User talk:Raul654

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

• Archive 1: August 2003 - November 2003
• Archive 2: December 2003 - March 2004
• Archive 3: April 2004 - July 2004
• Archive 4: August 2004 - November 2004
• Archive 5: December 2004 - March 2005
• Archive 6: April 2005 - July 2005
• Archive 7: August 2005 - November 2005
• Archive 8: December 2005 - March 2006
• Archive 9: April 2006 - July 2006
• Archive 10: August 2006 - November 2006
• Archive 11: December 2006 - February 2007
• Archive 12: March 2007 - May 2007

Village pump conversation regarding templates

See here this concerns several aspects of the WikiProject templates and their implementation. Quadzilla99 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Leo Szilard.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Chahax

Raul, you blocked User:Chahax on grounds of being a sockpuppet. Whose sockpuppet do you allege this is, and where is the checkuser report you cited in your block statement? It isn't enough to just say he's a sockpuppet without evidence, and even if there's evidence of sockpuppetry that still isn't enough; he needs to be using a sockpuppet in violation of policy. Everyking 08:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I blocked him on the grounds of being a sockpuppeteer, not a sockpuppet. Specifically, using the IP address I noted to make ridiculous POV edits, and then for using Chahax account to attempt to create a FAR listing on an article he was POV editing with his IP address (claiming the article was unstable because people were POV editing it - a self fulfilling comlaint seeing as how he was the one doing it) Raul654 12:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Chahax has posted an unblock review request and has also e-mailed me asking that I make sure the block is reviewed (and that an arbitration case be started, but I can advise him how to do that later, if necessary). Please comment regarding this request, including whether the sock or alternate account was used disruptively and whether the duration of the block should remain indefinite. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was being used most disruptively (see above). He was given a warning beforehand, and decided to ignore it. Raul654 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Still, I'm not quite sure what the next step should be here, procedurally. A blocked user is entitled to a review, especially when he alleges (even if unmeritoriously) that the blocking administrator had a bias against him, but I am hardly in a position to review the matter without having the checkuser information. Would it be in order to ask another checkuser to conduct the review? Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser identification is not at issue - he admits it was him Raul654 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, sorry I missed that (*smacks forehead*). Please monitor Chahax's page for any continued dialog. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk is continuing on User talk:216.67.29.113, where he has used the unblock template a dozen or more times already (with every edit he makes) despite being warned not to do so. If he keeps it up, I'll be protecting that page soon. Raul654 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd been monitoring only User talk:Chahax, where he'd seemingly been more reasonable. I guess the remaining question is duration. Do you have a view on that, or was "indefinite" to be taken literally? Newyorkbrad 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied by email. Raul654 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Chahax seems to have explained himself adequately; however, I suspect that isn't enough for you, so could you give me an idea what it would take for you to unblock? If he will agree not to nominate the article again, will that suffice? Also, would you block anybody who nominated that article, or is it just an individual thing with Chahax? Everyking 06:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You have an interesting definition of "explained himself adequately" - he admits he made the biased edits in question, and denies he did anything wrong. And if you see nothing wrong with that, then we really have nothing more to talk about.

"If he will agree not to nominate the article again, will that suffice?" - no, that is insufficient. If he can't edit within the bounds of the neutrality policy, he should not be editing. Raul654 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked you what would be enough. Everyking 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If he were made to see the error of his ways - that Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for his anti-scientific POV pushing; that duplicitous editing and gaming the system will not be tolerated; that abusing the unblock template is wrong - then I could, in principle, accept him editing again. I'm also concerned about the fact that, I'm told, he's now shown up on two attack sites: WR and RightToRace. Raul654 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible he already believes this things? I will see if I can get him to profess these views, but in turn I expect that I won't be wasting my time and you would in fact unblock. And surely it does not surprise you that a person might appear on an "attack site" if wrongly treated on WP? Everyking 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible he already believes this things? Unless he has markedly changed his beliefs since yesterday ("Disruptive how? Please cite a disruptive post. The three cited above certainly show no disruptions, click on them for yourself.") - No, it is not possible he already believes this. Raul654 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. He may believe those things and simply not agree with the claims you make about him. He may not think he has engaged in POV pushing or "duplicitous editing", or that he has abused the unblock template, for instance, while agreeing that if one were to actually do those things they would be wrong. Everyking 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If he doesn't agree that his actions were problematic, then he cannot have been made to see the error of his ways, and I will not be unblocking him. Raul654 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"I will see if I can get him to profess these views, but in turn I expect that I won't be wasting my time and you would in fact unblock" - do not expect me to unblock him if he professes a Non-apology apology Raul654 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute: you're looking for a profession of belief, or an apology? The second is obviously a lot less likely. Everyking 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an apology, per se, but I will not accept anything short of a repudiation of his actions. Raul654 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TFA/April 18

Could you fix a link in this? "E³" has been moved to "E3", so the link needs to be fixed. TJ Spyke 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Any upcoming TFAs without a free image?

If there are any upcoming TFAs without a free image, could you please try to leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free images as far in advance as you can. If we have more lead time, it might be possible to avoid more controversies in future (for example, I think I found a Scooby-Doo image that just needed some more confirmation on the day of its TFA). Thanks.--Pharos 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to schedule them for several days now. Here's my tentative list for the next week (subject to change):

20: Yosemite National Park

21: City of Manchester Stadium

22: Jake Gyllenhaal

23: Scottish Parliament Building

24: Military brat

25: Dhaka

26: Chrono Trigger

27: Michael Woodruff

Chrono Trigger and Michael Woodruff will have issues. Raul654 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason that you have not yet made these pubic?Buc 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That list is one I keep for my own private benefit - that is, the list of ones I intend to schedule but might change on a whim. Once I schedule them, it's very time consuming to change the order - so I keep personal list that is easy to reorder. Raul654 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This intrigues me because (this is going to sound very nerdy) I keep watch over your contributions page to see when you’ve added to the TFA archive. Is it possible you could keep a list like the one above on you user page or something? This would be easier to check and would inform people sooner. Buc 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:NYC meetup Jimbo.jpg

Oddly, someone tagged this photo you took as a {{promophoto}}. I've removed that tag, but, actually, it isn't clear that this image is licensed under the GFDL. I've tagged it as an orphaned unfree image, but I wanted to leave you a note so that you can decide if you want to freely license it or not. Jkelly 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've switched that license. I doubt Jimbo would object to it being GFDL. Raul654 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems a safe bet. Thanks for fixing it. Jkelly 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Relisting a closed FAC

The bot recently (April 12) closed the FAC discussion for Mackinac Island, I presume due to a lack of comments and a general consensus of oppose at that time. However, the only oppositions were for prose and the article is currently near the top of the list for copyediting (its a little backlogged). Would it be okay to relist it after the copyedit is completed, hopefully sometime soon? Or, should I just start a second FAC and link to the first? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot archives it after I list it as a failed nomination. I usually recommend waiting at least a couple of weeks before renominating a failed article. Make sure when you renominate it that you take care of all the previous issues. Raul654 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the only outstanding problem was prose, so I'll start a new FAC once it gets a copyedit. It never did get a lot of comments to begin with. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Form IV deleted.

Could you please close the FA nomination of Form IV: Ataru, as the deletion discussion has ended with its destruction? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article/requests

I reverted this addition of an FAC (not yet an FA), on the assumption it creates more work for you to have to sort out articles that aren't even FA yet. Please correct if I'm mistaken. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And, my removal has been reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On talk page: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I want my picture

I WANT MY PICTURE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocks411 (talk • contribs)

IT'S IN THE MAIL Raul654 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Chahax

It seems sensible to commute the block to 1 month as per my comment on his talk page; what do you think?--Eloquence* 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He's also turned up on two attack sites - WikipediaReview and RighttoRace (the latter is an organizing ground for anti-science POV pushing)

As I said above (previous thread named Chahax) I don't think he should be unblocked until (at the very least) he repudiates his actions. Raul654 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm only going by his edits here for now. My key point is that the initial block seems to be overly heavy (indefinite block, which is equivalent to the Usenet Death Penalty unless the user creates a sock puppet, in which case they violate policy); a permanent block should normally be an ArbCom matter. Hence, I would suggest commuting and a warning, rather than trying to extract some promises (which is always, psychologically, very difficult).--Eloquence* 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ID article

Ah, well, be that as it may, there's no point editing an article when every two or three days some anon or person who's said two lines ofn the talk page promptly claims consensus for an old version and undoes every single change by fiat. What's the point? Any change I make is just going to be reverted anyway next time someone reverts back. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mark

They may write you down in history With their bitter, twisted lies, They may trod you in the very dirt But still, like dust, you'll rise. Did they want to see you broken? Bowed head and lowered eyes? Shoulders falling down like teardrops Weakened by your soulful cries? But... they may shoot you with their words, They may cut you with their eyes, They may kill you with their hatefulness, And still, like air... you will rise! Maya Angelou Dear Mark, I know you've been trough stress, pressure and mistreat But, no matter what, remain strong and proud, for bright and wonderful people like you are too rare and precious. And thank you for your beautiful words! :) Phaedriel 09:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a few moments

Hi - Any chance you could comment at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations#Nominations by the FA Director? I've been trying to avoid listing you as the nominator for procedural relistings, and I'll take a look again. Probably the easiest way to review these would be to peruse the by-year lists looking for your user name. In the grand scheme of things this is not at all important (at least not to me), so I wouldn't call it urgent or anything. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbj

Rbj being incivil again over at Talk:Intelligent design:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

He's also been deleting well-sourced content from the article again. 151.151.21.105 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

TFA list

You mentioned you keep a personal list of TFA before you make them public. This intrigues me because (this is going to sound very nerdy) I keep watch over your contributions page to see when you’ve added to the TFA archive. Is it possible you could keep a list like the one above on you user page or something? This would be easier to check and would inform people sooner. Buc 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The choice is between the current system (which, as you say, may not provide as much advance warning as is possible) and the system you want (wherein I keep my personal list on-wiki somewhere). The latter is bad for two reason - it adds another page for me to keep track of (and respond to questions/objections etc when they come up). More importantly, it creates the definite possibility that I'll put something on the list, people will get excited that it's coming up on the main page, then I'll change my mind and remove it, disappointing them. Give the choice between the current system, and people having a few extra days of advanced notice with the very-likely possibility that some of them will be severely disappointed, I prefer to keep the system as-is. Raul654 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

I presume this was a typo but as a courtesy I'm informing you of my edit since I don't want to be changing the meaning anyone's talk comments! --kingboyk 10:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed a typo. Raul654 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAC

Would you mind if I separate the previous FAC and the current FAC into two different pages? -- tariqabjotu 11:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No objection here. Raul654 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

At least two people on the Jerusalem FAC have questioned why you restarted the FAC. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning. -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

With a discussion like the one that occured on the previous FAC, it is difficult for me to make heads or tails of which comments are valid or invalid, settled or still in dispute, 'etc. Raul654 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin Brodeur FAC

Why was this article not promoted when it had so much support? There were a couple of objects, yes, but one of them wasn't even valid and the others were taken care of...Sportskido8 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On second look, you're right - I made a mistake when I failed that nom. Raul654 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

As part of my admin coaching with The Transhumanist, I've been working on a "lesson" for him. It's currently at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates. My mentor suggested (and he's quite right) that as I name you there, I should drop you a line as a courtesy and let you know. If there's anything there you dislike or disagree with, please feel free to amend or let me know. --Dweller 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent page. Raul654 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian historical articles

Hello Raul,
It has been over several months now, an article on some historical dynasties/Empires of India appeared on main page. There are several in the queue and some have been waiting since very long. Some of the TFA requests in the list include, but may not be limited to, Chalukya dynasty, Hoysala Empire, Hoysala architecture, Vijayanagara Empire, Western Chalukya Empire. Would it be possible to consider any of these in the near future? Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We just had Dhaka on the main page. While, strictly speaking, it's not Indian, it's right next door ;) Raul654 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had seen that. In fact I removed "Dhaka" entry from TFA requests page, just some time ago. :-)

The last historical article from India, that I am aware of is, Chola Dynasty, which appeared as a TFA on October 16, 2006. And that is more than 6 months back. - KNM ^Talk 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Way late from me...

But thanks for all you do for the site. KOS | talk 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC page loading problem

The FAC page is far too long. I have a cable modem, and yet the page takes such a long time to load that I'm deterred from reading the nominations at all. Isn't there something that can be done about this? I'd be content if there were a page that just linked to the individual page discussions without presenting all the discussions together, but I can't find one. Everyking 07:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot think of any fully automated way to do what you ask using only Mediawiki syntax and parser functions. (Someone more clever than I might be able to devise a way, but I cannot think of one)

The best suggestions I can offer are Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates (which links to the talk pages instead of the discussion itself) and User:Deckiller/FAC urgents (which will be manually maintained by Deckkiller, and list the FAC nominations most in need of attention (e.g, having the fewest comments).

Beyond that, it sounds like what you need is a bot. It shouldn't be too difficult to do (I could easily supply you with a python script and instructions that would fetch the FAC page, parse it, and print out the wiki code necessary to generate such a page. You would then have to paste it into a page somewhere. Writing a bot that posts on-wiki requires knowledge of cURL, pycURL, or some other URL form posting scheme that depends on arcane HTML knowledge I do not really possess) Raul654 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, why can't we just create a page like that and manually maintain it? I can't be the only one having this problem. Everyking 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone is willing to maintain such a page, that's fine by me. (But even in such a case, a bot would eliminate most if not all of the grunt work) Raul654 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAC

You should know better than to direct people to disregard another editor's opinion, and also to put words in my mouth. I've deleted your comments from both discussions. Since you are an admin and have been on the Arbcom (if I read your user page correctly) one can expect more, much more, from you. --Leifern 10:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is your comment (this article "will never be entirely stable... Featuring it will invite more strife and discord, and that's precisely something we don't need on this topic.") helpful to the article author? How is the author supposed to make the article uncontroversial? Answer - it is not a helpful, nor is it an actionable objection. And if you don't like me noting that it is inactionable and telling the author not to worry about it - then don't make inactionable objections.

And, as far as putting words in your mouth, while you didn't explicitly say 'this article can never be a featured article because', that's the form your objection took. Raul654 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Raul, I was just informed that you are the big chief when it comes to assigning days for featured articles. I was amazed to hear that the request to feature Jerusalem on Jerusalem Day was turned down in favor of some Brazilian soccer star. If there is any day that someone might open wikipedia and have a look at this article, it is May 16, Jerusalem Day! I have worked very hard over the past few weeks to ready the article for public consumption, and I hope you will reconsider.--Gilabrand 11:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to discussion about date requests on the request page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Don't come on my page warning me, especially when you're well known for blocking people in disputes you're involved with. Also, you're well known for your "toxic" attitude also. I stand by every word I said about you earlier - you have acted as though you own Global Warning for quite some time. I am fully entitled to my opinion and don't think of censoring me as it won't work.

When I came to you when a certain "friend" of yours was bad mouthing me, you couldn't be bothered to assist. Now I've told the truth about you, you dislike it and are using your powers like a tyrant.

Just because you're an admin, don't think you can bully me around. I never put up with your attitude before and I won't now. I'm not the only person who thinks you've used ANI like a farce and it should stop. And the best laugh about it is you've done exactly what I said you do - use your admin powers for your own agenda. LuciferMorgan 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm... are you sure it's wise to block somebody you are in dispute with? --kingboyk 23:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He claims there is a dispute. That doesn't mean there is one. I had previously warned him to be civil (following disputes he precipiated with least a half-dozen others - BIshonen, George, Aloan, Pitorious, 'etc). He then choose to attack me, and I blocked him. Raul654 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know that blocking people who personally attack you is rarely the best approach. Ask somebody else to do it. Also, I'm concerned that you have blocked punitively. We don't do "consecutive" sentences here... If you think he needs a cooling off period, fine, but unless you're Arbcom you shouldn't be handing out "punishment". 48 hours is an excessive amount of time to be blocking an established user, imho. Please reconsider. --kingboyk 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I've shortened the block to 24 hours. However, as I said, there is no dispute. The last time I even interacted with him prior to today was when I issued him the civility warning, almost two months His claim that there is a dispute is a transparent, self-serving attempt to avoid any repercussions from his actions. Raul654 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for listening and the prompt action, much appreciated. Cheers. --kingboyk 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Situation

Mr. Mark Pellegrini,

I have recently found myself in a very complex and confusing situation. On the 25th of April, 2007, 16:37 (UTC), I received an email from an unknown and suspicious user, User:Freespeec3. I looked up his account on wikipedia to find no user page had been created and nothing on his talk page. Also, the user has no contributions at all. I looked up the user in the user creation log, and found out that the account was created just yesterday, the 24th of April, 2007 at 21:06 (UTC) by another suspicious and unknown user, Shiftnever. User Shiftnever also has no user page, no talk page, and no contributions. The account for Shiftnever was also created recently, on the 24th of April, 2007, at 20:39 (UTC), only 27 minutes prior to the creation of the Freespeec3 account. The email I received from Freespeec3 is approximately 50 pages long, as well as having 23,479 words, and 209,347 characters with spaces. As is the incredible length of this message, I have not read it in entirety, but skimming through the first few lines, it just bothered me.

Here is a short unedited excerpt from the email mentioning Rama's Arrow.

I have no time to research this any further and have a very slow internet connection. So I send this per Email. Please go to the talkpage of Dangerous-Boy, Bakasuprman, Sbushan and Scheibenzahl and to the Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Four Indian editors in good standing are indefinitely being banned from one day to the other without any prior warning and without any sensible reason. I suspect they just want to ban their opinion from Wikipedia. They got blocked by Rama's Arrow. He is a good guy, but is making a mistake. The problem is that he wants to be the "sexy boy" for everybody he thinks is important, and in the process he ends up being disrespected by all. (sexy boy is his signature, I give him the award for the worst signature any day).

I looked up the user, Rama's Arrow, and I sent him a message identical to this one. I asked him for an explanation of what the situation was, and why I received this email. He replied to me on my talk page and sent me an email as well requesting the email so he could take care of the problem because "this matter is serious." I complied with his request, but afterward I tried to look into the situation a little more, and honestly, I am very confused, and I am unsure of whether any of these parties are trustworthy.

I am holding onto the original email, as well as the email sent by Rama's Arrow for a short time, and if you would like to view it in its entire, please feel free to contact me.

Thank You,

Respectfully Yours,

--Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, what exactly does this have to do with me? Raul654 01:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a little typo there, but it seems to me that something irresponsible is going on both sides here, and I thought that it would be good to contact somebody higher up, that is why I wanted to consult you. It just seems weird that someone that I have no knowledge or acquaintance with would send me a 50 page long email. It doesn't really have anything to do with you either, but just looking through the previous arbitration log and parts of the email, I think whatever that maybe was resolved between these two people was somewhat sketchy perhaps, and perhaps there is some larger conflict, and in fact maybe Rama's Arrow is not completely honest and does not hold the best intentions either. If there is someone else or somewhere else that I should be bringing this up with, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to that person or group.

Thank You for your time.

Respectfully Yours,

--Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 05:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I want more...

I've just noticed that recent Main Page FA abstracts have been lacking the 'more' tag at the end of the text. Has this been deliberately removed, or is it an oversight. My apoligies if this is something that has already been discussed and decided upon, but if so I can't find any record of it. Keep up the great work ! Far Canal 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Both (in a way). I scheduled the articles, noticed I had removed the "more" link by accident, and decided I like it that way better. I've never been particularly fond of it (By far the most common mistake I make when scheduling FAs is to forget to update the More link; it's also one more thing to do, and I think it's redundant) but other people apparently seem to like it. I'm not sure whether or not I'm going to restore it - I'd prefer hearing from a wider group of people before making up my mind. Raul654 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion. I can see why it would be a hassle. Looks like people generally like it though.Far Canal 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The "more" link is a bit superfluous, as the article is linked in the first line anyway, but people seem to like it. Shrug.

On another matter, can I lodge a request for Adam Gilchrist to appear on the Main Page this Saturday, 28 April. It is the final of the 2007 Cricket World Cup, and Gilchrist is playing for the Australian cricket team in his 3rd successive final. The slot appears to be free at WP:TFA and we haven't had a cricket one since the tourmanent started on 13 March. (The most recent sport TFA was City of Manchester Stadium on 21 April, but this is cricket not football, and a biography not a stadium, and Australia not England. I can probably think other good reasons if I need to :) ) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much - it is much appreciated. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm likewise competing for the spot, to have William Monahan on the Saturday, 28 April.-BillDeanCarter 10:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how that is a competing spot though for William Monahan, because there isn't really a specific reason for him to be on the main page on April 28th other than it's workers day where as Adam Gilchrist is playing in his 3rd consecutive world cup final and probably his last one too and he will actually be working that day ;)--THUGCHILDz 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To the working class Workers Memorial Day is pretty damn important. It would be best to showcase someone who struggled for years, trying to earn a living, and finally in Monahan's case, in his 40s, made it.-BillDeanCarter 11:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote, just to give you an understanding of the difficulties some people with families go through trying to earn a living:

“ Books aren't a real business any more -- most novelists might as well be basketweavers for all they're doing either for the language or for their own families or their effect on the world, so I had my fling there and decided that the novel was a thing of the past; my past, anyway. I like film because it's big, because it's the art that contains all the other arts. I like it because it's difficult. ” — William Monahan

Yeah, I got that but that a general thing though, 'cause lots of people go through struggles in their work etc. That's really general and even Gilchrist went through struggles in his life but that's not why it is proposed up there. I think that's really general date for William Monahan and nothing really special to do with the subject. And I don't think Workers Memorial day has really got much more to do with William Monahan than Adam Gilchrist. But there's additional reasons for Adam Gilchrist to be on there.--THUGCHILDz 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cricket World Cup is one of the biggest sporting events in the world and Gilchrist is one of the most important players in the sport who may well be celebrating victory on that day. Workers Memorial Day isn't a memorial to Mr Monahan and perhaps he could be featured on another day in this case? Nick mallory 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How often do you go through the FACs and promote them?

I'm trying to create a sort of "Article of the Month," but then I noticed that you usually promote 40-80 articles a month, which is way too much to handle. So, I'm going to create an "Article of the Week," or 2 weeks, if necessary, but I really need to know how often you go through the FACs and promote articles based on consensus. Thank you! Diez2 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Several times a week, although as of late it's been on the low side (once or twice a week). Raul654 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

George Washington

Raul, you recently promoted George Washington (inventor) to Featured Article status. It was Featured on the Main Page on April Fools Day. Is the article a joke or not? Because if it is, I'm ashamed to say I've fallen for it. Together with someone else, I've translated the article to Dutch, at nl:George Washington (uitvinder), so that it could be featured on the Dutch Wikipedia... Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 15:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is 100% true and legitimate. Raul654 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So it was an April Fools Day joke in the sense that it wasn't an April Fools Day joke: people were deceived in their expectation to be deceived. Or something like that :-) I was wondering: what is the average time between being promoted to FA status and being featured on the Main Page? The reason I'm asking this is the article Bok de Korver. I'm working to get it up to Featured Article status, to get it displayed on the Main Page on October 22nd, the 50th anniversary of De Korver's death. What deadline should I keep in mind for FA status? Early October? Aecis^Brievenbus 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2007

Should the "recently featured" link to Some Thoughts Concerning Education be in italics? I dunno if it should, and I figure that you'd be the one to ask. Daniel Bryant 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tel Aviv bus 5 massacre

On 27 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tel Aviv bus 5 massacre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thanks for that note! I hope to be an asset to the Wikipedia community using my new buttons. Sam Blacketer 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

Can you actually do that? Just blank a nomination and start over? You would think that it would need to just plain fail, and then go through the process again. I'm unaware of any guidelines that say you can do that, could you point me to them please.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the perks of being in the cabal is that you can do whatever you like.

...I jest. I do that sometimes when a nomination gets to be very long, with lots of stricken objections. It becomes difficult for me to make much sense of the nomination, so it's easier just to start it over clean. That article was complicated by the fact that someone was deleting objections instead of striking them out. Raul654 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember Sandy's concern about that. Mine was that I would make some suggestions, or point out things that I felt were inconsistent, and the moving "consensus" would generally ignore it. If you watch the actual article (which I know you don't, that would take up way too much of you time, since you are the director of the FAC), you'd notice big changes to the article, which no one seemed to notice. That coupled with the simple "support - looks good", when there are citation tags in the article, frankly concerned me a little. I'm think that you were right in having it just start fresh.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy

Hi, I was wondering when a decision was going to be made on the FAC for Homer's Enemy. It has been a candidate for 23 days and I think every concern has been addressed/fixed, but that is up to you. There have been many different FACs that were nominated after Homer's Enemy that have been passed/failed and I was wondering if there was a reason why it is still a candidate. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AndrewLevine, Sandy, and Monocrat all have unstruck objections. Give Andrew a poke (it looks like his objection has been dealt with but he has since gone MIA from that nom) I don't agree with Sandy's claim that tv.com is not a reliable source for fan response. As long as it's used only for that, I don't see a problem there. I'm not really sure about Monocrat's objections. Raul654 05:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As for AndrewLevines objection was made before the major copyediting. I feel that all concerns have been addressed, even if they are unstruck. Either way, I'll leave a message on his talk page. -- Scorpion 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the article's prose has improved tenfold after getting looks by at least a half dozen people. And I agree that Sandy's RS oppose was a little too far for this one. — Deckiller 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for AndrewLevine, and he hasn't stated that he still opposes it. Like I said, the article has undergone a major overhaul since his object. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to update, I left a message a couple of days ago and he still hasn't responded, so I think that menas he doesn't oppose the article becoming an FA. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni (talk · contribs)

I've started a discussion about this user at AN, because I couldn't see evidence of sockpuppetry. Could you come and explain the reasons behind the block? -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence. See this Raul654 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm... how did you get checkuser evidence? There doesn't appear to be any record of that. -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... because I can run them myself? Raul654 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Your userpage doesn't mention that, so I (stupidly) forgot that I knew that already. Sorry to waste your time. -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On another note related to this user, I recommend you goto his talk page. It does actually seem strange that this guy would want Khrouni so badly. And Khrouni doesn't seem like a vandal. Perhaps you should consider shortening the block so it ends around the same time Cowboy Rocco's ends and then indef block if the user vandalises. Funpika 20:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Gillingham F.C.

This article seems to have been promoted to FA but doesn't seem to have its star in the top right hand corner, could you advise? Cheers!!!! ChrisTheDude 07:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added it on ChrisTheDude's behalf... The Rambling Man 10:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian football champions

Hey Raul, there seems to be little further interest in commenting on this article which is up for WP:FLC, could you consider it for promotion? Cheers. The Rambling Man 10:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Still nothing doing here - happy May, by the way. Any chance of a promotion?! The Rambling Man 07:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong cabal, I am afraid - WP:FLC is not WP:FAC. User:Tompw has been doing most of the WP:FL promotions of late, but I help out there too. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit

Many thanks! And I shall try and be more careful over 3RR in future. Angmering 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan, for "Today's featured article"

The Japan article had been requested for May 3rd in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. However, you appear to have selected William Monahan instead (for May 3rd). Was there any reason Japan was not selected? If there is a problem with the Japan article, we'd like to know, so that we can fix it. Thank you very much for your cooperation.--Endroit 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan is on my short list of articles to use later in May (tentatively, the 15th, but this is highly likely to change). Raul654 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Please be sure to let us know, though, if you see any technical issues you'd like to see resolved.--Endroit 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

35mm main page FA

Am I done? Honestly, I haven't really touched it much since then. But on the other hand, my schedule has been so inconstant (and my current project is film stock), that I won't stand in the way again. Do as you see fit! :) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two FAC issues

I just noticed SmthManly (talk · contribs) hasn't been on Wiki for over a week. I entered the mainpage dates on {{ArticleHistory}} through May 8, but if Smth doesn't show up, will need someone to take over that task.

Gimmetrow/GimmeBot and I have encountered several times a situation we're not sure how to handle. When nominators withdraw FACs (with substantial oppose), should we go ahead and move it to archives, so the FAC can be GimmeBotified, or should we just ignore them? See discussion on Gimmetrow's page: [6] In the past, we've just left a trail in a talk page entry, but it would be good to have a policy so that we can be clear on GimmeBot and ArticleHistory.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the FAC nom draws a non-trivial amount of commentary and the nominator withdraws it, treat it like any ordinary failed FAC nom. Raul654 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As for SmthManly, he might just be away for a few days (A week isn't all that long). Let's give him some more time. Raul654 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, just to clarify; in cases of nominator withdraw with non-trivial comments, it's OK for Gimmetrow or me to go ahead and move it to archive, so GimmeBot can botify it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry about that, I was training for my new job in Charlotte, no internet access was available, I'm back now. I was mislead into thinking I would have internet there so i didn't bother to assign anyone to the task while I was gone, good to see things fared well. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your saviour is here

Raul, I see it being said [7] you need a helper, personally I think you do very well as it is, but if you ever need some help, please don't hesitate to call me. I would be happy to help. I do have the experience of recognising what is featurable and what is not. So have no fear I am here and waiting. Giano 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Giano. I appreciate the offer, but for now, I think I can handle it myself. Raul654 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

One of your blocks, a sock?

One of your blocks, OpenLoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has requested to be unblocked. You blocked them as a sock of Light Current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), although they did not exist at the time of the Light Current RFCU. Looking at their contribs, I feel it is more likely than not they are related. Did you checkuser this one too? They also claim to have previously been using VirtualEarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which also has a similar contrib history, but is not blocked. —dgies^t_c 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[8] Raul654 22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are one of the good guys

Since you are now officially on the crap list of the Discovery Institute, you get a beer (or whatever other libation). Maybe a case!!!! Orangemarlin 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiHalo

A WikiHalo for you

You have been given a "WikiHalo" by 12 users: Snowolf, U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A., Dev920, Greeves, TimVickers, Ybbor, Aeon1006, Captain panda, Durova, Steptrip, Powerfulmind and Dwaipayanc. And here was I thinking you had a big enough head already. :) - Mark 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like some horns and a tail with that, sir? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not by users but by the Wikipedia community. As nominator, I'm proud to deliver you this award, which will likely be the last one. Actually, your the 5th wikipedian to receive it, if I remember right. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been awarded a Wikihalo by the Wikipedia community for for his impressive contributions and archivements..

Raul654

Congratualations from me for the Wikihalo and all of your incredible accomplishments on Wikipedia.--U.S.A. cubed 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you Raul, you are a kind person! I am so glad that you unblocked me for that! Warm wishes, --Kkrouni 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yo

Thank you for that really, really useful addition to my Virtual Classroom lesson. I didn't even know there was such a way of viewing Flickr images, so that's fantastic. Cheers. --Dweller 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Raul654 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of an active discussion on WP:CN

Hey, just a heads up, I reverted your removal of an active discussion on WP:CN regarding User:Ancapa. Just seeing if it was an honest mistake, or if there was something going on with regards to that user/issue I don't know anything about... Thanks, and have a nice day! SirFozzie 18:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a mediawiki problem. I was not trying to remove the discussion - just change the header size. I should have gotten an edit conflict, but I didn't. Raul654 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

Why on earth did you restart the nomination for Casino Royale? You've wiped out the support of people who have spent the time in reviewing it. THis shows a complete lack of respect for other users ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I promise you contrary to what User:Sandy Georgia suggested all of the comments by people have remained intact. If you want to restart the nomination to make your decision clearer thats ok but why discredit the support and the few oppose comments from before? It is wasting everyone's time. This nomination process has been very tiring indeed. I thought the consensus was pretty clear. There were a few minor problems with references and this was fixed. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I restarted it because I felt the nomination was tainted by those accuastions. I would like nothing more than to see that article promoted (this is true for me of all FAC noms), but I consider the integrity of the process to be paramount. Raul654 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. "Remained intact" and "tainted by accusations" aren't quite reflective of what happened here. Comments were removed; I believe someone else (AnonEMouse maybe?) later reinstated them. I didn't have time to track it down. I hope, Blofeld, that you understand that deleting other people's comments from an FAC will result in this alleged "taint", and that's why it's wise not to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock review of Taiwanese aborigines at WP:FAC..

Hello,

User:Calde has raised a "No" vote on the Taiwanese aborigines FAC. Fair enough — usually, anyhow. But User:Maowang is making a case that Calde is a sock with some POV to carry with respect to Taiwan-related issues. Account is less than a week old; very familiar with processes... etc.

What should we do?

Thanks, Ling.Nut 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, looking at his objection, I agree with his comments. IMO, the examples he points out are unnecessarily difficult to understand. Raul654 03:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

However, it's a newly created account that reeks of having tons of prior Wikipedia editing exp., and refuses to divulge prior username. If she/he is Jiang, for ex., then he/she has voted twice now. Thanks for your time and trouble! Ling.Nut 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC request

Hey there, I'm sure I'll be editor #9,452 to ask you something like, "Can you promote my FAC now?" but I have a legitimate reason, I promise. :) I posted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fighting in ice hockey a while back and have been watching it, fixing or rebutting objections, etc. for while now. Most of the items have been fixed. One person objected and never came back to respond to my rebuttal. Another person objected and I have responded. Most editors support currently.

Anyway, I need to take an extended leave of absence from Wikipedia and I'd love to see this pass before I go. I asked at WikiProject Ice Hockey but I'm not sure anyone will be available to "watch" the FAC. Let me know what you think. Thanks --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a round of FAC promotions tonight. Raul654 15:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Could a bureaucrat comment on the bot page

The bot approval group was recently sent to MfD, and some people want it reformed. The latest is to eliminate BAG entirely and have the bureaucrats decide bot flaggings and approvals. Perhaps someone could comment at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#BAG_reform_proposal. Gimmetrow 18:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I'd like to request some additional administrative assistance, supplementing User:Adam Cuerden's present involvement in this article. Presently the article has been locked by this administrator for some two weeks. He has set up a "vote" on various versions of the lead, seemingly as if expecting to enforce the results to prevent future edit battles. The way the vote was set up is questionable to begin with, by my understanding of WP:Consensus as well as by my understanding of modern objective sampling procedures. Additionally, it presently appears the interpretations of this "vote" by this administrator may be colored by his own preferences rather than an accurate reflection of the present discussion. I'm also not sure whether an administrator's proper role is to lock down a controversial article and force a vote prior to unlocking it again, particularly with an article such as this, which has always been contested by many parties along the way. It also seems to me, after seeing this admin's present interpretation of the "vote" he has asked for, that this administrative practice may actually amount to a gambit to substitute this admin's preferred language for other language that was previously achieved by consensus, and which appears to have still emerged with some degree of consensus in the recent discussions involving a different set of editors than were previously involved in the article (with the exception of myself and Dave souza at the moment). I would appreciate it if you have some time to weigh in on how this all is presently being done. Thanks. ... Kenosis 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Should I unlock the article? Raul654 02:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want you to do that. Basically there are three groups involved. Two or three strongly pro-Creationists, who want to build a POV lead. There are numerous editors who believe the lead of approximately April 1, 2007 should stand, in that ID is identified as being a religious argument for the existence of G_d. And finally, there a re a few editors who want to create a weasel-worded (my opinion) middle ground that satisfies no one. I think the Talk page should continue as the discussion center, not an edit war. All IMHO. Orangemarlin 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi "Raul": I'm back again. I think you may be able to get an idea of what my concerns are at Talk:Intelligent design#Mediation, where I briefly described what those concerns are. I mainly think that the participation of more than one administrator in the discussion would be helpful at present-- if you have the time, of course. Thanks. ... Kenosis 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hi Raul, I'm confused- you seem to have done half of this usurpation request. The logs show you renamed "Drunkenmonkey" to "Drunkenmonkey old" but you don't appear to have renamed Thatguy69. Am I missing something? WjBscribe 05:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to do that rename a half-dozen times or more. I kept getting an SQL or time out error, and gave up in disgust. I didn't realize it had actually gone through. Raul654 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

...had the same problems again just now when I tried to rename Thatguy69 to finish the request:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Article::insertOn". MySQL returned error "1062: Duplicate entry '2-Thatguy69' for key 2 (10.0.0.237)".

Once again, I give up in disgust. Raul654 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... it seems that it actually worked, despite the error. Raul654 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mother's Day (May 13) Main page

Ideas from the current list: Girl Scouts of the USA, Celine Dion, Angelina Jolie, Glacier National Park (US), Wonderbra (no! :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We just had a scouting article (Gilwell park), and I'm not sure what Glacier National Park, Celine Dion, or Angelina Jolie have to do with Mother's Day (let's face it - Angelina is a creepy person. She gets it from her father) Wonderbra is an amusing suggestion, but I agree that it's probably a bad idea. Raul654 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jolie would be creepy; Dion's apparently a good mother. Glacier - beautiful, neutral, nice spring weather thoughts :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've scheduled up to (but not including) the 13th. I'll let it go a bit longer in case anyone else has an appropriate suggestion. Otherwise, I'll just treat it like any other day. Raul654 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Another idea for the mix: Elfin-woods Warbler SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess Sandy is thinking mother nature (bird or national park). A little more direct might be Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Baby Gender Mentor. Gimmetrow 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:) (Don't they have to have a request in on Today's featured article/requests?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Gender Mentor - I like this one. Raul654 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's always right on the money; someone should put him up at RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Very funny, Sandy ;) Gimmetrow 14:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, was unable to edit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2005 due to a blacklisted spam link. Was trying to add /archive1 to the Aquarium fac link. Gimmetrow 14:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me?)never mind

I lost my Kkrouni password, Kkrouni usurped has a email address, but can you give it back to me? It was close to the alphabet, but I managed to type it wrong twice. 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Never mind the password didn't change, must have forgot to save thank God!--Kkrouni 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a sock of blocked user Cowboy Rocco. Real96 02:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You're telling me? Raul654 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG, did not see that. Just saw the IP page. Real96 02:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy concerns

I have added some information to the article as per your suggestions. As for Tony's concerns, he has already objected to the article once before, and to add some of what he suggested would be OR. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Block serious vandal

Mark, would you have time to look at this? Seems to be a very serious, blockable offense. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Aksi_great ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Aksi beat me to it. Raul654 17:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin

Good day Raul. I thought I would mention that Studio 60 returns to TV on May 24th, so if possible it would be a good day to feature Aaron Sorkin on the main page.-BillDeanCarter 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul, in regards to the recent changes to the requests page is it still possible to have Aaron Sorkin on the 24th? I thought it would be fun to see him on the main page, given Studio 60 returns and will run out its first and final season in the weeks after. It could be the last time Sorkin does a TV show. Though it's your decision as always.-BillDeanCarter 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhodes blood libel front page

Hi Raul,

I think a more appropriate image should be found to place on the front page for this article than Suleiman I. Not only did he live 300 years before these events, but it was he who denounced them. Surely there must be a more relevant picture to place beside the article? --A.Garnet 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've switched the image to something else, but it's not a topic that lends itself well to a representative image. Raul654 18:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raul. --A.Garnet 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

Can I suggest having Eurovision Song Contest on the main page on May 12th as this is the day the 2007 contest will take place. Buc 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I support that! Although I see that the FA for that day has already been selected... maybe if Raul is in the mood, he might like to reschedule Cell nucleus for 13 May and slot Eurovision Song Contest into the 12th? Can we, Raul? Pretty please? :) EuroSong ^talk 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan FAC request

Dear Raul654,

I noticed that you chose another article for May 10th, regardless of the May 10th request for the Ohio Wesleyan University article. I respect your decision. However, I did want to ask your opinion regarding when and what date I should nominate the page for so that it gets your attention more convincingly? Thank you for your time! I appreciate your help! LaSaltarella 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't fret about it - I'll put it up there sooner or later. Raul654 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Raul654, Thank you for the encouraging note. I really appreciate your time. Should I place the article in the queue for another specific date, remind you later, or how do you prefer that I suggest it? LaSaltarella 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire

Sir, I had requested this article be made a main article a few months back after it became FA. Someone has duplicated this request yesterday by mistake.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:John_Sirica.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Varian_Fry.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Varian_Fry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny_Castries_Navarre.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cogny_Castries_Navarre.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dien_Bien_Phu.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dien_Bien_Phu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph FAC

Hi Raul. I know you're busy but just a quick question. This was recently failed. I know it didn't get many looks, but had two supports plus Sandy was satisfied with the references. The only object was by Tony1 for copyedit, and it was listed at League for Copyeditors only a few days ago. Just wondering if this nom could have a little more time. Thanks for all you do. Cricket02 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All right - I'll put it back up to bake a little longer. Raul654 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony the Marine

Hi Raul,

I have posted the following on behave of my father: "My father User: Marine 69-71, also known as Tony the Marine, has been very affected by the situation. Yes, he made a mistake and has corrected his password, hereby he is in complete control of his account. As his contributions (See his User page) can testify, he is niether stupid nor Lazy. With this said, I hope that his admin powers are once again restored." Thank you for believing in him. Antonio Martin 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored his op bits. Raul654 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of thanks to you and to my son. Tony the Marine 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Shen Kuo article

Hi Raul, user:PericlesofAthens here. I know the Shen Kuo article was booted from the FAC list recently due to a wiki member's insistence that all quotes be removed from the article, while another member and I argued for them. In any case, I have kow-towed to the former wiki member's requests, and moved all the quotes into the article on Shen's book: Dream Pool Essays. I also converted some valuable information from the quotes into reworded prose in their respective sub-sections under "Scholarly achievements". I've told user:Nydas to do so, but if you also have the time to take a quick peek at the article, it would be great to get some feedback if what I did fairly addressed his concerns. After a period of time, I will renominate the archived article as FAC, since I was already in the process of making great improvements to the article and addressing user:Fang Aili's concerns. Thank you.--PericlesofAthens 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have listed the article on the League of Copyeditors page so that anything else grammer and structure wise can be improved.--PericlesofAthens 13:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC and WP:CANVASS

Please see my most recent edit at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates and the one I'm about to make at its talk page. Your on-the-record input would be greatly valued about whether FAC can be subject to CANVASS concerns. --Dweller 10:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Home movies in an article

I believe I have talked to you about this before, however I think you can help me again on this. I have one particular editor (and only one) that objects to my videos I have put into articles. The article in question is Street Light Interference. It has two short videos "illustrating" what Street Light Interference might look like (27 seconds and 40 seconds). He feels that the way they are presented (in the videos themselves) that somehow they are not from a neutral point of view and that I am deliberately trying to "prove a point". This debate has been going on now for several months. No other editors object to these videos. I would think if there was something really objectionable there that other editors would have said something by now. He does not want these videos in the article. From an administrator's viewpoint (and from one very familiar with videos), would you consider it proper to be able to keep these two videos in the article? He feels that perhaps they have been faked (or could be faked); however any picture could be faked. They are not being used as an actual reference, but just as an "illustration". He also feels they are too long and that the point is anyway that "it is obvious" what Street Light Interference is suppose to look like. I don't think it is obvious to most people and that's why I am showing the "illustrations". Please answer here on your talk page (I will check back later for a reply here on your page). Thanks. --Doug ^talk 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ellis Paul TFA request

Raul, When I nominated Ellis Paul for TFA back on Feb. 27, I didn't have a particular date in mind. His birthday had already passed the month before and no other date really seemed appropriate. Then....just a few minutes ago....voila!...it hit me that this coming May 22 will be the 10th anniversary of my first Ellis Paul show and it would be really special if the article was TFA on May 22. In addition I also realized that the photo on the front page of the article was taken last May 22, which is also kind of special. Anyway....just figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.  :-) Thank you for your time and consideration. BTW....are you from southwestern PA by any chance? Lots of Pellegrini's around here - including renowned thoracic surgeon Ronald V. Pellegrini who happens to be from my hometown. Kmzundel 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) I'll see what I can do about Ellis Paul.

(2) I live in northern Delaware, so southwestern PA is about a mile away (literally). Pellegrini is a fairly common name in the Italian region from which my father emigrated. But other than my immediate family, I barely know any other Pellegrini's I'm related to. My father had no brothers; his father had a brother (When I was 14 years old, I met the brother shortly before he died. If memory serves, he did have a wife and a family, although I do not remember meeting them). So I may or may not be related to them - if they happened to come from that region, it's possible. Raul654 16:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am incredibly humbled. Thank you. Kmzundel 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup images

Hello. Going through Category:Images used with permission, I noticed you licensed many photos of Wikipedia meetups for Wikipedia use only, stating that you would only re-license them under the GFDL if the subjects of the pictures agreed. Would it be OK if you just went ahead and released all these photos under the GFDL anyway? Otherwise, the photos will probably just be deleted sooner or later. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Freebery

A tag has been placed on Sherry Freebery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ffm ✎talk 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. The person is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people) - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" Raul654 21:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to multi-license images.

I've gotten a request to multi-license these photos, which you worked on, under the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} license. Please let me know if you would be okay with that, and I'll re-license the images once I've gotten everyone's consent: Polydactyly 01 Lfoot AP.jpg, Polydactyly 01 Rfoot AP.jpg, Polydactyly 01 Lhand AP.jpg and Polydactyly 01 Rhand AP.jpg grendel|khan 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Raul654 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for popping in) You'll need to ask the other contributors if they are willing to multi-license the images. --Iamunknown 18:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware; the other contributers are Drgnu23, who I've spoken to, and Solipsist, who's also agreed. grendel|khan 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(I guess I'll post this here too) Also, ask everyone if they would agree to relicense the images under Template:GFDL-no-disclaimers (which is now Template:GFDL). --Iamunknown 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling Kitty

Why is there no mention of it on either your userpage or signature? What am I supposed to shoot down when you are offline? :) -- Cat ^chi? 09:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if I list that one, I must list all the other IRC names. They're like my children, I can't choose just one. But there's simply not enough room for GuttedEwok, TikleMyBallsElmo, TooMuchBling, ANGRYMACROPHAGE, Xrayvision_Jesus, Cabalicus, No_Daddy_No, Kunta_Kinte, Cartophilus, Case_O_Herpes, YourVirginity, Hot_stick_buns, Footlongfloppy, Tursiops_Amicus, etc Raul654 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo

You know, not enough people thank you for all the various things you do around here. I guess the amount of praise you receive is inversely proportional to the amount of quality work you do. (Raul's Law # 9 or so?) So, Mahalo nui loa, Raul!!! (And feel free to delete the flowers if you think it's girl-ing up your page too much.) :-) --Ali'i 15:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sysop

Thanks a lot!!! I'm glad to be alive and kicking again.--Jiang 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilberto Silva

A request was made to have Chelsea F.C on the main page the day they play in the fa cup final. I notice you've placed a football article on the main page three days before this. Does this mean you've rejected this request? If so can I persuade you to change your mind. The fa cup final is one of the biggest sporting events in thwe world and this years is espeshally notable as it will be the first at the new Wembley. Buc 09:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below Raul654 16:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Everton F.C.

Why is this continously overlooked for FA of the day status. It has been requested longer than Sheffield Wednesday F.C. and City of Manchester Stadium yet they got on the page first. Have I listed it wrong or something? SenorKristobbal 13:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below Raul654 16:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

May 16

I know you probably get these kinds of comments all the time, but I just have to ask: Three articles (Nagorno-Karabakh War, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, and Jerusalem) had been requested for being Today's Featured Article on May 16, but not one of them was selected. Could you shed some light on why? -- tariqabjotu 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All these date specific requests are making it impossible for me to schedule the main page articles as I have done for years. I've been trying to fulfill these requests as best I can, but it's getting to the point where I can't do it. I am not changing the queue. These requests will have to wait for another day. Raul654 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, see my comment here. I've decided that the requests page is the root cause of these problems. Unless someone presents a compelling case for radically changing the page to correct these problems, I'm going to shut it down. Raul654 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I appericate the block you slapped on me...it gave me time to think. I am not going to beat User:Calton, he is not going to change, he is going to continue to berate users, be incivil and do whatever and say whatever he wants and no admin will ever stand up to him. I will continue to be his scapegoat no matter what, because, in his mind at least, his actions are my fault. So, I am done. He has driven many an editor away and he has driven this one away as well and you helped it along. So, thanks. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 06:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it like to be the FA coordinator?

I've been in a constant ideological clash with you ever since I've known that you were the sole person who controls every aspect of featured articles. I apologize if I've offended you at any point, but I've never gotten straight answers from you when I ask you questions. I'm very curious as to how being the sole person in charge of TFA/FA choices makes you feel, taking into account that Wikipedia is a society of consensus? I recognize that using one person to do this job eliminates much of the confusion and conflict when choosing TFAs, but certainly these benefits do not outweigh the harms of not getting full discussion from everyone who edits or would like to edit.

So really what I would like to know, off the record, is why do you feel justified in what you are doing? Do you at all at any point feel that you are being given too much power, or that you are not giving others the opportunity to voice their opinions? If you feel uncomfortable answering these questions here, feel free to e-mail me directly. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  20:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to each of your questions point by point:

"I'm very curious as to how being the sole person in charge of TFA/FA choices makes you feel" - most of the time, very tired. It involves a great deal of work.

"taking into account that Wikipedia is a society of consensus" - this is a non-sequitur. The FAC and FAR are run by consensus. The main page FAs are chosen from the articles promoted at the FAC. Raul654 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"I recognize that using one person to do this job eliminates much of the confusion and conflict when choosing TFAs" - not to mention all the other aspects the job entails - weighing in on proposed changes to the process and (back in the day) implementing them.

"but certainly these benefits do not outweigh the harms of not getting full discussion from everyone who edits or would like to edit." Mu

"So really what I would like to know, off the record, is why do you feel justified in what you are doing?" Judge the process by the product. As others have noted on a number of occasions, the FA process is probably the best run on Wikipedia. The quality of featured articles that result from it justify the process.

"Do you at all at any point feel that you are being given too much power" No.

"or that you are not giving others the opportunity to voice their opinions?" Given the size of the FAC, talk:FAC, FAR, talk:FAR, talk:Featured articles, and any of a dozen more talk pages, it is more than fair to say that others have had plenty of opportunity to voice opinions. Raul654 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was certainly hoping that you would take your responses more seriously, but I see that you could care less. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked a bunch of loaded questions, and then didn't care for my replies. I can't say this is surprising. Raul654 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have accepted your answers had you replied a little more than "No." That's not a reason for anything. But whatever. I see my attempt at reconciling this matter is over, and thus I'll have to figure out the solution to the obvious problem of having only one person as FA coordinator myself. If you would still like to help work out a solution, feel free to contact me. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  20:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu

Took me a few minutes to orient myself with what was going on. Sorry you had to endure those insults. Best, El_C 20:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Shameonyou does have some good things to contribute to that article. The problem is that his attitude sucks, and his writing (specifically his tendancy to create new stub sections that consistent entirely of poorly-populated lists) needs improvement. Raul654 20:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did try to engage him on the article talk page, but he opted to direct profanities toward me on my talk page instead; therefore, I blocked the account for one month (quite charitable considering the prior block was for three weeks). El_C 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed to indefinite. I didn't bother reading the series of insults closely, but now I notice that he promises to evade the block. El_C 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Shutting down main page request page.

First I am fully in support of you shuting down that page. It's at the piont where users are requesting just for the sake of it. Just wondering though, would it still be possible to request articles on the main page through this talk page? Buc 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm tentatively OK with that. I think it's a good bet that with the requests page shut down, most people simply won't bother to request a specific date (on this talk page), and I'd be fine with the few who do. At least, that's the premise off of which I am operating. Raul654 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the requests page (and its predecessor) were encouraged to prevent you being swamped with specific requests here. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion: keep the request page; shut down the date request option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I posted on the talk page as my 2nd choice :) Raul654 23:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And now I feel bad about making Mother's Day suggestions :-) Just seemed that if we could have a to-do on April Fools, we could do something appropriate on Mother's Day (but it's not turning out so well LOL !) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he doesn't mind us asking - it is when everyone else does it too that causes a problem ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 00:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I put in a request at TFA/R, Raul didn't use either the date, the summary, or the image. But I didn't complain about it. Gimmetrow 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist

Blacklist at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2006 when trying to update archived FAC to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Chou/archive1 — it's always something :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2005 has a spamblock (I noted this a while ago above), and needs six links changed to archive. Gimmetrow 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I don't know if you like taking main page requests here or not, but I was wondering if it would be possible to get a Simpsons episode - Cape Feare or Homer's Phobia - as the main page article for May 20, the date the 400th episode airs. The Simpsons was originally requested for that date but it has since been delisted. It would be nice to get an episode article on that day since the 400th episode is a huge milestone but I don't know if you have made a decision on whether or not episode articles are notable enough for the main page yet. Thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to discussion about date requests on the request page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors

Why was Toronto Raptors promoted when there are active objections in the nomination? Punctured Bicycle 05:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, too. Zagalejo 22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In a word, I didn't think either of the two objections were all that problematic. The objections constitued of that the article has recentism (I checked and didn't see much of it, especially considering the team itself was created in 1995); that the history is excessive (See User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#Length_objections); that it uses Toronto and Raptors interchangable (I noted in the discussion why I find this objection to be invalid); and that the writing "poor in many places" (possibly, but subjective and fairly vague). Raul654 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I would have to agree. I think that the objections were pretty much either covered or justified, and thus I think the article was in good enough shape to be promoted. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You missed some major objections, then, because there were also concerns about research quality and comprehensiveness. For the objections you've acknowledged, I find your reasons for discarding them unsatisfying. I've written a more comprehensive outline of criticisms at Talk:Toronto Raptors/Flaws. The article is not even GA-quality and should not have been promoted. Punctured Bicycle 00:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

revert on Global Warming article

I don't understand your revert. The next sentence doesn't indicate that the IPCC is the source of the exact amount of temperature change indicated in the first sentence. If you are saying that is the source, why did you delete my request for a citation rather than just clarifying the citation? This seems like an important place to start a scientific demonstration of the anthropogenic causes of the phenomenon; sources of evidence for the existence of the phenomenon.Markisgreen 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't repeatedly site the same source over and over again in consecutive sentences. The next sentence, which begins: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, 'most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures'" makes it abundantly clear that the 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) values come from the IPCC. Raul654 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park FAC

I have a question, since you are the one that decides if a film is FA or not. There is a gent who is petitioning that Jurassic Park have reviews from foreign countries. As much as I think that it could do nothing but help any article to have reviews from abroad, the problem is that it isn't very easy to come across such information, because most english speaking countries don't publish non-english reviews. I haven't really ever seen this come up in any other FACs, and it isn't mentioned in the WikiProjects Film style guidelines. They pretty much say use Rotten Tomatoes, and don't say anything about non-english reviews. Now, I understand the concern about bias toward a particular subject, but it seems like they are trying to push something new onto a film article FAC, instead of going to WikiProject Film with it. I also think that it doesn't hinder a film article (unless the film is non-english speaking itself) to not have non-english reviews, because, other than box office revenue, we don't get vast amounts of non-english reception for films. It isn't like a political figure, where people cover how they are perceived in a foreign land, and most films are not controversial (unlike 300 which had a lot of outcry in the Persian cultures), so I don't really see where it would be mandatory. This editor is currently the only real opposition to the FAC, since you restarted it, other than the "weak oppose" per general copyediting styles. I'm curious as to what you believe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have promoted the article. Raul654 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, so I guess that kind of answers my question. I also saw your comment on the Aquaman FAC. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

State of Vietnam

There was a State of Vietnam, an associated state of the French Union, between 1949 and 1955 and at its peak it counted 150,000 men, although there quality varied.

The best was the paratroopers, the first unit was the 1st CIP (1ere Compagnie Indochinoise Parachutiste) formed January 1, 1948, and attached to the French 1st Colonial Commando Parachute Battalion. The paratroopers was either attached to the colonial or Foreign Legion parachute battalions, called “yellowing” the unit, or formed own battalions like the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th BPVN (Batallion de Parachutistes Vietnamiens). Carl Logan 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware. I thought the two Vietnams (North and South) were created by the Geneva Conference, and that prior to that it was simply a French colony. I stand corrected. Raul654 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting what you can find in books, to be more precise The French Indochina War 1946-54 by Martin Windrow and Vietnam Airborne by Gordon Rottman, both from Osprey Publishing. May I get your graces permission and blessing to add the State of Vietnam? Carl Logan 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) Go ahead. I've unprotected the Dien Bien Phu article. (2) I love Osprey (I have 3 of their books sitting on my shelf as I write this). Raul654 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, (I allow myself a tad bit of sarcasm when I am right) and where did you find Roger Blaizot forename. I went through all books I could find about the Indochina war and searched the internet, but I never found his forename. See you added Leclerc, wasn’t he replaced by Valluy before the war started? Carl Logan 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the name by googling for it. There's a very good list here -> http://books.google.com/books?id=ERi3BNd9qN0C&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=roger+blaizot&source=web&ots=junw24gOq9&sig=8H11ajVOfAYPppzfbaLMqi0xAak

As to whether or not he was in command during the war, nobody agrees on when the war started. The source above includes him. Raul654 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

May 17th

Hi Raul. I was wondering what the connection was between 35mm film and May 17th? I can't see the nom at requests for main page. If anything, it seems to have a connection with May 9th. May 17th is the start of the international cricket series between West Indies and England and it'd be great to have West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 on the Main Page. Sorry to buy you. --Dweller 12:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to discussion about date requests on the request page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The traffic here was an inevitable consequence of the system, I suppose. Sorry Raul. I'll chime in there. --Dweller 12:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no connection between May 17 and 35 mm film, nor does there have to be. But suffice it to say, we've had plenty of cricket on the main page lately and I'm reluctant to put any more on there for now. Raul654 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. Ignore me. See my comments where SandyGeorgia pointed me. Please excuse my crassness. --Dweller 16:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Have you received a recent e-mail from a former user? 67.174.226.172 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I recieve a great many Wikipedia-related emails (probably upwards of 50 on an average day). At least one of these was from someone who could be described as a "former user". You'll have to be more specific. Raul654 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting change of status... 67.174.226.172 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes I did. I'm a bureacrat, not a steward. Only a steward can do desysoppings. Raul654 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. 67.174.226.172 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing FACs

In the last round, these two got removed from WP:FAC, but not restarted, archived or promoted — gone to never never land:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bradley Joseph

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant to restart those - I always seem to forget about those :) Raul654 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC explosion

Wow, um. Er, what's up? - David Gerard 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia has gotten larger, the FAC has gotten larger in proportion. There's nothing unusual about the FAC as it currently stands. Raul654 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To be expected as we aim for WP:100K, no? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted templates

• {{Main Page request}}[9]
• {{Mainpage date requested}}[10]

Erm, with all due respect, wouldn't a WP:TFD have been in order, rather than just deleting them without discussion? This all seems rather sudden.  :/ --Elonka 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• It was discussed here, and a number of people (myself included) expressed dislike for them. Also, the feeling is that the use of these templates has directly led to the problems here Raul654 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here with the same complaint. I think it was very inappropriate to do so especially given the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. I find it odd that you didn't TfD this, nor did you leave any edit summaries on the pages that you removed this from. I don't see why you think you should be above any policy or anything, so certainly something should be done about this, or you should have a good explanation for this. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the discussion on this topic, everyone who cared to comment (myself, Sandy, Gimmetrow) has said those templates are very bad. Moreover, I stated explicitly in that very thread that I had deleted them. Raul654 22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot delete something based on a discussion in a thread that was not even originally about deleting the templates. I just don't think it was appropriate. You and I know well that TfA would have been the better place to bring the deletion question. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(Since it was brought up at TFA, I'm going to assume you meant TFD) Not every deleted templates needs to go through TFD, nor does every deletion discussion have to take place there. Raul654 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I did mean TfD. Too many acronyms! Haha. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was rather confused when the template got removed from my TFA/R candidate's talk page. Initially I thought the article had been scheduled. Then I thought it had been declined. You didn't give an edit summary. Checking your contributions didn't help, because there was no edit summary in sight there. Checking the deletion log didn't help, becauseyou didn't explain yourself there either. It took me about fifteen minutes to track down the discussion that explained your actions and confirmed that you were acting in accordance with consensus. I know you're busy, but can you please be just a little less opaque in future? Hesperian 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll try to include a deletion message next time. Raul654 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Hesperian 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To piggy back on this comment, Raul, you have serious issues with using edit summaries (exhibit A). About half of your edits are un-summarized, most of which are contraversial edits which you do not want to show your true intentions for. Would it hurt to summarize your edits? _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary usage is fine as-is. Raul654 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jared: By "piggyback"ing, on my comment, you risk creating the misconception that I support your point of view; please don't do that. Hesperian 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't suggesting that we had similar views, though. I just thought what we both had to say was very similar. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ode to Raul654

I come with no complaint,

Of request there is no taint,

I'm not asking you for something,

And I'm not shaking my head or tutting.

I just came to say "hello",

Just to be polite (you know),

It's a message without motive,

Please accept this gentle votive.

Hope you're well. --Dweller 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

atheism image

The proposed image, on my screen, was too small and lacked texture, because it wasn't large enough. Thus, I enlarged it to make it a bit more accessible/tangible and real to readers. Also, I updated the text to the current introduction content. _Modocc 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

It seems that you have many roles and jobs, Raul, and I was wondering if you have you ever considered getting an assistant, like someone whose only job would be running the featured article requests page and putting them on the mainpage? You seem to have so much responsibility, I was curious as to what you thought. Cheers, Judgesurreal777 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I could help you with this, if you ever wanted such help. It would be fun to take some of the heat you get for scheduling.--Pharos 03:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nemesis.jpg

Hello Raul654, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Nemesis.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Raul654/favpics/Virginia2006. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rommel in Africa1941.jpg

Hello Raul654, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Rommel in Africa1941.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Raul654/archive3. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Goblet fire cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Goblet fire cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Goblet fire cover.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Page request

Well, I was reading Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests, and it appears I can contact you directly about a Main Page request. In that case, can I request Samuel Adams to be featured as TFA on July 4, 2007? My request at WP:TFA/R can be seen here. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sam Adams? No way, I'll have a Samuel Jackson :) Raul654

Haha, nicely played. But is that a yes/no for my request? Nishkid64 (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu

restored mistakes:

• neighboring French colony of Laos: false, by 1953 Laos was not a "French colony". Laos Independence from France - Date 19 July 1949.
• the battle effectively ended the war: false, "Battle of Mang Yang Pass" June 24-July 17, 1954. "Indochina War" 19 December 1946– 1 August 1954.

It would be appreciated that you correct edits with right facts not mistakes. Paris By Night 03:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) "When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos." - History of Laos. The article also notes that Laos did not achieve full independence until after 1954. It might not be totally accurate to say it was a colony, but saying or implying that Laos was independent is just plain wrong.

(2) This statement is not at all inaccurate. It did effectively end the war. While it might not have been the last battle actually fought (and, by comparison, Mang Yang Pass was footnote), Dien Bien Phu did guarantee French defeat. Raul654 04:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but the three associated states basically had the political status of protectorates, so that might be a good generic term to use if "associated state" required too much background to understand. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Today's featured article" archives

Hello. Is there any purpose to the old Today's featured article's (ex. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 25, 2006) other than to have a record of what the page looked like when it was the FA of the day? Specifically, there are currently about a dozen {{editprotected}} requests outstanding on these articles which appear on first glance to be related to images which were recently deleted. Is there any point in updating these is, or should I just contact the user who posted all these and explain that we don't need to edit these articles? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's embarrassing to have old entries with red-linked images, but I'm not about to start patrolling hundreds of old entries. If someone wants to maintain those pages, I'm all for it. Raul654 15:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Observer article

Hello Mark,

i'm a journalist in London working for the Observer and writing a story abou Wikipedia. I interviewed Jimmy Wales a couple of weeks ago. I wondered if i might be able to talk to you about your role in the community, ideally by phone, or email if you prefer. My Timadams 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Timadams, email tim.adams@observer.co.uk,

best Tim