User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:01, 14 March 2012

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

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Barnstar for the South Park TFA

		The Original Barnstar
		For putting up Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as TFA despite the flames. meshach (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and for resisting the temptation to say what I would've in your position. —WFC— 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Keep up the good work, Raul. —David Levy 01:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.SPAMFILTEREVASIONexaminer.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikipedia-features-cartoon-anal-probe (delete SPAMFILTEREVASION)

Alarbus (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh no. Greg Kohs doesn't approve of the job I do and bad-mouthed me in a column that nobody will ever see. However shall I cope? Raul654 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

Thank you for adding the sound file (which I shall now go and listen to with much pleasure). I have juggled it and the two nearby pictures around slightly, which leaves all three files adjacent to relevant text. Tim riley (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've schedule it to appear on the main page in three days.

Your future reference, the way I got the song was extremely simple - youtube now allows you to search for CC-licensed works and there's an online youtube-to-ogg converter here. SO if you happen to be editing music articles, now it's very simple to find music to add to them. Raul654 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say! That search and converter facility sounds really excellent. Thank you so much for letting me know, and I'll look out for other sound files for future articles. I've copied and pasted your message above to my "How To" cheat-sheet. More power to your elbow! Tim riley (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a few minor changes to your write-up Raul.[1] See if you like them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Nate emergency intro

Hey Raul, I've tried to update the new TFA for MOS but it has two dead links, I wonder if (in future), you should have a reserve FAC which is always ready to go and top notch? I'll try to fix those links, although Norwegian isn't by first (or second or third .... or fifty-third language).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about doing that before. What I could do is put a note on TFAR that in the event of serious problem X, to go ahead and use article Y. And then some definition about what kind of events would qualify. Raul654 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth having one in your pocket, this one is a tiny bit ropey, I can't find an easy replacement for one of the two deadlinks yet. Will go over the text shortly. Will this now just run until midnight UTC today? Is that a precedent? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will only be on the main page 7 hours. Admittedly that's a bit unfair to the article's authors, but I figured that there are many, many hurricane FAs and this wouldn't greatly impact the supply. Raul654 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem unless it's another TFA precedent (like SOPA-day!) in which case I guess we'll need to be prepared for a "why wasn't this checked for copyvio before TFA" dramaz. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time I've had to switch one out mid-day. In those cases, the replacement article always stayed for less than 24 hours. The current situtation is just following those precedents.

The SOPA blackout was different from those other situations because I knew the blackout was coming days ahead of time. Raul654 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no problem, just trying to avoid more drama as we've seen more than our fair share over the past few days. On Nate, I've done my best to remove dabs, ensure external links are live etc, hopefully no further issues. But as I said, always worth having an FA or two in reserve, probably a couple of recent ones which have undergone recent scrutiny per WP:WIAFA so there's less work to do to make sure they're fit for main page. Also, do you (semi-)protect main page FAs? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) FYI, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency was created in November 2011; it's linked at the top of WT:TFAR but perhaps a few more links around the place would be helpful. (2) TFAs are move-protected only, usually. WP:SEMI says that the TFA "may be semi-protected just like any other article. But since this article is subject to sudden spurts of vandalism during certain times of day, administrators should semi-protect it for brief periods in most instances." Bencherlite ^Talk 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Bencherlite, you spoil us... Maybe Raul wasn't aware of that (I certainly wasn't but I'm a real TFA-noob) however it seems like a good idea... After I asked about the TFA protection I realised how silly it was, the FA itself will be open to "editing" but the TFA blurb (I assume) will be protected. Same as the stuff I'm used to at TFL. I'll learn one day how this place works. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing very well for a newbie, TRM. Keep it up and someone might nominate you for admin. The TFA blurb is cascade-protected like TFL blurbs, as you worked out. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the emergency TFAs page. It looks like it was created by Wehwalt and edited by almost no one else. About the TFA blurb and protection - the blurb is automatically cascade protected 24 hours prior to hitting the main page. Until then, anyone can edit it. Raul654 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, perhaps we can keep one or two historic (klaxon: easy) FAs in the wings just in case we have a sudden issue like today. Nate is a weak FA and hopefully we could do better in future, especially if we have a process in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am probably going to designate a few pre-written emergency blurbs (I just might make the page Wehwalt created official). I'm more concerned with the specifying the conditions under which they are to be used (by someone other than me). There are some conditions I can think of where anyone with the applicable bits can do it (like, for instance, Dabomb and I fail to schedule an FA, as happened last Thanksgiving); there are others (like today) where judgement is needed and I don't want to throw open the door. Once the RFC closes (dear lord is it ever going to close?) I'll probably open up a discussion on WT:FAC about this. Raul654 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, opening up a possibility of "replacement TFA" is serious and useful. However, the "anal probe" would have been replaced/re-replaced/replaced/edit-warred etc for the whole day which would clearly have Wikipedia look fucking stupid (as it South Park would put it). So the emergency reserve of benign FAs is useful but there needs to have a careful consensual way of instigating it. Only 55,000 people bothered to click on it anyway, (which was less than the featured list the day before, Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award), so perhaps (no, inevitably it is) a storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would be important to stipulate that concerns regarding subject matter (excepting those related to unfortunate timing, in which case only rescheduling is required) explicitly do not justify pulling an article. —David Levy 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I do go forward with the backups idea, I will define when a change is permissible affirmatively and with no exceptions. Something along the lines of "You may change it only under the following circumstances..."). Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Raul, I should be back in business this weekend. Sorry for the extended absence. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad to have you back on board. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus on when to edit File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg following new legislation/court-rulings

Hello, I have noticed you made edits on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg and/or File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg/Archive 5, so I am contacting you to take part in a newly-formed discussion at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg as for whether we should update the map directly when a new legislation or court-order hits the books or if we should wait until said action takes effect. Historically, we have been updating the map when the new legislation is signed (or veto overrode or won at the ballot box, etc.), and thus it can be inferred that the consensus is to update as soon as one of those occurs. A discussion has emerged in regards to whether we should begin updating from the effective date instead of from the date of signing/etc. If you have an opinion over this matter please post it at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#When_to_update_map.3F_Effective_date_or_signing.2Fruling_date

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article split and renaming for Cordoba House and related controversy

Hi, Raul. Were you going to get back to me on the splitting off of the Ground Zero controversy from the Park51 article? So far, no one has objected, although one new user asked me, "Can you explain?" on my talk page. Do you have any comments, or any reason I shouldn't continue with my idea of moving the controversy page to Ground Zero mosque controversy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've left you hanging on that one. I don't agree with the proposed split on the grounds that I don't see much difference between the two. I said I'd try to round up some other comments on it once the RFC got closed, which just happened a few hours ago. I'm about to head off to bed, but I promise I'll look at the article tomorrow and get some more eyeballs on it. Raul654 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I saw from this edit that you promoted Turning Point (2008) to Featured Article status. I thank you for doing this, it really made the 4 reviews worth it.--WillC 09:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hadji Ali

Hi Raul. I was pleasantly surprised to see you had chosen Hadji Ali for the Main Page so quickly. I am not complaining and don't want it to lose its place in line for no purpose. I just wanted to broach the possibility that it might make a good April Fool's Day feature, as suggested at the FAC by Mark Arsten. Since you would make that decision as well, or so I imagine, I thought I'd let you know about that idea so you could choose whether to hold it back if you think so too.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I choose the April Fools article based on what I think is the funniest and/or most outlandishly unbelievable blurb. I can't really say how funny Ali would be without seeing such a blurb, but I think it's definitely got potential. So yes, I think it might be worth holding it back. Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to see where past blurbs were posted for April Fools Day to gauge where they might be this year, but failed. I checked March 29, 2011 at WP:TFA/R and the various archives of Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article/Archive YEAR. Anyway, I took a stab at writing a blurb.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hadji Ali (c. 1888–92 –1937) was an Egyptian vaudeville performance artist famous for throwing up in front of audiences throughout Europe and the United States. Ali would swallow and then spew nuts, water, handkerchiefs, smoke and even live mice with a panel from the audience invited on stage to verify he was the vomiter extraordinaire he claimed to be. His best known stunt, and the highlight of his act, was first regurgitating kerosene onto a metal model castle or house and then extinguishing the flames produced with imbibed water, expelled by him from up to six feet away from the blaze. Although never gaining wide fame, Ali's gustatory gushing garnered him a gratifying gathering of groupies on the vaudeville circuit in the United States. Ali purged for heads of state, including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Judy Garland and David Blaine each gushed about Ali, whose bilious act was captured in the short films Strange as It Seems (1930) and Politiquerias (1931), the Spanish language version of Laurel and Hardy's Chickens Come Home. Ali's ability to hurl on cue led to rumors that the Rockefeller Institute had offered a large sum of money to obtain his stomach post-mortem. After he died in England his body was offered to Johns Hopkins for study, though the offer was declined. (more...)

MSU Interview

Dear Raul654,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert Kardashian for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Kardashian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kardashian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your thoughts

Hi. Haven't talked with you in awhile I know, but I have something I wanted to ask your thoughts on.

Before I go on (so that my intent is not miscontrued by any) I suppose I should note some positive things from the past, like how I supported you for director when the position was first created, or this for another example : )

Let me share my perception of something with you, and I'd like you to help clarify some things (and possibly show me where I may be mistaken, and maybe help look towards what can be done for the future).

From what I can see, the "featured article" concept has a noble aspiration. Getting pages to a point where a certain consensus feels that they are very encyclopedic. Something to show off and say: "Look we really do have some great things on Wikipedia!".

But it is not without its problems. First and foremost is that this is a wiki, which means constant editing. The FA process seems to be creating a situation where editors possessively ("featured articles that I created/worked heavily on.") constantly revert well meaning editors simply because they add anything without a reference. This to me is very un-wiki.

And when asked - "I'm protecting my featured article so that it doesn't get delisted at FA".

This is very very bad in my opinion.

The FA process itself has become a sort of awards system. Another "I win at the wiki" thing. And while it's great to try to motivate using the fallibility of human nature, again it really looks like to me that it's fostering situations which are very un-wiki here.

Problems like WP:OWN first and foremost. Biting well-meaning newbies who only want to be helpful. The process itself creating a walled garden of sorts. And finally, on a wiki the pages are never "done" yet the FA process suggests that once reviewed the page is "done" (there have been those even supporting protection of the page at that point - I think I have myself on previous occasions).

And the insidiousness of it is that these FA contributors/protectors can fairly be well meaning and sincere themselves, thinking that this is how one should act in such situations.

I know that these concerns are nothing new. And I know that this can be a sensitive topic for those who sincerely work so hard and diligently, but I seriously think that the problems have been happening repeatedly, and it would be nice if we could rise up out of this vicious circle.

I have intentionally not added diff examples. For one thing, the diffs would go back as long as the FA process has existed. For another, calling out just a few examples isn't fair to those people, especially since (as I mentioned) I'd like to believe that the failing was human nature, and mostly abetted by the environment that we created through these processes (plural). And finally because I have no doubt whatsoever that you're aware of this problem, and don't need any examples to discuss them : )

So having attempted to broach the subject with you, what do you think? How can we move forward and get past this? I sincerely don't think we want a replay of the Esperanza situation (another very well meaning process - that I liked a lot - that was apparently problematic in how it was organised/conducted, creating unwiki situations). - jc37 17:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<peanut gallery> The better an article is—the more comprehensive, more logically organized, more thoroughly and reliably sourced and more polished its text—the harder it becomes to make an edit that should remain. That's not ownership, that's maintaining quality standards. I am not saying that there aren't times when edits to FAs aren't reverted for pure ownership reasons but that happens across all articles. This is of course anecdotal, but I have edited quite a few FAs both while logged in and more often as an IP, even while on the main page, and I've only been reverted a few times. Those few reverts were for reasons I would characterize as legitimate bases (even if a few I disagreed with). Also of course, I was not writing in broken English and (I hope and was attempting) with a high level of polish, nor was I removing or breaking citations or adding unsourced content and so on, which brings us right back to my first point. Is it really ownership? Or is it the result of the legitimate scrutiny that should accompany edits to a very high quality article? You purposefully said you were not providing diffs, and I am not your target audience, but given my experience, I would need to see a true pattern shown across many articles (not just reverts but pretty clearly bad faith reverts) to be convinced of the ownership issue. As to biting, are you talking about the revert itself being the biting act, or some accompanying harsh edit summary, because it's axiomatically impossible to revert someone without reverting them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the peanuts... Everything at Wikipedia can be, and has been, misused. Are you sure you are seeing a genunine problem, or a one-off case where there is a misguided editor? If any established editors noticed someone protecting "their" article and inappropriately showing ownership issues, the problem would very quickly be resolved (I have seen cases where passers-by have taken a quite extreme position of opposing the one or two editors who built an article simply because the passers-by interpreted some comment as an OWN violation). One article I am familiar with is Shakespeare authorship question which has been subjected to a lot of POV pushing (resulting in an Arbcom case). The article was promoted to FA, and some edits have been reverted with "this is an FA" being part of the reasoning behind the reverts. Those reverts have all been well founded, and there was no ownership issue behind them. If someone has new information but no reference, they can try adding it. If reverted, they need to discuss the matter and ask whether anyone can find suitable references, and whether NPOV is satisfied—that's because it's a good article that people care about, and is not because it carries an FA badge. The FA badge is a handy way to point out to people that the article is at a high quality level, and new material needs to be worked through to preserve that quality, and OR or SYNTH are definitely not appropriate in a quality article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Haven't commented on any of the above. Would like to wait until you express your thoughts.) - jc37 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there JC. Sorry about not responding sooner. Just to respond generally to your above observation - yes, the FA process is an 'awards' system, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Recognizing the good work done by people is a simple (free!) way of saying "thank you" to our editors for the good work they do. I don't find anything inherently bad about this.

Second, I agree that it can give rise to ownership issues, but the behavior you describe could just as easily be described as invested editors defending a well-written article from people whose edits are probably not improving it. Raul654 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for the moment, that it would seem to create an adversarial environment, it's contrary to the wiki-way. One person adds info, another adds sources, and off we go. Right now, if its unsourced, it can't be added. So AGF goes out the window.

So a well-meant awards system to help motivate people, is causing strife where none needed to be. And those involved are naturally protective of it (human nature). Sounding more and more like some of the varied issues with Esperanza before it ended.

An excellent illustration is the first sentence of a well-meaning editor above: "The better an article is—the more comprehensive, more logically organized, more thoroughly and reliably sourced and more polished its text—the harder it becomes to make an edit that should remain." The inherent problem with this is: Should remain? According to who? There is no one on Wikipedia with the omniscience to know everything about every single topic. And I would strongly assert that there is a good likelihood that EVERY article on Wikipedia is nowhere near "finished". It was just deemed "good enough". We're all editors here.

I say this with no slight intended to the person who said it. It is, as I mentioned above a well meant mistaken opinion seemingly shared by others involved in the process.

Let me offer this thought: Why do we show what we feel is the very best of Wikipedia on the main page? Wouldn't it be more in line with being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to show flawed pages to help entice more ppl to help out? "This page has numerous issues, we'd like to ask you to help out!"

After all, if the goal is "improvement" (whoever decides what that is), then articles which supposedly cannot be easily improved would not apparently be the best representative?

I say this all to point out (remind) that what appears on the main page is merely a stylistic choice. And so is much of the formatting rules etc that go into much of Wikipedia MoS (Manual of style).

Awards are nice, and can be a helpful motivating factor. But in the light of the various issues with other processes in the past, and dealing with the various biases that Wikipedia fights with constantly has to consider (See Wikipedia:Systemic bias), it would seem problematic to suggest any group of editors can call any article so "perfect" so to suggest that little to nothing can be added.

So as I said, I bring this up with you, wanting to know what your thoughts are. I sincerely am looking for a way forward that helps reinforce the wiki way, rather than creating an environment where well meaning editors are reverting others' well meaning edits as "vandalism" merely because that reverting editor couldn't be bothered to check for a source, and dictatorially decided the edits were not "improving the encyclopedia", and/or seeming to be without value. (The kerfuffle over Mizzoli's comes immediately to mind.)

An environment where it's easier to revert edits because your work at getting it to FA is "done" than to actually continue to try to improve the article. After all, if changed too much, you might risk the article losing FA "status" and making one of your awards not seem as valued.

Right now it could be argued that the FA process is stifling encyclopedic improvement.

Do you see a way that this can be fixed? - jc37 04:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Here's another link that may be helpful as well: Strategy:March 2011 Update.) - jc37 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not interested in continuing this discussion, please let me know and I'll move to a different venue. I merely was hoping for discussion with you about this first. - jc37 18:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

	reviewing eyes
	Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's over, 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

creation science

There is nothing "overwhelming" about the fact that almost all scientists reject creation science. I wasn't taken aback at all when I learned that. The word "overwhelming" sounds to me like there is so much rejection of creation science that the average person couldn't handle it and would have a heart attack. This is a weird word that I feel should be replaced with something less... weird... Cadiomals (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

o·ver·whelm·ing [oh-ver-hwel-ming, -wel-] adjective 1. that overwhelms; overpowering: The temptation to despair may become overwhelming. 2. so great as to render resistance or opposition useless: an overwhelming majority. [2]

Your statement above indicates you believe it is being used on the creationism article in the first sense described above. It is not. The creationism article uses the second meaning of the word, as in an opposition-less majority. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vauban-fortress.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vauban-fortress.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of coordinates

Hey Raul. I'm having a little issue at the FAC for Highway 401: The coords issue has sprung back up. Unfortunately I've let my emotions get the better of me, and instead of just thanking the opposers for their comments, I have fueled the fire. I'd like to just leave it at their opposition and stuff a gag in my mouth, and so I was considering archiving the replies that are directly related to that coordinates debate to the talk page to hopefully minimize disruption (leaving the original comments on the main page of course). I wanted to get your input first, as it is quite a heated debate and I am right in the centre of it. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Raul654. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Apology

Raul, I would like to apologize for my harsh response to your comment at the administrators' noticeboard. I strongly disagree with your statements there, but I should have phrased that disagreement more diplomatically. I have refactored my comment. I hope you will accept my apology. 28bytes (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology, 28. My comment there was a bit intemperate too and I'd like to apologize to you as well. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it very much, and of course accept yours as well. Hopefully we will meet again under happier circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!

Who should come? You should. Really.
	She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sarah (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X-rated content

Hi Raul. I complained about a DYK about gay pornography hitting the main page on a Saturday morning US and Saturday afternoon British time and it being linked on the main page seemingly at a peak time with no concerns whatsoever. My sister laughed at it and now thinks of wikipedia as a joke encyclopedia for a] permitting such content as an example of its progress and b] for being so careless and carefree about putting it on at a moment in the week be both thought ill-suited. I tried to argue the point that a lot of people are offended by the very subject of pornography appearing on the main page but it unfortunately turned into a discussion suggesting I am somehow homophobic, even though I have stated I accept such articles on wikipedia, I generally accept LGBT related articles on the main page, except pornography and I generally think all pornography is ill advised as being showcased as our best work. i was quite take aback to see nobody concerned about it and a mass response which indicates to me everybody is happy to see pornography-related articles on the main page and I had no right to find it distasteful. I was informed that you refuse to put the article on Jenna Jameson as the TFA because you are evidently aware it would get masses of complaints and people condemning wikipedia, responses I would agree are likely and was why I showed a concern about that DYK, which it became apparent few really care about DYK. But the general consensus during the discussion at Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012 appears to be that they all support, some strongly support the coverage of pornography on the main page, even TFA and few of them will admit that a lot of people frown against such content. I don't expect you to take sides, but I was wondering if you could make the current status on pornography as TFA apparent and what the real concern is and clarify exactly whether this is true. I have suggested that if there be such apparently unaminous support for it there should be enough people to deal with complaints should it appear and they should voice their support on grounds that forbidding pornography to appear as TFA is against our censorship and free content neutrality policies. Its just I see some double standards here and a refusal for anybody to really acknowledge why I aired some concerns.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy, this discussion again. ;)

Long story short: everyone has a different opinion on where to draw the line between what is and is not acceptable on the main page. I listen to what others have to say, but at the end of the day I use my own judgement and call it like I see it. I've previously said that I was OK putting history of erotic depictions on the main page; Jenna, who is known primarily for her appearances in hardcore porn, I think is out-of-bounds. Admit this is subjective, but there you have it. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry to bother you with this discussion again, but I wasn't aware it is a frequent topic for you. Clearly it is a subject than does not have the universal support evident in the talk page discussion and I will not be the last person to complain about it. The impression I got though is that all of the "community" who responded imply that there simply should not be a line to draw because it is somehow detrimental to our "free content" and "neutrality". I just wonder why its OK for a hardcore pornographic article to feature as a DYK and not as TFA and would seemingly indicate the lack of seriousness in it when it is all on the main page and should also be handled at least with some sense and responsibility. All the best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it is a subject than does not have the universal support evident in the talk page discussion and I will not be the last person to complain about it.

No one claimed that there was "universal support". As noted in the discussion, TFA blurbs about Pokémon-related topics draw numerous complaints, as do those about many other subjects (particularly those from popular culture).

And yes, people complain when they perceive TFA as sexually explicit (as in the case of Gropecunt Lane, an article of which you expressed approval).

I just wonder why its OK for a hardcore pornographic article to feature as a DYK and not as TFA and would seemingly indicate the lack of seriousness in it when it is all on the main page and should also be handled at least with some sense and responsibility.

As I've noted repeatedly, Raul has stated that his decision stems not from a determination that the content in question is inherently inappropriate, but from a concern that he'll be inundated with complaints to that effect.

And I find that position understandable. Raul already deals with enough and doesn't need the aggravation. But this has absolutely no bearing on the main page's other sections, none of which are his responsibility or burden.

In other words, other editors determine the content and handle any fallout. It's absurd to claim that their arrival at a decision different from Raul's (and different from the one that you advocate) is indicative of a "lack of seriousness" on their parts. —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raul:

As noted above, I find your position understandable. But I'd like you to consider an angle that I don't recall the community discussing in the past.

It's been pointed out that earlier in the month, this blurb, about an infamous murder, appeared. And despite the detailed summary, no one complained at Talk:Main Page.

I agree that a Jenna Jameson TFA likely would draw complaints (which arise whenever subjects from popular culture appear), but do you honestly want to validate this dynamic? Whatever one thinks of Ms. Jameson (and I'm certainly no fan of hers), do we want to send the message that a blurb about a pornographic film actress is more objectionable/upsetting/disturbing than one about someone who "dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard"? Even if we look at this from a "protect the children" perspective, would a blurb about Jenna Jameson really expose them to something worse than that? —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i was quite take aback to see nobody concerned about it and a mass response which indicates to me everybody is happy to see pornography-related articles on the main page and I had no right to find it distasteful.

Please stop misrepresenting the discussion's nature.

As has been stated repeatedly, you have every right to find anything distasteful. We simply don't ban content from the main page on this basis.

Many people find the theory of evolution, miscegenation and photography of women (as a few random examples) distasteful, but we don't censor the main page to appease them. This is what we've been telling you.

But the general consensus during the discussion at Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012 appears to be that they all support, some strongly support the coverage of pornography on the main page, even TFA and few of them will admit that a lot of people frown against such content.

Nonsense. I'm baffled as to how you interpret "we don't censor material because it offends people" to mean "this content doesn't offend people". —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David - Society has different standards for how it treats violence and sexual content. Sexual content is treated far more puritanically than violence. In fact, that was one of the major premises of This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Now I'm not defending this, but I'm pointing out that that is the way it is, and it's unrealistic to approach the subject otherwise. Given that premise, I don't find it surprising in the least that no one complained about a violent FA appearing on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 292: / Line 292: @@
 :<font color="green">''But the general consensus during the discussion at [[Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012]] appears to be that they all support, some strongly support the coverage of pornography on the main page, even TFA and few of them will admit that a lot of people frown against such content.''</font>
 :Nonsense.  I'm baffled as to how you interpret "we don't censor material because it offends people" to mean "this content doesn't offend people".  —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
+David - Society has different standards for how it treats violence and sexual content. Sexual content is treated far more puritanically than violence. In fact, that was one of the major premises of [[This Film Is Not Yet Rated]]. Now I'm not defending this, but I'm pointing out that that is the way it is, and it's unrealistic to approach the subject otherwise. Given that premise, I don't find it surprising in the least that no one complained about a violent FA appearing on the main page. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654#top|talk]]) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)