User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:07, 19 February 2009

For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

Egypt's trapped third army

Hello Raul654.

I was wondering why you removed the sourced information I added in the article especially as I had provided reliable references. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visit from an old friend

User:Strang_Butz? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead editor

Raul, do you think it is worth suggesting some version of this as a proposal here? Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - it couldn't hurt, I suppose. Raul654 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of evolutionary thought TFA

I left a message regarding the image at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 12, 2009. Cheers!--ragesoss (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messy FAC apologies

Hi Raul, I just wanted to stop in and make a comment. I'd like to apologize for messy and lengthy amount of comments on the USMA FAC page. I came to realize that the article wasn't 100% ready and polished when the FAC started, especially with WP:IUP. However, quite a bit of good work was done based upon the many comments, and the support for promotion is currently 8 to 1, with the 1 being an image dispute, which I think that I fixed a few moments ago by replacing the disputed image. See more lengthy explanation at Sandy's page here. Again, I'm sorry that review was so untidy and un-civil, and at times the responders were confrontational with the reviewers. I think we've worked through all the issues now. This was my first trip to FAC, so I've learned a tremendous amount. Thanks. Ahodges7 ^talk 18:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. FAC can get messy sometimes. Raul654 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC) (PS - I've promoted the article.)[reply]

User talk:66.215.90.60

A user is caught in a rangeblock you applied to stop Scibaby. I don't know whether or not it is him or some other user, but I said I would ask you if you were willing to narrow the range or reduce the duration. I have no opinion either way. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 66.215 range is one of scibaby's favorite ranges. He was using it as recently as the end of January (user:Trent370). The range block should not be altered in anyway. The anon should be directed to the account creation request page. I'll leave him a note on his talk page telling him to go there. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Didn't know anything about it so I figured I would ask. Have a good day. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input?

It might be nice for you to chime in here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#USS_Connecticut_.28BB-18.29 since at the bottom you have come-up through mention of an IRC conversation. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry 'bout that...I was trying to prove my point by using that IRC conversation, but it didn't help, as you can see... :/ Thanks for your help though, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for oppose striking (WP:FAC/New York State Route 382)

Per the results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GroundhogTheater, could I have the three opposes related to those on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 382 stricken as votestacking? If you could look into this, thanks.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just failed the nom only to find this request. I've now restored it. However, the page is rather long and unwieldy. Selective use of template:Hidden archive top and template:Hidden archive bottom might be in order. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

Hi Raul. I note your closure of the FAR for the Intelligent design article in December 2008. You closed it as keep in spite of there being valid challenges about the use of copyrighted images as decoration there. The matter has resurfaced on the article's talk page and been discussed at AN/I subsequently. I am therefore suggesting that the matter be revisited in a further FAR. Another editor has opined that having featured articles which abuse nonfree media in this way brings the FA/FAR process into disrepute, and I am inclined to agree with that. What is your opinion on the matter? --John (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 made an extremely reasonable judgment call to put the article on the main page on 12 October 2007 containing the images at issue. They're not copyvios, but rather are well within the Wikipedia:EDP. Intelligent design is not an article on something like Yellowstone_National_Park or the Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth or any of numerous other FAs on topics of the kind where relevant free-licensed images are in great abundance. We started in mid-2007 approaching the Intelligent design article from the viewpoint of the increasingly widely accepted position that the use of images in WP articles is a desirable aspect of good article writing w.r.t. GAs and FAs, not only because they make the article look good but also because well chosen images relating to important aspects of the topic facilitate the educational value of articles--more so when there's a thoughtful, relevant image caption. It was a very substantial challenge to provide appropriate images that enhance the educational value of the Intelligent design article to readers. It's not an article on a physical thing or on an event that involves physical things that lend themselves to photographs, charts and diagrams and such that can readily be free-licensed. Take a look at Wikipedia:FA#Philosophy_and_psychology and Wikipedia:FA#Law and note how extremely few FAs there are. The intelligent design article had the challenges of both all rolled into one, being as it is a legal strategy attempting to substitute philosophy for science in high-school biology classes. In short, it's a unique controversial topic that doesn't readily lend itself to relevant and informative free-licensed images that convey useful visual information but instead the most relevant informative visual information was to be found in the NFC we used in the article (for example, the creative iconography in public presentations of various aspects of the intelligent design controversy) supplemented by well considered image captions. My recollection of the conversation leading up to featuring the article on 12 October 2007 on the main page is that Raul understood the inherent and rather unique difficulties involved with this topic, and I trust he also understood at the most recent FAR that the use of WP's Exemption Policy (the EDP, aka the NFCC) for several images remained reasonable in this article at that stage in time.
..... Also note that where feasible, free-licensed images have gradually replaced three of the NFC images, starting with the William Dembski image. Within the past couple weeks two additional such images have been removed (admittedly under pressure from anti-NFC advocates and strict interpreters of the guideline WP:NFC). The image of Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial was removed without too much adieu. A few days ago, another (The Darwin's Black Box image) has been replaced with a free-licensed photo of its author, with a loss of information value that was significant but not major., but that nonetheless goes in the direction of "free-licensed to the best reasonably feasible extent". Someday soon we'll find a free-licensed photo of Phillip E. Johnson too, and the fact that we're on the verge of obtaining one was part of the reasoning for letting the book-cover image be removed without contentious argument. Which leaves the cover image of Of Pandas and People and the Time Magazine cover image of August 15, 2005. So I must vigorously disagree with "another user's" notion that this somehow brings the whole FA process into some kind of disrepute. These decisions about the extent of judicious and minimal use of NFC, even in FAs, need to be taken to some extent on a case-by-case basis. None of the images ever violated the NFCC, and the guidelines in WP:NFC need to be regarded as the guidelines they are, not as black letter law. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, John, I was able to find a history of the Time cover image file and will post it at Talk:Intelligent design in awhile today. Then it's back to "real-life" work for me, except for very brief breaks until the weekend, at which time I should be able to provide more of the history of this interesting and vigorous conflict of ideology about what precisely is the right thing to do with NFC files of this kind. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was one of two editors who pointed out on the most recent Intelligent Design FAR that there is no consensus that the non-free images meet NFCC, and that they are replaceable by free images. No other editors on the FAR responded to these statements there, which relate directly to criteria 3. So I was somewhat surprised that the FAR was closed as keep, but not enough to ask you about it until now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a while has passed since I made my request. Do you intend to reply? If you do not wish to reply to the question I asked, are you willing to advise as an experienced Wikipedian on where this should go next? It seems undesirable that a dispute over free images should be allowed to fester for over a year without a resolution. Please see my thoughts here and tell me if you think there is a consensus to continue using these images in this way. Thanks for any attention you can give this. --John (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, in your summary at User:John/Intelligent design image use summary you've managed to neglect the numerous editors who actually participated in the article who supported the images' use. What do we need to do, contact every one of them for a repetition of their view? This article has been quite stable for well over a year since it was featured on 12 October 2007. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read: [1] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your contributions to six current Military History Featured Articles, your flexibility in managing the "Today's featured article" list to accommodate relevant main-page appearances, and your generosity in providing many images for our visual library. For the coordinators, EyeSerene^talk 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS pic

Thanks for your efforts and I am very sorry about the OTRS image confusion with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3. The email is just a permission to use a picture already on Commons, it does not have an attached picture. I believe the email is from [email removed] - User:Finetooth helped with this and it is possible (though not likely) the image is from his email account (which I do not know the address of). I will contact someone else with OTRS permission - I must say for someone going through OTRS the first time that the whole procedure could be explained more clearly. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it had come from that email address, I would have found it. (I searched for all emails containing the substring "Russell" and didn't find it. I just searched from everything from state.pa.us and still nothing). Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd be happy to post an OTRS explanation somewhere once I get back. Please remind me next week. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I am contacting Finetooth next and will contact another OTRS volunteer once we know more. I will remind you next week. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - there was a typo in the email address used. I have requested a new email be sent and will ask another OTRS volunteer to help once I know the email has been sent. Thanks again and enjoy your time off, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the picture is tagged, so all is well with that. Where should I post the OTRS explanation? Raul654 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just came here to remind you. Thanks too for listing the article as Featured on WP:FA - I guess that Gimmebot will close the FAC and add the star before too long. The email was sent to the photo submissions address, not the permissions address (which might have been the problem).

Anyway, I went to Wikipedia:OTRS and there is not really a clear link there on how to submit photos or permissions, so that would be one place to link an explanation page. It does link to Wikipedia:Contact us, which also is not as clear as it could be on submitting photos and especially permissions to OTRS, so that would be another place probably under "For Wikipedia editors". (There is a link on Contact us on photo submission under "For readers", but it took me a while to find that as I was thinking of myself as an editor. I do not find any link to a permissions submission page there). Finally Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission should link to the page for Permissions submission (which I still cannot find) and vice versa. I hope these ideas are helpful and please let me know if I can help, Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkes Booth

Hi Raul. Any reason why you restarted the nom? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do that with noms that are too long and convoluted such that I can't understand them. If there are parts of your previous comments that have not yet been fixed, feel free to copy them over to the restarted nom page. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. OK thanks Raul. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Helen Hogg.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture human evolution

hello Raul / Mike,

In Today's featured article, I see the picture of the human evolution from slouching ape to erect walking man. Is it possible to receive a copy of this picture in such a way that I can use in in the Dutch Wikipedia?

My own signature there, in the Dutch Wikipedia, is a cyclist, and my nickname "JanDeFietser" means Jan the Cyclist. See in the Dutch Wikipedia (www.nl.wikipedia.org) my user page Gebruiker:JanDeFietser.

I imagine that somehow constructing a combined picture with the human evolution and the cyclist would be nice.

Thanks in advance if you could somehow be helpful.

Can you please reply on my discussion page on the Ducth Wikipedia?

jan (JanDeFietser) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanDeFietser (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the picture is called "A silhouette of human evolution". --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, while Raul's apparently travelling for a few days, your question is probably answered by File:Human evolution.svg being a Commons image, available for all Wikipedia projects (and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License so that others can also use it under these terms). Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanxalot! --84.84.77.38 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave was correct. Raul654 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple appearances on the main page as TFA

Hi Raul,

One of my goals for this year is to bring the Montreal Canadiens article back up to FA status in time to appear on the main page for the team's 100th anniversary date in December. Given that this article appeared on the main page once before as TFA in 2004 before being demoted, would that affect its eligibility to appear again at the end of this year? Alternatively, I could work on History of the Montreal Canadiens, but given the importance of it being a centennial year, I'd like to see the main article featured. Thanks, Reso lute 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Raul is travelling, so I am unsure how quickly he will respond. this diff may be of help to you. Cheers!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for that. I'm in no rush, still having 9 months to build an article to the appropriate level, so there is plenty of time for Raul to enjoy his break. ;) Reso lute 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check

Publixx? He doesn't exactly match, but then the last couple of 'em, but he seems to match the last couple... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just edit-conflicted Kim (or he edit-conflicted me) with the same query... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing gentlemen? --GoRight (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not fishing. And if you look back over my requests, i have a hit ratio of >90%. And while i can tell you exactly what made me suspecious, it would reveal what i look for. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My, how convenient. You have reasonable suspicion but you can't tell us what it is. Do I get the same privilege? As for your hit ratio, I guess I missed that part in the no fishing section where it says it is OK as long as you are "correct" over x% of the time. Besides, with Raul doing the checking I am not surprised that you have a high hit ratio. Let me guess, he doesn't have to say why he has deemed someone a sci-baby sock either? Hmmm. Carry on ... --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby has a cow flatulence fetish. -Atmoz (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Come to think of it we don't actually mention cow flatulence enough. Isn't that supposed to be more damaging that CO2? :) From my own experience with Raul, however, I think he must be channeling William Stoughton from circa the later half of 1692 which is why I'm not surprised by KDP's high hit ratio. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, don't bite, please... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoRight's predictable incredulity aside, Publix was obviously a Scibaby sockpuppet, and checkuser confirms it. I also spotted User:Chuane, a sock he was using yesterday. Raul654 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC, travel catchup

Raul, I hope you had a wonderful trip. I'm back, but I have a long medical appointment on Monday, Feb 16, and other catchup to do around the house. It's unlikely I'll be able to read through FAC for Gimmetrow's next bot schedule (Tuesday, 17). Will you be able to pr/ar on Monday or Tuesday, 16 or 17, and then I will be able to get back on track after that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, have you had a chance to look at FAC, or should I start through now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My list of priorities is (in order) is email, watchlist, talk page, FAC, and scheduling more FAs. I've cleared the email backlog, and I'm working on my watchlist now. I expect to archive the FAC later tonight. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great ... I've been really behind in catching up around the house and IRL things, so haven't been able to focus on it yet ... I'll be back on board by next pr/ar (Sat). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing wikilinks

Hi, why did you remove the "main article" wikilinks I added to the Yom kippur war page? Why should they only be inline? The Sinai section, for ex., is very very long, and if the wikilinks are only inline, most chances are that most readers won't get to them. Thanks, --Omrim (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're (doubly) redundant -- they are already linked twice in the article. Once in the Yom Kippur War template at the top of the article, and again inline in the text. There is no need to link to the same articles three times. Raul654 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA review

Hi Raul. I would like to have the Micahel Jackson article reviewed. There are a number of issues. He is referred to as a businessman in the first sentence. This is misleading, undueweight, unsourced, and there is no substantial section discussing this supposed aspect of his biography in the article. (See talk page) He does own some music catalogs. I also think the section titles are VERY long and unclear. The article seems to need a lot of work. I tried to follow the procedure on the FAR page, but it is very complicated so I thought I'd drop by here to seek your guidance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 Hi, why did you remove the "main article" wikilinks I added to the Yom kippur war page? Why should they only be inline? The Sinai section, for ex., is very very long, and if the wikilinks are only inline, most chances are that most readers won't get to them. Thanks, --[[User:Omrim|Omrim]] ([[User talk:Omrim|talk]]) 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 :They're (doubly) redundant -- they are already linked twice in the article. Once in the Yom Kippur War template at the top of the article, and again inline in the text. There is no need to link to the same articles three times. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654#top|talk]]) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+==FA review==
+Hi Raul. I would like to have the Micahel Jackson article reviewed. There are a number of issues. He is referred to as a businessman in the first sentence. This is misleading, undueweight, unsourced, and there is no substantial section discussing this supposed aspect of his biography in the article. (See talk page) He does own some music catalogs. I also think the section titles are VERY long and unclear. The article seems to need a lot of work. I tried to follow the procedure on the FAR page, but it is very complicated so I thought I'd drop by here to seek your guidance. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)