, I have only used one user name and one IP address. If you get too wacky, you will hurt innocent Wikipedians. But I'm sure they can make their owns cases if they want to continue to edit in this great community. There is also the issue of presenting both sides of the story, which any good Wikipedian would want. Sincerely, Johnski 07:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, were you able to get any positives from sock checks? I've already blocked Rriter (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet, as it was rather obvious. The first edit was to revert, exact same style. KAJ (talk · contribs) is also very suspicious as he and Johnski have apparently never edited on the same day, as far as I can tell (and their combative edit summaries are very similar). Wiki-Facts (talk · contribs), though, I think, has to be distinct, as it looks like some of his edits overlap Johnski's (Johnsjki at 7:08, WF at 7:09). I haven't looked at the IPs, but some of them are surely Johnski's. Can you confirm any of this, and if not, what do you think about blocking KAJ anyway, as there seems to be enough evidence? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 08:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Mark and Dmcdevit, I wonder how it feels to Rriter to be falsely blocked as if he is my sock-puppet. Also, on the more important part of this exercise, you can see that since this arb case arose, a stranger came looking at Dominion of Melchizedek and felt the same need for balance there at the bottom of the talk page, and the false arguments given to him by Davidpdx and Gene_Poole for excluding opinions outside their own. The argument that users with a similar interest must be on the Internet at the same time or the same day, doesn't hold water. If that were the case, I could log in and out of two or more user names every minute to avoid the 3RR. I only used one IP address, period, and that is the same one connected to my sole user name. Sincerely, Johnski 09:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
As this is my first time using checkuser, I've asked David Gerard, who is more experienced in these matters, to take a look. &rarr;Raul654 09:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi from the CrackTeam at CodeCentral[edit]

Hi, Mr. Raul654. I hate to bother you at this time, but my name is Greg from the CrackTeam at CodeCentral.

You may have noticed our edits recently (we share an IP with a school, and we regret any bad edits).

These are not bad-faith edits or what we consider trolling or vandalism. They're alerts from us, the CrackTeam at CodeCentral, telling you that your site is editable.

Most editable sites have been exploited by security flaws from attackers, as some websites became temporarily by the Sircam virus.

We don't know if your servers run Windows or Linux or not. If so, they can be vulnerable to viruses (Windows more than most).

Just wanted to let you know. Editable websites are a bad thing, and spyware, adware and viruses can happen to them (but not if you use a Macintosh usually).

Thank you,

The CrackTeam at CodeCentral —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.56.88.133 (talkcontribs) .

The sites editable because its a Wiki, you fools. I also doubt you know how to crack anything, or code anything, based on that post. --Kiand 17:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:WP:POST[edit]

Thanks for improving the article and for letting me know! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:IAR[edit]

Erm, you're aware that "rv to consensus version" is synonymous with "rv to my POV", err, right?

Hmm, that and if you'll take a look, you'll see we'd been working on IAR all day and had just reached some kind of central position.

Anyway, please discuss with me on irc or so. Thanks!

Kim Bruning 08:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello. I am User:Hollow Wilerding. I was just wondering if some of the comments made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl are relevant to the nomination's future? The comments I am speaking about in particular are the ones relating to Cool (song) not deserving its featured status; also the over-arrogant line, "See Layla for an example of a featured song article Wikipedia can actually be proud of." I was also wondering if you could just go ahead and remove its nomination because I've lost all faith in Wikipedians. If they want an article devoted to the song's structure, production, promotion, etc. You do a good job of the featured article selection though, so I thank you for your presence. --Hollow Wilerding 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please restore my RfA[edit]

Hi Raul654, you removed my RfA from the main page before it was done! [18] Can you restore it please? Epopt (and possibly James Forrester) rejected without prejudice until the RfC against me was completed. So they can change their votes when the RfC is done. If the other 3 who have not voted accept then the RfA will be accepted 6 to 4. (or 7 to 3 depending on what James says). Thanks! --Ben 01:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't leave requests for arbitration up ad-infinitum. If after a week, a request does not have enough votes to be accepted (4), and has 4 or more rejections, then it is removed. &rarr;Raul654 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The thing is there are 10 active Arbitration Committee members right now so it's 6 that make up the majority. --Ben 07:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
For requests, majority doesn't matter -- 4 is the magic number (both for acceptances and rejections). The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it; unless otherwise specified by the Arbitrator's votes, a minimum twenty-four hour grace period will be granted between the fourth vote to open the case and the actual opening of the case. The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it, or if all but three active Arbitrators have voted to reject the case. - Wikipedia:Arbitration policy &rarr;Raul654 16:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thanks for the info. --Ben 21:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt[edit]

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. Halibutt has been a significant contributor to most of my FAs. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Revert to consensus version" ?[edit]

Eh? On WP:IAR You reverted a consensus reached at some point in time C to some other consensus reached at some other point in time B, (also, you have once reverted consensus reached at point in time A to consensus at point in time B). I'm utterly confused by what "revert to consensus version" might mean in the context of a wiki. I thought everything is supposed to be some consensus, just one more or less optimal than some other.

Hmm, you appear to have some concept though. Please enlighten me!

Kim Bruning 13:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Thanks for the message, hopefully we can meet in January. [[User:V. Molotov|Molotov [[User_talk:V. Molotov| (talk)]] [[Image:California_state_flag.png|25px]]]] 17:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice as well! I've left my response on the page. By the way, Raul, did you know that your sig isn't fixed yet? It's still showing up as html instead of the arrow. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have fixed it. Raul654 23:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I liked the arrow! Is there no way to make that show up anymore? Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Use a raw sig, and/or paste the arrow in directly: &rarr; is just → ? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article protection[edit]

Please do not protect the daily featured article - see user:Raul654/protection Raul654 07:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)-

Hey, actually I knew/know the protection policies, but I didnt realize it was a featured article, I was extrememly buzy at the time and had one persistent anon vandal, I should have noticed it was featured. Thanks for the note. «»Who?¿?meta 08:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}}[edit]

Is there any reason this would be better in talk then main body? It's much smaller then copyedit or wikify templates, and at least as importnat, IMHO.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Those templates (unreferenced and wikify) don't belong in the article any more than unreferenced does. It's not a matter of size (which is easily remedied) but of principle -- metadata belongs on the tak page. Raul654 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


Featured article[edit]

Hi, I'm user:Anittas. I want to ask you if the article I've started on the Battle of Vaslui is up to standard for being a featured article. I self-nominated the article some time ago, but I was told that it wasn't good enough. The article now has a map, a few photos, and much updated info. I don't want to go through the Wiki mob again, unless I think the article has a fair chance for being approved; and for that reason, I'm taking a shortcut: you. Thanks. --Anittas 01:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done - it is a nice article. My only comment would be that you don't have any references in English (which could reflect its subject, or the sources available to you). You may like to consider putting it up at Wikipedia:Peer review for a few weeks before WP:FAC. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll defer to Aloan's opinion, which I respect highly on these matters :) Raul654 00:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't know of any English sources. Are English sources more credible than foreign sources? I do know that the chronicles of Dlugosz have been translated into English, but I'm not sure whether I could find the book. Ah well... --Anittas 05:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not a question of credibility, just verifiability. This is the English Wikipedia after all, and it may be difficult for readers to find (let alone read) your references (good though I am sure they are). From a Google search, I found, for example, this wargame, which, while not a reference, is quite fun :) and this related booklist, and this coin. A spell on WP:PR may flush out some extra references, and it is also useful, where you have largely written an article yourself, to get some outside input and review before going on WP:FAC. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

hummer[edit]

Not really sure, it's a plumage not depicted in Birds of Costa Rica. Ruby-throated Hummingbird looks closest, but Volcano Hummingbird has some good plumage features and a variable throat colour. jimfbleak 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could make Christmas the main page article for Decmber 25 - there is strong support for it. I was told by PRueda29 that you are the person to see about these suggestions. What do you think? Brisvegas 10:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure - I'll schedule it when Christmas gets a bit closer (I've only scheduled the FAs through December 4) Raul654 01:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewordings of front-page blurb[edit]

If I want to suggest some small rewordings of the front-page blurb on the ATLAS experiment (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2005), should I suggest them here or is there some better page for the purpose? -- SCZenz 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You can suggest them here, or talk:main page; if you are an administrator, you can go ahead and make the changes yourself without neededing to suggest them. Raul654 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just put 'em here:
  1. First sentence should either begin "The ATLAS experiment is..." or, "ATLAS is..."
  2. Last two sentences should be recast as: "ATLAS is designed as a general-purpose experiment, so that regardless of what is produced by the collision of the accelerator's proton beams, the results can be measured as accurately as possible."
Thanks for your help. -- SCZenz 01:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 01:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. You might also wikilink the words "proton beams" as follows: [[proton]] [[particle beam|beams]] -- SCZenz 01:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you again! -- SCZenz 03:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate the promotion and I thank you.--MONGO 02:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


WP:TFA/December 5[edit]

I've requested Arrested Development as the featured article for December 5. Although the article is not yet featured (nominated Nov. 20), nothing is currently standing in its way. Let me know if you have any problems with featuring it on December 5. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-23 08:15

  • I think I'm finished fulfilling all the requested changes to the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:31

Newwark, New Jersey[edit]

It appears Newark, New Jersey may have been featured unilaterally almost two years ago by User:Dinopup. Plz check what I have posted to the user.

Hi there. Sorry to inform, but Newark is an FA removal candidate at the moment. Check: WP:FARC Someone there pointed out that there is actually no record of it having gone to a feature vote in the first place. You tagged it Featured, quite a while ago now, and the tag was subsequently formatted by Maveric149: [19]. The FA logs show no record of it going to a vote in March, Feb or Jan of 2004. Perhaps the rules were different then or you were unfamiliar with them but it seems to me this was made an FA out of process and as such should probably be speedily de-featured. Marskell 13:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Newark is among the oldest featured articles. It dates back from the old "Brilliant Prose" days, when anyone could add it to the list. When we made the switch to "featured articles", we had a confirmation vote and it appears that Newark passed and was included in the featured articles. In other words, no one did anything irregular. Raul654 18:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Where the tag states has been identified is there any way to blue-link to the confirmation vote in such cases? Where is that vote incidentally? Marskell 10:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The vote is located at Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose. As for redirect it, you could theoretically create a featured article candidate page for those articles, but I don't like that idea because it would create the (false) impression that it went through the FAC process. Raul654 10:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can't find it. It does not appear in the archive and, conversely, it's own links here list doesn't show the archive or anything else that would indicate it had a vote of any kind. However, the FARC nom may render the point moot. Marskell 11:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Hrm... I don't know why it's not on the refreshing BP vote list - it should be, at any rate. I suppose it's possible the refrehsing BP disambiguatio page is incomplete. Raul654 11:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Writing a scientology article has done as much damage to my brain as a case of beer[edit]

I have discovered new things about our lord Xenu and now I know how you feel. Check this edit or, in clearer form, on my LJ. Ow. Ow ow ow. - David Gerard 08:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. I wonder who stole the idea from whom - Marvel from Hubbard, or Hubbard from Marvel. Raul654 08:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Marvel 1962, Marvel reprints early 1967, Hubbard late 1967. Oh God. It's even dumber than I first thought it was. I'd rather it had all been coming down from uppers and downers ("auditing out DTs") - David Gerard 13:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Three questions concerning FA policy[edit]

  1. Will you point me to the pages where FA policy is discussed?
  2. As "Featured Article Director", are you solely responsible for selecting Main Page articles?
  3. Is consensus not required for FAC promotion (in the archived FAC proceedings for one current FA, there are two standing objections that seem to be clear and actionable, and were not addressed whatsoever -- that made me curious)?

Thanks! --Tsavage 21:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. More or less all featured-article related discussion occurs on wikipedia talk: featured article candidates and wikipedia talk:featured articles.
  2. I am solely responsible for choosing the featured articles that appear in the main page, yes; on the other areas where articles appear on the main page (on the selected anniversaries, in the news, and did you know), I'm just the same as anyone else
  3. Yes, consensus is required; however, consensus is not unanimity, and not all objections are equall meritorious or weighty. Raul654 03:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My additional question:

  • Who is responsible for selecting the featured articles?
    • What do you mean by "selecting?" As in, promoting them from featured article candidate to featured article? That would be me. Raul654 05:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Cyberpunk on the Main Page[edit]

To borrow a line from Sinfest, "I am so happy!" This will make the second time my deathless prose (har, har) has reached the Main Page, the first being The Giver. Now, if everybody can just agree on omnipotence paradox, I can even say that I escaped the Literature category...

Anville 23:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Promotion to admin[edit]

Thanks for the honour of being promoted to admin, I'll make sure I familiarise myself with it all. Hiding talk 07:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Need your approval over deletion of 15 files.[edit]

(Don't panic; really, I don't think you'd too) It's regarding over 15 OGG files,

uploaded by your bot, Raulbot.

These files are from Brahms' 16 Waltzes, Op.39. You probably guessed the problem: there are only 15 files; but all 16 waltzes are inside - Brahms-waltz11.ogg actually holds the recording of waltzes 11 and 12. Brahms-waltz12.ogg onwards hold the recording of the next waltz (that is, Brahms-waltz12.ogg holds the recording of waltz 13 and so on - I think you get the idea). I referenced each recording with a Brahms' 16 Waltzes music sheet.

My original intention was to overwrite each file with the correct recording, and updating the file's tags while doing so. However, when I was attempting to upload a newer version, I changed the filename (on Wikipedia's servers), thinking the older version of the file will be replaced and renamed. Well, it didn't happened the way I wanted it to be - a whole new file on Wikipedia servers was created and your original file was still around (I'm about a month and a half old on Wikipedia so I still really don't how some stuff works around here).

I've only uploaded Waltz 1 (Image:Martha Goldstein - Brahms, Johannes - 16 Waltzes Op. 39 - Waltz 1.ogg), and will be uploading the rest if you are okay with me requesting for deletion of your 15 files. I don't know if you're able delete these files yourself, you are, after all, and administrator; but if you're okay with having 15 of your files deleted, and will be able to deleted the files yourself, I'd greatly appreciate if you could do so, after I've uploaded all 16 updated recordings and re-linked them to the Johannes Brahms article.

--Ianleow7 10:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I could delete them (I'm an admin on commons); however, as those songs are already integrated into articles on en, it would be a *much* better idea if you were to leave the naming scheme intact, and simply overwrite the old incorrect files with the correct ones. In other words, copy 15->16, 14->15... 11->11 & 12 without changing the names). Raul654 10:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
It would also save you a lot of work, as you wouldn't have to mess with waltzes 1-10. Raul654 10:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't mind, I'd prefer to fix it myself. What I am aiming to do is rather complicated and probably shouldn't be attempted by a new user. Raul654 10:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Ok, I've gone ahead and implimented my fix (the old 15th waltz is now located at Image:Brahms-waltz16.ogg). What do you think now? Can you verify that all the files are in their place now? Also, did I split old waltz 11 at the correct place? Raul654 10:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You're working too fast for me (this is my 4th attempt to reply - the other three were supposed answer to your replys at 10:23, 10:35 and 10:45, but I have no idea why my 3rd attempt failed) :) . I'll be verifying waltzes 11 and 12 after I'm done with this reply. If you simply pushed back the old waltz 12's filename back by 1 (waltz12 becomes waltz13), I think it should be okay. --Ianleow7 10:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, yes, that's exactly what I did (12 became 13, 13->14, 14->15, 15->16). I am not sure if I split 11 correctly (I think I did but I'd like confirmation); if I did not it can easily be fixed. When I am done that, I can delete the two oggs you uploaded. Also, be sure to look through wikipedia:sound/list and see if there is anything else there you would like to add to various articles :) Raul654 10:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup, you sliced the original exactly where I did so myself (funny how co-incidents occur). BTW, I only uploaded 1 OGG file ;) (that is, Image:Martha Goldstein - Brahms, Johannes - 16 Waltzes Op. 39 - Waltz 1.ogg). Thanks for your trouble! --Ianleow7 11:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC) (Arg, I keep on forgetting to include my signature.)
I've deleted the file you uploaded and updated our Johannes Brahms with the information you have given me. Somebody still needs to write Sixteen Waltzes for piano, four hands so they can be added there too (wink wink) Raul654 11:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I get the idea ;) . I'll see if I can find any online references and will start on the article as soon as I can (I have to say, it will most likely to be a stub though). (Must include signature... Must include signature...) --Ianleow7 11:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC) ( :D )

Commons music file VfD[edit]

I think you will be interested in reading/contributing to the discussion here: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Schubert-D.935-2.ogg. pfctdayelise 14:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Last Call[edit]

Definitely. By the way, I've responded to you at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

(Just checked my mail, sorry) I'll start a discussion, then. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

FA[edit]

(Re: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations) Haha, very amusing! :) -- Emsworth 02:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Christmas on Main Page[edit]

Hi, just writing to ask you about featuring Christmas on the front page on December 25 - people who have voted at WP:TFA have all given overwhelming support. What do you think? Brisvegas 06:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Meetup DC[edit]

Here are a few suggestions:

Dupont:
Childe Harold (right off the Dupont metro) -- restaurant upstairs, bar downstairs, but they don't card unless you order a drink).
Front Page (right off the Dupont metro). Restaurant and bar separate, lots of space.
Tabard Inn (several blocks from Dupont Metro -- 4-5, but walking distance). The food here is a little pricier than you might like, but they have an enormous open area near a fireplace with couches and armchairs that would be more conducive to talking. This probably isn't the best choice given the food prices and also somewhat the distance, but the ambience and setting for discussion can't be beat.

Downtown:

John Harvard (right off Metro Center). It's a brewpub but also a restaurant -- also doesn't card unless you order, and lots of space.
ESPNZone (3-4 blocks from Metro Center). Lots of room here and no carding unless you drink. Prices decent for a city like DC. The only potential problem is if there's some major game on that day, it can get crowded on weekend afternoons.

There are some off the top of my head. If I can think of anything else I'll let you know. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! As requested, I got a hold of a grad student acquaintance of mine in the DC area, and he had the following suggestions:
The CB group here in DC usually meets at Politics and Prose, which is a coffeehouse / bookstore in NW DC. (http://www.politics-prose.com/) It works for us, but it's kind of small. It may be worthwhile to check and see if they have a backroom that could be rented out. About a 15 minute walk from the Metro.
For my college get-together here in DC, we rented out a room at Gordon Biersch, which is right downtown (http://www.gordonbiersch.com/restaurants/washington.html) That was actually really good because we had our own room and there were no age restrictions, despite being a bar. Just a few blocks from the Metro.
My office is having a little holiday party at the Clarendon Ballroom (http://www.clarendonballroom.com). I've never been there, though, but it's just a few blocks from the Metro (which is almost a must for DC).
My grad classes are held at the Reagan Building (http://www.itcdc.com/index.php). Don't try to contact them via email; just call. They're always holding events there, and they have lots of rooms. 1/2 block from the Metro.
And he also mentioned the same John Harvards (johnharvards.com) that Katefan0 did. Not being in/from the area, I don't know how well any of these might work out for being a 'central' location, but maybe it'll help? --JohnDBuell 03:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Block Request[edit]

Hi Raul -- I've noticed your note on this talk page. This editor seems to be back - making the same controversial edits to the same articles. I was going to leave him/her a vandalism note and realized that this account might be up for a block. Best Jbetak 21:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an AOL proxy. It's probably shared by 1000 or more people, who jump from proxy to proxy. Blocking those is a *bad* idea. Raul654 21:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah ;-) I think it might have dawned on me too as I was monitoring this user's activity today. Would you say that Slovakia and Great Moravia would qualify for temporary article protection then? How would one go about it? Jbetak 22:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox[edit]

Hi there. FYI, the article omnipotence paradox, which according to its talk page is now officially a featured article, doesn't appear on the featured articles page, for some reason. Thought you'd like to know this. Appreciate your hard work on FACs. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 07:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Small mistake on my part. I have fixed it. Raul654 07:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

December 10th FA box[edit]

Hey, Raul, regarding the Hugo Chavez main-page box, the editors of Hugo Chavez have been going back over the image and text and thinkin' that this version would probably be ideal. If you have any problems or concerns with this at all vs. the one currently there, feel free to disagree. (And sorry if this isn't the proper place to mention this, wasn't sure where to bring it up that you'd be sure to see it without it being too obtrusive.) -Silence 11:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez is the current President of Venezuela, known worldwide for his democratic socialist governance, his anti-imperialism, and his radical criticism of neoliberal globalization and United States foreign policy. A career military officer, Chávez gained popularity following a failed 1992 coup d'état and was elected President in 1998 on promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority. As President, Chávez has inaugurated massive Bolivarian Missions to combat disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty and other social ills. Abroad, Chávez has acted against the Washington Consensus by advocating alternative models of economic development and fostering cooperation amongst the world's poor nations, especially those of Latin America. However, Venezuela's middle and upper classes have severely criticized Chávez, accusing him of repression and electoral fraud, and he has survived both a 2002 coup and a 2004 recall referendum. Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial and high-profile figures in modern politics.

Recently featured: MandanWaterfall GullyMichel Foucault

I've made the switch, with one exception - I kept the uncropped versoin of the picture, because I'm not fond of using one versoin of a picture for the main page and another for everything else. Raul654 13:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • We understand about the image. So would you mind making one final adjustment to the blurb by replacing the current image with Image:Chavez World Social Forum 2005.jpg? It is exactly the same image that is in the main article, and it is a free use Agencia Brasil image (just like your selection). Thank you. ← Saravask — 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Christmas[edit]

Thanks for the comment. What a lot of hot air! Given that we are so close to early December, I still like the idea of putting it on the front page in early January - the rationale would have to be explained in the front page blurb ("... usually celebrated on 25 December, but by some on 7 January, ..." -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the flamewar was fun while it lasted. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wonderfool's claimed nihilartikels are 100% verifiable[edit]

He pulled a fast one on us again. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 17:06

Tom Brinkman[edit]

Is is me or does it seem like this article is attracting a great deal of vandalism because it is the featured article of the day? Should it be protected for a day or two? PedanticallySpeaking 20:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

TFA should not be protected. See user:Raul654/protection. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
No. At most 5-10 minutes if there is an onslaught of IPs that need to be blocked. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 20:21
Bunchofgrapes and Brian have answered for me :) Raul654 20:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I was wondering if you could end the Hollaback Girl nomination process? Being the only user working on the article, I would find it acceptable to take a break from all the fuss that has been created at the FAC page. It would be much appreciated, whether the result is featured or contested. If it is perhaps the latter, I will give it another attempt next month. Thank you. –Hollow Wilerding 20:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The article has improved substantially, but I still don't think there's consensus. I agree that another nomination later would probably be the best idea. Raul654 21:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

New Chavez blurb image proposal[edit]

  • We understand about the image. So would you mind making one final adjustment to the blurb by replacing the current image with Image:Chavez World Social Forum 2005.jpg? It is exactly the same image that is in the main article, and it is a free use Agencia Brasil image (just like your selection). Thank you. ← Saravask — 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've made the switch. Anything other problems? Raul654 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
No. Nothing else. It is perfect now. Thank you for your time. ← Saravask — 23:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration re-opened[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. (SEWilco 03:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Sorry, but this message is for parties to the case. Not withstanding your claims, I am not a party to it, I am arbitrating it. Raul654 03:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll deal with any conflict of interest. In what way you're a party will depend upon just what the case is about. Rather oddly, whether it is a new case or what it is about has not been defined. (SEWilco 04:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Assistance[edit]

Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#November_24. You appear to know far more about fair use than Squash does. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: YOUR QUESTION[edit]

Hahaha—funniest thing I read all day! I tried to think of something suitably witty to respond but failed. I don't know if you saw it, but I was very amused by this anonmyous user who at least has the courtesy to leave an edit summary of "page blanking" when he blanks Talk:Main Page—that way, we know it's been vandalized without even having to load the diff! — Knowledge Seeker 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured Artist Candidates consensus: Who decides?[edit]

Can you tell me how the decision is made as to whether consensus has been reached in FAC?

BTW, the last five entries are missing from your last talk page archive. I looked for my entry, which is one of the missing, to see if you'd answered this question when I'd asked it before.

Thanks! --Tsavage 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand your first question. I look at a nomination and decide whether or not it has consensus.
Yes, that answers my question. It would be cool if this info was posted on the FAC page -- if that page were itself an FAC, I'd find absence of this fuller explanation of the process to be a glaring omission (especially since it only takes one additional sentence). ;) (I suppose I am "adjusting" to the rather obscure fact of there being only one, in effect, JUDGE, when it comes to FAC and main page FA, and that being the same person as well. I can see the practicality of it in this particular environment, in terms of getting things done. In practice, though, it also seems somewhat shaky. Evaluating the results of the the FAC commenting process, given the sheer range of topics and article quality, and the high variability of the comments between individual FACs, requires a very considerable amount of direct knowledge (or personal research) in many areas. It would seem that the FAC Director has to go beyond a simple procedural weighing of opinions against rules (which I assume is the intent of the position). That said, I have no reason to doubt that in balance you're doing a fine job. And maybe I'm overreacting. Who knows?)
  • As far as the archive - when I archived the page, I left the latest 10 conversations here. The thraed you started is higher on this page. Raul654 10:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Sorry, I missed that, with the original answer to this question.

Thank you! --Tsavage 14:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article Process[edit]

I've been working on Tumbling Dice (instead of my homework) and have about got it up to FA status (I lack pictures and a sound clip, but that will come after I get the text right. What the most number of times an article has been through FAC and still become an Featured Article? I'm No Parking and I approved this message 18:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The is purely an educated guess, but if memory serves, Johnleemk had to nominate Get Back 3 or maybe 4 times before it was promoted. Raul654 18:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)