User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:24, 2 March 2007

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

Jenna Jameson featured?

Hi - I notice you just promoted Jenna Jameson. I believe Worldtraveller's comments remain unaddressed, and I entered some comments in a similar vein (perhaps after you decided) that certainly remain unaddressed. I don't know if you ever change your mind due to "late breaking" comments on the FAC page, but my guess is that promoting this article in its current state will help to solidify Worldtraveller's opinion that WP is broken. I don't actually care about this specific article. I do care about losing editors of the caliber of Worldtraveller. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm sorry, but that complaint ("too long for a porn star") is one of the two complaints that I just can't fulfill without destroying the article. One of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is "comprehensive", and it doesn't say anything about "comprehensive, except for porn stars". As is, I will confidently assert we have the best article on this subject on the Web, and that includes some pretty good articles, the ones we use as sources: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Rolling Stone, etc. If we eviscerate it, we won't. Do note, however, that Wt's comparison to Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, etc., is incorrect, those articles are far longer, even if you don't include the sub-articles, and especially if you do. WP:SIZE, which Wt quotes in one one his edit comments, specifically excludes references from article length for comparison, and those make up half the article body. The other objection that I just can't resolve completely is "no fair use images whatsoever" - that's clearly not the way we do things here. I'd be very happy to address other issues, nothing is perfect.

Anyway, responding to that is not quite why I'm here - I wanted to ask about the "main page?" concerns discussed on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson. Raoul/Mark, is it correct that this article will never be on the main page? Or do you think it is qualified? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Rick, I agree with AnonEMouse's characterization of the objection - I do not consider "too detailed" to be a compelling objection. As far as putting this article on the main page, I am undecided, but leaning a bit towards 'no'. IMO, 'History of erotic depictions' was close to the line, but still a few steps inside the boundary. I'm not so sure about Jenna Jamison though. Raul654 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was not "too detailed" (I entered a list of specific, detailed comments on the FAC page - which I think simply suffered from bad timing) and based on a comment on his talk page I believe WT meant to leave a more detailed critique (but was otherwise occupied - and I suspect "too detailed" is not an accurate summary). This is not a big deal in my book and enough time has passed that it is now clearly moot (more specifically, I think what's done should remain done). The only thing about this that concerns me at this point is that I seem to have entered comments on the FAC page after the article was promoted (the bot update of the FAC page lagged your edit of WP:FA sufficiently to allow this - I've checked the time stamps). Perhaps this may argue that the bot should work the other direction (i.e. you close the discussion at the FAC page and have the bot update WP:FA). It is a trifle annoying to have spent time composing comments that weren't considered. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't considered because you made the post almost an hour after I closed the nomination and removed it from the FAC. [1][2] The FAC page is the authoritative listing of what is and is not currently nominated. If something is not there, then it is not curretly a nomination. The whole point of using the bot is so I don't have to hand-close 50+ nominations a week. Raul654 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this [3] the edit that queues the bot, or this [4]? It doesn't really matter, the point is that the FAC page looked open (albeit from a direct link, rather than from the transclusion at WP:FAC). It may not come up often, and you're certainly free to say "tough shit", but there does seem to be a window. Finding a way to close it seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps you could run a "close" bot that does both. BTW - I can't really tell, but it seems like you're annoyed. I'm not, and I don't mean this to come across as whining. Bots are good. Leaving a window open is bad (especially if it was open for more than an hour). And again, I don't care about this article in particular. I appreciate your utter selfless devotion to what you must surely sometimes think is a tremendously thankless task (I, frankly, occasionally wonder about your sanity). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm not annoyed. Sorry if I came off that way :)

I'm pretty sure the bot looks at the promotion and archive logs, so the edits that trigger it would be this and this. Raul654 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Too detailed" is not entirely what my objection was, but even if it had been, why is that not a compelling objection? What is criterion 4 of WP:WIAFA for? I have to say that this is just the latest of several articles have been promoted over actionable objections that I've made. I make objections based on the FA criteria, the author denies that there is a problem, the article gets promoted anyway. On similar grounds I objected to Chetwynd, British Columbia - excessive detail, incredibly boring writing, opinions from references being quoted as fact. Similarly, Halo 2 was grotesquely verbose, I gave examples of how the text could be cut in half or better without sacrificing any detail. But the author denied this, and the article got promoted. This, too, goes into ridiculous detail for such an ephemeral person. I'd suggest that if objections based on criterion 4 are always ignored, then the criterion should be scrapped.

Worse, probably, than the excessive length in this case, is the writing in a deliberately favourable tone and quoting from her autobiography as if it is fact. Look at the quote in the section on early life; is this regurgitation of an opinion from a source, presented as fact, an acceptable way of writing? Similarly, She remembers telling Wicked Pictures founder Steve Orenstein... is not acceptable, in my opinion - it is writing deliberately favourable to the subject, and more akin to a magazine article than an encyclopaedia article. Also, the list of awards is not encyclopaedic - it seems like just another example of the author's evident pro-Jameson attitude. I have to say I can't really understand why the article was promoted. Worldtraveller 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not compelling because with few exceptions, what is and is not worth including in the article is inherently subjective (it's basically AFD in miniature). Every article clearly has some things that everyone can agree should be mentioned. When there is a disagreement as to the rest, I am inclined to err on the side of having our featured articles be too informative versus being not informative enough. (So when someone objects that something important is missing, I take those objections quite seriously) On the other hand, when someone objects that an article is too long, I check to see the length, and unless it's above the usual range (in the neighborhood of 30-80 kb, I think) I usually take such objections with a grain of salt. Obviously, someone thought it was important enough to merit mentioning in the article. Raul654 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the issue of using autobiography as a source: Generally speaking, "X says this" sentence constructions should only be used in cases where there are conflicting accounts of some factoid. This is common in an article on, for example, global warming (although in that case, much of the disagreement is created by certain organizations with a vested economic interest in manufacturing dispute). I can't speak per se on the issue of directly quoting her autobiography, but unless someone else has critizied and/or published a conflicting description of some particular event or set of events, I see no problem with taking her autobiography as an authoritative source on her life. Granted, this doesn't strictly extend to opinions and interpretation of events, but definitely for straight factual matters Raul654 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there's really no point arguing the merits of this nomination now. I suppose we can list this on FAR in a few weeks. The important thing for me to know, though, is this - I spent a lot of time commenting on the three nominations I've mentioned, and if I'd known in advance that my objections were going to be ignored whatever happened, I wouldn't have made them. Am I always going to be wasting my time when I criticise an article's writing style, tone and verbosity? Will they always be promoted regardless? Worldtraveller 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, World, but I do know you can't, or shouldn't, list it on FAR in a few weeks. There's an understanding that three months is the minimum waiting time before you get to put a featured article on WP:FAR. (Don't know if it's written down anywhere.) Bishonen | talk 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen is correct about the three months, and yes, that is included in the instructions at WP:FAR. I, too, am troubled that I often take time to type up my objections yet articles are promoted in spite of multiple actionable objections— curious why that happens, but perhaps that should be taken to the talk page of WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't realise it was as long as three months. I should have looked back on what happened with Chetwynd, British Columbia, where I was slightly controversial by listing it on FARC (as it was then) seven weeks after it was promoted. Well, let's just say that when I said 'a few', I meant 'about twelve'... Worldtraveller 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you rush to relist, please do note that of your actionable objections at the FAC, the only ones that have not been acted upon are "60kb on a porn star is ridiculous, and 106 references is absurd beyond description." and "The list of awards is not necessary; it just reinforces the impression that the author is a huge fan." Rush, of course, meaning about twelve weeks... While I can't meet all your objections, I would far prefer working with you to improve the article than just counting who else agrees. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

Hi Raul654. There seems to be no real dissention on the quality of this article. Do we need do any more to secure FA status? Cheers, --Dweller 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How utterly uncharming of me not to return here sooner and thank you. Thank you for promoting the article. (How do you get through that workload alone?!?!?) --Dweller 21:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The workload is high but not overwhelming. And I do get vicarious pleasure whenever someone is happy to see their work on the main page, which makes it all worthwhile. Raul654 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmebot question

The bot runs when the operator is online and has time to babysit it. This time, for instance, there was one page where the fac template was gone, another where it had been changed to a facfailed (though the article was promoted...), and another where someone had already updated the talk page. Other things come up all the time. Dealing with the ArticleHistory template is a few orders of magnitude more complicated than replacing a fac template with a featured or facfailed, the original intention of the bot. Gimmetrow 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand completely. Raul654 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing the bot didn't jump on the recent archives :)

Sandy seems to be floating the idea of GimmeBot taking over the FA count. For various reasons, I'm not interested in doing that task at this time. Gimmetrow 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Is anyone else interested in doing it? Raul654 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I realized I was only a couple lines of code away from more or less doing this. So right now the bot counts the number of unique article-namespace links on WP:FA, excludes shortcuts (since WP:FAC is namespace:0), then compares that to template:FA number. The "more or less" is that this isn't an hourly check like the other bot. Gimmetrow 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note below the question about the FFA/GA status. This seems to be causing some editors problems, and it can be avoided. I also thought of a decent way to handle the merging into WP:FA, though it would take a fair amount of coding. I have to wonder, why haven't you automated this during the last couple years? Gimmetrow 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA bot

We sort of talked around this a bit above, but what do you think about the idea of you running a FA bot to close any windows between declaring an article to be FA and the closing of the FAC page? I haven't actually written a bot yet, but it's sort of on my list of things to do sometime (or perhaps Gimmetrow might be willing). The idea is you run a program that gets told (somehow) which articles are promoted and which are rejected, then it moves the transcludes around as appropriate, closes the relevant FAC pages, adds the articles to WP:FA, etc. Given that Gimmebot does at least part of this already, it seems like having you run it would be more direct (and more timely). Just a suggestion. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The order I usually do it in is:

Copy and paste the older FA noms to a subpage in my userspace (but I don't save them. I just preview)
Using a text editor, I sort the noms into three sets - the ones that are still indeterminant, the ones to be promoted, and the ones that have failed. I save the list of promoted ones in the FA promotion archive, the failed ones in the archive, and on the FAC I replace the entire nom set with the indeterminant ones.
I copy the succesful noms onto goings-on
I merge the promoted set with the list of featured articles
I update the count.

The merging into the FA list and the count updating could be done entirely automatically. Gimmebot, as Gimmetrow just said, does require supervision, though, so fully automating it would be a bad idea. Raul654 05:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could merging into the FA list be entirely automatic? They are listed in categories on WP:FA.

Most of the source of non-automation comes from dealing with the article talk page. It would be possible to split the FAC discussion tagging from the talk page updating, but that would create other problems. I should note that the last batch, which was quite short (and almost all promotions take less work), still took 10 minutes for the bot. Frankly, I don't really see a problem here with this "window" - it always existed when people did the job. Perhaps, if all this info were metadata that editors could not edit, the bot could be fully automated. There would still need to be some lag to allow for human error closing a discussion. Gimmetrow 05:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could merging into the FA list be entirely automatic? They are listed in categories on WP:FA. - I envision it as a command-line bot which takes the location of a file. That file is formatted something like articlename catname [optional alphabetizing parameter, if it's not the first one] The alphabetizing parameter indicates which word to alphabetize with. Raul654 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the window Rick speaks of used to be on the order of minutes for some articles (the time it took for me to go from archiving all the FAC noms to tagging the promoted ones) and hours/days for others (I left doing the failed ones to BoG and later Sandy). Now, they are all going to take hours. Raul654 05:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, gimmetrow - are you aware the rate limit for bots has been increased to 15 per minute? Raul654 05:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of that job file isn't automatic. It could be done while the nomination is in process, but it strikes me as yet more work. As for the rate limit, yes I know it has been increased.

If the window is such a problem, you could go back to changing fac->featured, and I'll have the bot check for the featured template again. You wouldn't need to update project assessments, though, as the bot could still catch any that were not at FA when it updated articlehistory. Gimmetrow 05:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot less work for me to create a file containing the names of promoted articles (which I already do anyway) and their categories than it is for me to do a alphabetized merge between a list of 10-20 and a list of 1000.

As far as the window, I'm not all that concerned. I think it's something people will learn to live with. Raul654 05:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the "window" - as it stands there's a distinct window between the time Mark decides to promote an article (and does his thing) and when the FAC page is closed. This window allows additional comments to be added to the FAC page that aren't considered in Mark's decision, aren't responded to, and end up in the "closed" version of the FAC page (for one example, see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson - look at the timestamps related to Mark's promotion decision, my comments, and the closing of the FAC). Doing this manually, I'd close the FAC pages first, then move the transclusions around (and closing the FACs is a pain, so that's not how it's currently done). What I'm suggesting is that Mark run a tool (bot) that closes the FACs, moves the transclusions, and does whatever else can be automated, all in one step. There's always a window between Mark's decision and additional comments, but artificially increasing this (by having the FAC closure be done by a bot run at some random interval after Mark makes his decision) doesn't seem like the best way to do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, another person has asked over at User talk:GimmeBot about having the bot add the article template with the star. Perhaps you would like to respond to this one? Gimmetrow 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. What's going on here? Do we need a policy on what's hidden and what's not? I can see a well-meaning editor renominating Talk:Jane Fonda for GA. Also I thought the display:none hack was rather discouraged? Gimmetrow 07:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and then there's these. Not surprising I suppose. A scan for this brought to light that FA Premier League and MDAC have been renamed, so perhaps the link from WP:FA should be updated? Also found one featured list using {{featured article}}, and a bunch of user pages. The question was asked at Template_talk:Featured_article#False_usage what to do about these. Gimmetrow 07:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you tidied up Talk:Jupiter. In addition to the approach at Talk:Jane Fonda, there's yet another approach being used at Talk:Queen (band), see Template:Small templates created a few days ago. Gimmetrow 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the template, see [5] - I like that the template hides everything, but I think it might go a bit too far. I'm also concerned about balkanizing the way we do it.

I have been against template:featured article since day one. It's redundant, and it violates the principle of separating articles from metadata. That's why I won't do it, and I don't think a bot should either. In fact, I would prefer it was deleted today, but I suspect I'm probably in the minority in that.

I'll look at Queen in a bit. Raul654 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to have the bot add the FA template, but for other reasons. Anyway, I've already done some organizing on Queen. Mostly pointing out yet another technology with a hide/show box for talk page templates. Oh, you might get a laugh out of Talk:Galileo Galilei - I rather like it how it is so I'm not changing that one. Gimmetrow 19:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page is absurd. Ridiculous. And, actually, the FAOL's are starting to irritate me to no end. When the FAOL template was created, it was EXPLICITLY to be removed when an article was promoted to FA. And yet, there it is. Raul654 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what have you heard about the WPCD and 0.5/0.7 templates being merged into a single smaller template? If this isn't done soon, I think we should consider putting the functionality into the ArticleHistory template. Raul654 20:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would only take a couple of lines of code to remove FAOL on promoted articles. The interwiki links identify FAs, which an editor likely to use a foreign text probably knows. I mentioned V0.5 weeks ago. The template would have to be programmed, and it would add more than a couple lines of code to the bot. Unless someone else is going to write the bot to handle the CD templates, this project needs some sort of limit. Perhaps after {{featured}} and {{formerFA2}} are obsolete, the CD templates can be considered. Gimmetrow 21:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added the couple lines of code to remove FAOL for future promoted articles. Also, was thinking, is there a good reason for the FFA/GA combo status in ArticleHistory? It can be avoided. Gimmetrow 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we added it so that the count at FFA could be verified? If we remove it, I won't be able to track FFA tally vs. cat. Unless I'm missing something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sound/list

re: Wikipedia:Sound/list

all the music is CC, as any music, even that in the public domain, requires some kind of a license. So, even a public domain work can have creative commons license, just one that dedicates it to the public domain.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

therefore, it should be titled CC only, with PD being the only determinant that music has dedicated to be PD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.35.119.54 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, music copyright is complicated that way (e.g, that the music can have one copyright status and the performance another). The licenses column there indicates the most restrictive of the set. Therefore, if both the performance and the music itself is public domain (typically because the copyright on the recording has expired), the licenses column indicates it is public domain. It is incorrect then to say all the music listed on that page is in the public domain. Raul654 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main page requests

I don’t know weather you’ve noticed but the main page request page currently has four sports articles all with request dates within a week of each other. Bill Russell (March 12th) Cricket World Cup (March 13th) Chelsea F.C. (March 14th) Sydney Roosters (March 18th) I assume therefore that only one (if any) of these requests will be successful. Buc 09:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc, how could you forget to mention the 10th anniversary of Buffy (March 10 2007). I first mentioned it on Wikiedpia when I was getting the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article featured on 5 October, but added it to the requests page in January. Here's the original mention (from the (1st nomination).

ADDITIONAL: I forgot to mention, that my hoping was that if this article becomes featured, that it might appear on the front page on March 10 2007. That date marks the 10th anniversary. There won't be another date as important to the series until March 10 2017, and humanity might have destroyed itself by then! -- Paxomen 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Syndney Roosters' is the only other article which has a rounded date:

Sydney Roosters (Request for 18th or 19th of March) = will commence its 100th season on Monday the 19th of March.

Other requests around mid March are non-rounded anniversaries which come around every year:

Act of Independence of Lithuania (Request for March 11) = 89th anniversary

Bill Russell (Request March 12) = apparently the day that commemorates the day his jersey was retired by the Celtics franchise, but this date is not mentioned in the article

Cricket World Cup (Request for March 13) = Opening day of the tournament

Chelsea F.C. (Request for 14 March) = 105th anniversary of founding

-- Paxomen 14:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a sports article and has nothing to do with what I was saying Buc 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realise you were just talking about sports articles - opps, but it was spelt as 'spots' :) -- Paxomen 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:71.31.47.77

Hi! I'm confused - why did you hardblock User:71.31.47.77 for a month after one edit and only a {{test}} warning? Your block reason was just "vandalism", but there must be something more to it to warrant a one month block... --Tango 16:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've missed my question, so I'm just posting here so you get notified again. Thanks! --Tango 18:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I guess I overreacted a bit. I really don't like people vandalizing my artilces ;) Raul654 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit... I strongly suggest you follow standard policy with your blocks in future... (And I'm sure I don't need to remind you of WP:OWN ;)). I assume you're going to unblock the address now? --Tango

I've just reviewed some more of your recent blocks. I suggest you take another look at:

User:129.67.128.222 - again, just one edit, this time no warnings
User:67.173.128.146 - only 3 recent edits, no recent warnings
User:68.220.23.234 - 3 edits, one warning
User:72.254.8.200 - 1 edit, no warnings

And that's after only a quick check of your most recent blocks. You do understand our blocking policies, don't you? We warn IP addresses at least once, normally multiple times, and we issue short blocks unless they've already received recent blocks. IP addresses are often dynamic, meaning multiple unconnected users can use the same IP address meaning a long block is more likely to affect innocent editors than the guilty one. We also assume good faith - a single edit blanking a page is assumed to be a test, not vandalism. --Tango 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those blocks were issued against IPs vandalizing the main page featured article, which it is generlaly acknowledged is an exception to the standard rules about warning prior to blocking. Raul654 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For 24 hours, maybe. Not for a week or month, as you've blocked in those cases. There is no point blocking IP addresses for that long unless you know it's a static IP. Surely you know that? --Tango 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I wouldn't count 2 out of 4 as several. --Tango 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you use reverse DNS on them, you'll see that 3 of the 4 of those were static or essentially static (chagning once every few months):

129.67.128.222 - Oxford University computing center - static
67.173.128.146 - Comcast Cable modem - virtually static
68.220.23.234 - BellSouth ADSL - virtually static
72.254.8.200 - STSN general holdings - unknown Raul654 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 out of 4? And yet I see you haven't unblocked the 4th... I'm seriously concerned about your inability to respect policy, so I'm going to WP:AN/I - I suggest you explain yourself over there. --Tango 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Bears main page image

Thank you for putting it on the main page but I'm puzzled by your choise of image as it's not free use and there are free use images in the article. Buc 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a point that I considered at length. Yes, there are two free pictures (Image:Bears 1924.jpg, a 1924 team picture and Image:SoliderFieldAug2004.jpg, a picture of an nondescript wall at Soldier Field II). However, neither of these are illustrative -- if you took away the caption, nobody would have any clue what the featured article was. That left only copyrighted, fair use images. I picked the one I felt was most illustrative (although the helmet was also something I considered).

If somebody changes it, I won't edit war over it, but I don't think any of those other pictures are particularly illustrative. Raul654 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats up again

You put a block on our small company's IP without any understandable explanation. I think this may have been a mistake. Can you please look into your actions and consider lifting them? Thanks. I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.57.149.253 I wrote to you last week but did not see any acknowledgement from your actions.

Test a VIDEO

Could you test to see if a VIDEO I uploaded in Segway works for you? I have some people tell me it does, and others NOT. I am confused. It works on my PC with Windows. "Segway in a 4th of July parade." Thanks. I'll check back here for an answer. --Doug ^talk 19:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine, assuming one has the right software, which most Windows systems don’t have. Have people who are having problems with this video read Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg). —xyzzy_n 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said Raul654 07:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's the answer!! The ones that have the proper software, it works just fine. Great.... Thanks for help. I'll make sure these others that are having problems install this additional software. --Doug ^talk 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

I noticed you said the following on AN/I: "Deleting large chunks of cited material from an article is vandalism (or, in the most optimistic light, very POV editing). Raul654 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)" This is exactly what the EK1 case was about, if you recall, although I was not as radical as you, because I don't consider such deletions to necessarily be vandalism, or even POV editing. It appears that you have been condemning me for ages for acting against something that you yourself condemn even more harshly than I do. What am I supposed to think about this? As an arb, would you now be willing to reconsider EK1 in light of this viewpoint? Everyking 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting comparison. However, the two are not quite analogous. The difference in this case is that the anon was deleting sourced material that was highly relevant to the subject of the article (he basically deleted half of the 'alleged bias' section from the O'Reilly's article. As anyone who has ever heard O'Reilly speak can attest, he's extremely biased). The people you were in a dispute with were deleting, well, trivial information (week-by-week album sales in Canada, 'etc). There is a disinction between relavant and trivial information, as is illustrated in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Raul654 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" does not cover any of the kinds of things the dispute was over; look at the list yourself. The dispute was over far more important information than week-by-week album sales in Canada, anyway; during the dispute I was amenable to removing genuinely trivial and redundant things, and indeed, I had already trimmed the article significantly during and following the FAC, before the dispute even started. They were, on the contrary, deleting huge chunks of information, sometimes up to whole sections of the article, including things like short summaries of the reviews the album received from The New York Times and other indisputably notable sources, information about the making of the album, about individual songs, about album promotion...at the most extreme phase of all this deletionism, which occurred when I was blocked, the article was reduced by about 80% and was barely more than a stub. I believe a dispute like that could never happen today; it was an anomaly even then, and I think the sort of radical deletionism that inspired that controversy—some of my opponents did not even think an album article should exist, and voted to delete the articles on the singles—is virtually extinct by now. Two years have passed since the dispute, during which the articles have contained a large majority of the information these people were trying to remove, and yet there has been no serious move to restart the controversy in all that time. Everyking 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Question

Hi, Raul654. I work mostly in es.wiki and I have been reading how do you select FA (we use a completely different method and we are thinking in modifying it). The only think I can not find about the procedure followed in this wiki is ¿How do you select the FAC Director? ¿Do you have a link to the procedure or something alike? I am sure that you can answer these. Thanks Chabacano 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no easy answer to that question. Well, I sort-of fell into the role, so to speak.

In Feb 2004, when we switched over to the 4-pane main page style, the featured article was being changed hourly. I thought that was crazy, so I stepped in and started doing it myself every 24 hours. After a while, everyone was content to just sit back and let me do it. My position as FA director was [6] about 6 months later, after a troll revert-warred with me over a main page FAdecision I had made.

So there you have it, in a nutshell. There was no formal process, I ended up doing it, and people were happy with how I did it. The system has worked pretty well for 3 years now. Most of the time, it entails three parts:

Determining whether a particular objection is valid or not. This is especially common when a controversial nomination occurs.
Determining whether there is or is not consensus, or if an article has significant outstanding objections.
Picking the articles to appear on the main page.

Other, less common jobs I have done in my capacity as FA director are/were:

Setting up and maintaining FARC (although for the most part, Marskell and Joey have taken this upon themselves)
Determining and interpreting the FA criteria

I'm not sure if you are looking at someone whose only job will be to pick the main page featured articles, or for a more general job (as I have just described). Either way, my suggestion to you is that you find someone who is dedicated, and who has already been active in the process. Raul654 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the detailed answer :) Sorry, I should have specified more, but I did not know all the roles of the director. My concern was about the consensus (as we are [too] used to vote). Very useful answer! Chabacano 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how long will my IP be blocked

re: the block you put on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.57.149.253 Please reply this time.

That class B network (208.57.0.0-208.57.255.255) was used by Cplot to vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly. Anonomyous editing and account creation is disabled. You, however, are not blocked (as your message on this page indicates). Raul654 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it is a little excessive/ridiculous? You have blocked the anonymous IP of a company of adults to chase your nemisis? Let me guess, you voted for Bush. Please let me know where/how I can take steps to resolve this. This kind of crap is melting away my admiration for wikipedia.

Kiarostami: FAC/ask for a favor

Dear Raul654,

I nominated Abbas Kiarostami for FA assessment. I will be moving to another country soon and I will be busy with packing, changing my flats etc. FAC page asks us to be online and active in responding comments. I've done it up to now but I am not sure I can continue this from this weekend onwards. Would that be possible that you invite a highly critical reviewer to review the article so that we can close it faster (either successful or unsuccessful)? It would be a great help to me. Thanks. Sangak 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC: of comments to Luna regarding his defense of your block of our IP

Your comments on our discussion page suggest we go to a library or a friend's house to circumnavigate the block you put on our IP range. You put this massive block on to disrupt the vandals of spammers and the spam of vandals. But couldn't then those rogues take the same advice? And post their treason from libraries? You said it is too much work to un-block our valid,fixed IP from the blocked range. And you think it is not too much work for us to register from libraries. And yet you think it is too much work for cplot to do that. And you think all of this makes perfect sense and our appeal is not vaild. Do I have this right?

Suggest pic change for tomorrow's featured article.

There is a free image that could be use to illustrate the featured article tomorrow for the chicago bears. I've put forward the suggestion in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2, 2007 Borisblue 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I found another free photo that is more illustrative, and put it in the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

MUCH better. Raul654 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philly meetup notice

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

Sunday March 4, 2007
5pm
Independence Brew Pub

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

FA date

Hiya, I know that I may be jumping the gun here, but I wanted to check with you on a timing issue. I'm currently working on the Knights Templar article, pushing it through the various steps towards FA. It's definitely not there yet (it's still pending a GA nomination at the moment), but I'm going to keep pushing. If/when it *does* make FA, its clear "anniversary date" as far as showing up on the front page, would be October 13th, since it was exactly 700 years ago, on October 13, 1307 when King Philip IV of France simultaneously had many Templars arrested and tortured.

Anyway, do you think it's a reasonable thing, to shoot for getting Knights Templar to FA status in time for an October 13, 2007 showing on the 700-year anniversary? Or is that being wildly optimistic in terms of how long it takes to get an article to FA status?

Any advice appreciated, El on ka 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Jameson took 6 months, and I was slow. 8 months should be more than enough time. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AnonEMouse - you can usually get an article up to FA status in a week if you work hard. Raul654 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graph of number of FA in English wiki

Dear Raul654

I added a graph to Wikipedia:Featured article statistics. Sangak 10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really necessarily - one of the German wikipedians keeps a pair of updated graphs - image:De-en-exzellent-anzahl.png and image:De-en-exzellent-anteil.png. The former is the absolute count, and the latter is the proportion. Raul654 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I have updated the page as such. Raul654 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fine! Thanks. Sangak 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Collingwood

Hello Raul654, could I be impertinent enough to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Collingwood where hopefully you'll find a community consensus to promote the article to featured status. If you feel more needs to be done, then please don't hesitate to let me know. All the very best, The Rambling Man 13:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few of us at WP:CRICKET have worked really hard over the past couple of weeks to promote this article, the intention to be to raise its profile before the 2007 Cricket World Cup in a week or so. We'd like to continue and encourage this kind of group collaboration so if you could give us your opinion on the article and the consensus thusfar achieved, the project would be extremely grateful! Cheers. The Rambling Man 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID

Could you maybe give me a head's up on the talk page a day or two before the article is featured(if you decide to actually put it on the mainpage). I expect that it will get a lot more vandalism and other problems than other topics. JoshuaZ 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmithManly is usually very good about tagging talk-page articles with the main page date within a few hours of me scheduling them. I'll try to schedule it with enough lead time that you see his edit. Raul654 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I just looked at the article again. I don't really know what I'd use for a picture. Someone should give that some thought. Raul654 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"small"

Hello Raul, I was wondering why you undid my edit to Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Since there's no objective criteria to decide when a number is "small" I don't see what purpose it serves to have that word in there, except to express a POV on the issue. Readers can simply count up the (overwhelming) number of scientists on one side of the issue and compare them to the (much smaller) number of scientists on the other side, and form their own opinions. Just because you or I have our own opinion on the relative merits of each side of the argument, that doesn't mean we should introduce that opinion into the wording of the article. I'd have similar (and probably stronger) objections if somebody had phrased it "a significant number" or something similar. I think "a number" is the most neutral way of putting it.

I'm heading home now, and don't want to have any activity on my work account's talk page anyway, so please respond here or on the talk page of my personal/home account. Thanks, --Ltbx.com 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "small" wording has been discussed at length. In short, saying that "number of scientists actively disagree with the second and third points" gives vastly more weight to the disagreement than actually exists. Raul654 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, it just reports the facts neutrally. Saying "a significant number" or "a considerable number" or "a substantial number" or something similar would be giving undue weight. Saying "a number" is entirely neutral and indisputable fact. I can only find a few mentions of the phrase on the talk page, and the longest thread involves the grammar of the phrase (is vs. are).

I'll suggest changing the wording to "a smaller number" since I think that preserves the character of the statement while still being objective (the number of scientists actively disagreeing is definitely smaller than those that agree with the mainstream view). My point isn't to add weight to the arguments of the anti-global warming folks, but just that "small" is a matter of opinion, not fact. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, whatever the subject matter. --Xoom.org 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April fools main page article

Hey Raul, think we desperately need help with the April fools main page article, theres 4 weeks left and I really doubt we're going to get the stubs that have been suggsted up to featured status in time. Have you got any ideas of good or A grade articles we could use? I'm more than happy to do a solo mission on it because interest seams to have been lost - just getting a stub up there isn't going to happen! Cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, use Toledo War - it's listed at WP:ODD and it's already FA. Gimmetrow 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree, but I was hoping for something slightly more original than that, I think the article should be more unbelievable RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over the unusual articles list, and I found several that could be turned into FAs pretty quickly:

Boston molasses disaster
Pig War
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Extreme ironing
The K Foundation burn a million quid (being that we'll be featuring the KLF on March 9, I'd be uncomfortable running this on April 1)
Red rain in Kerala
Human penis size <-- this is already quite well referenced. And if I were putting this on the main page, I'd use Image:Mercury god.jpg

I didn't look through the list exhaustively, so there might be others. With the exception of Burn a million quid (for the reasons I noted), I'd be happy using any of these on the main page on April 1 Raul654 06:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just snowballed the vote on the april fool featured article page and said we're going for Human penis size, this is fairly close to featured status already so its definately going to be possible to achieve, think this is the best bet RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

main page FA question

Hi, I have a couple questions about main page articles. Would there be any problems with this image being used on the main page? And second, would there be any chance of an episode article like Cape Feare (which is close to being promoted) making the main page? Thanks for the time, Scorpion 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question - a show like the Simpsons isn't likely to have any free images available. So no, I wouldn't have any problems using that image.

As to your second question, the question of whether individual TV episodes should be on the main page -- I haven't made up my mind. Raul654 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 2 (hopefully 3 soon enough) episode FAs and neither of them have made a request to be on the main page? -- Scorpion 06:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The house pilot has been requested for the main page and is slowly winding its way down the requests page. But as I said, I have not yet decided. Raul654 06:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it normally take for the process to work? Some of the articles on the request page have been there for months. -- Scorpion 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It varies based on the article's subject. Some subjects shoot straight to the main page (math-related FAs, for example) while others take a while (war, video games, pop culture in general, etc). Raul654 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis would an article be rejected for the front page? -- Scorpion 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decide that on an article-by-article basis. I said I wouldn't feature Wikipedia as the main page FA because it was too self-aggrandizing. Out of the current set of featured articles, I'm concerned Jenna Jamison might be too risqué, and that individual TV shows (the house Pilot is currently an FA) might be too... uh... trivial? I'm not ruling them out, I'm saying that at this point, I am undecided about them. Raul654 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thanks for the help. -- Scorpion 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how long will my IP be blocked

you blocked our IP. 208.57.149.253 Is this permanent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacquese (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

'Buffy' on March 10

Hi Raul, I noticed Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 10, 2007, and that the article 'Mini Moke' is currently in that slot. Is there any possibility that the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' article could be used in this slot instead? That date is exactly ten years since the Buffy series first aired, and there will not be another date as significant for the series until March 10, 2017. I got the 'Buffy' article featured several months back so that it might have a shot at making it onto the front page on this anniversary date, and it has continued to make minor improvements since. Could 'Mini Moke' be moved to any other date (e.g. March 11)? I noticed that the request for Mini Moke did not request any specific date. It was incredibly hard to make everyone happy about getting the article featured (see: original nomination, and then when this got too long the immediate start of a 2nd nom). The final result of such a long debate is a very high quality article. Having it on the front page at the right time would really mean a lot to me. -- Paxomen 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Raul654 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big thanks. -- Paxomen 14:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where next?

I have (reluctantly) started a discussion of this at User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#RFC? William M. Connolley 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 11 FA

Hello, sorry to bother, but could you please switch featured article for March 11? WP:LITH wrote and promoted Act of Independence of Lithuania solely because we wanted to see this article on the front page on March 11, the day when in 1990 Lithuanian SSR declared independence from the Soviet Union. Thank you! Renata 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 325: / Line 325: @@
 you blocked our IP. 208.57.149.253 Is this permanent? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Jacquese|Jacquese]] ([[User talk:Jacquese|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jacquese|contribs]]) 01:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
-=='Buffy' on March 100==
+=='Buffy' on March 10==
 Hi Raul, I noticed [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 10, 2007]], and that the article '[[Mini Moke]]' is currently in that slot. Is there any possibility that the '[[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]]' article could be used in this slot instead? That date is exactly ten years since the ''Buffy'' series first aired, and there will not be another date as significant for the series until March 10, 2017. I got the 'Buffy' article featured several months back so that it might have a shot at making it onto the front page on this anniversary date, and it has continued to make minor improvements since. Could '[[Mini Moke]]' be moved to any other date (e.g. March 11)? I noticed that the request for Mini Moke did not request any specific date. It was incredibly hard to make everyone happy about getting the article featured (see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer&oldid=80148052 original nomination], and then when this got too long the immediate start of a [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer|2nd nom]]). The final result of such a long debate is a very high quality article. Having it on the front page at the right time would really mean a lot to me. -- [[User:Paxomen|Paxomen]] 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)