User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:20, 10 April 2008

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

FAR closing

I am seriously troubled by the improper closing of the History of erotic depictions FAR. First, midway through the process the closer admitted that FAR was not the place to solve the issues complained about. At that point, the FAR should have been thrown out, but was left to continue. In the second part, the closer ended it early, giving me no chance to respond to his allegation on unverifiablity of the main source and stated that he had de-featured the article because the main source wasn't verifiable. Throughout the FAR, neither of the complaintants mentioned that that source wasn't reliable, merely complained that they did not like the format of the citation. Hence, the myriad of evidence that this source is indeed allowable, (including where the same source was used as a source in an article for a *peer reviewed journal*) was not entered into the FAR.

There was no consensus to de-feature the article, and the closer stated that his decision was based mainly on the un-verifiablity of the source. In an attempt to get a third party opinion, I posted the source and all the evidence for it on the Verifiability noticeboard and all the comment there has agreed, that the source is allowable. Thus the closer's closing the FAR early and main reason for de-featuring are seriously in error, and I'm asking that the FAR be restarted or voided. His only other reason for de-featuring mentioned, lead too short, was not brought up until the final part, and again, due to his early closing it down, I was not able to address it in time.

Now, I realize that everyone in FAR and FAC does lots of hard work and I understand that its a hard job with little support. However this does not make them infallible. The basic premise that the decision was made on (the main source is not verifiable) is in error, has been proved to be in error, and has third party confirmation of that error. I am seriously disturbed by the closer's refusal to admit to this error, and the response I've gotten so far, which is basically, too bad, what I say goes. I don't think that the closers make many errors, but this one was blatant and obvious and needs to be fixed. FAR closers are not the ultimate authority or whether a source is verifiable or not, and by taking on that role, a serious error was committed.

"This is so massive and disputatious, I'm not sure what to do with it. This may not be something FAR can handle. Marskell (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"

"Closing: This is a difficult, split review. While there are a number of arguments, the clearest is in favour of remove: This does not meet policy. It's not even debatable. Adult film directors do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If it were two cites, maybe we could overlook it—but there are twenty-two cites to this DVD. It's a foundational source for the article and it is clearly not reliable.

Normally, I would leave this open longer to allow citation debates to run through (and this has been open quite a while) but there has been resistance and reverting, which doesn't seem to be productive in terms of meeting citation policy. There has been no effort to get rid of this obviously unsuitable source, for instance. Basic things, such as a LEAD that properly describes the article, are not met. I'm removing. Some form of WP:DR may be the best place to take this article. Marskell (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "[reply]

As you can see, he clearly states *twice* that FAR may not be the best place for the issues raised, and erroneously states that the documentary was made by adult film directors. (It was not, it was made by a group with a reputation for producing high quality documentaries) You can see that he has made up his mind so fiercely against the source that he isn't even willing to consider the possibility he is wrong. This was later proved in discussion with him on his talk page. The evidence and discussion of the documentary's reliability can be found here. If a peer reviewed journal accepted this as a source, and other peer reviewed journals have praised its worthiness, and indeed one can see the entire list of academics and authors interviewed here, to say that the source isn't good enough for Wikipedia is ludicrous.

I'm guessing that your instinct is going to be to support your deputies no matter what decision they make but please consider this seriously. I've now been told that I need to meet the closer's concerns to have a chance in re-submitting this to FAC. However, the closer's concerns are fundamentally flawed, so that requirement is tantamount to making ever getting this featured again through FAC impossible. The early closing, erroneous basic assumptions, and notation of that fact that this may not even be suited to FAR in the first place made the closing improper and unfair. Please consider fixing this. pschemp | talk 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(As above) It's very late and I'm about to go to bed - will deal with this tomorrow or the day after. Raul654 (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Marskell's talk page and mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's four threads open on this and I don't know where to reply. (I actually don't want to because I'm finding pschemp so aggressive.) I'm not fiercely opposed to admitting that the documentary is a serious one. I said as much on pschemp's talk page. But the attendant issues are not flawed: even if a quality documentary, there is not sufficient publisher information provided to the reader and the article over relies on it; the lead needs work; the other source discussed, Libido magazine, is clearly dubious. So I don't think it unfair to ask that some work be done and it go back to FAC. Marskell (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that the FAR should be restarted or voided because the basic premise it was closed on was incorrect, and it was closed early, not giving me a chance to address the issues Marskell introduced. (including the lead, which i was working on at the time it was closed early.) And I brought it here because the attitude I've reciecieved from Marskell has been nothing but complete ignoring of this basic fact. In this paragraph above is the *first* time he's ever admitted that the main source is verifiable. This is a direct contradiction to what he said in the closing. All I'm asking is chance to let the FAR process finish as it should have. pschemp | talk 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby rangeblock problem

Hey, could you investigate this: User talk:Jsheinz1234. He claims to be caught innocently by the rangeblock, but he's hardly a regular user (check his contribs history). Maybe a Scibaby sleeper account? I am not familiar enough with the Scibaby case to know how to deal with it. Perhaps you could? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit pattern looks innocent to me (especially when he started these other topic edits). --BozMo talk 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that he uses the same /18 as Scibaby, I don't see anything in checkuser to suggest he's a scibaby sock. His range is anon blocked, but given that he has an account, this should not affect him. Tell him to log in if he wants to edit and he should be unaffected. Raul654 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama FAR

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama is probably going to be a recurring stability discussion between now and November. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single User Login

Heard your comments on NTWW. Just an FYI, you need to unify your accounts via Special:Preferences, before logging into other accounts :) Check out WP:SUL for more information. On a related note, do you have any idea at which time, and on which date, the next podcast will fall? I'm not sure if you're contributing to this episode, but I figured you might no :) Cheers, Anthøny 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a few hours after the talk. I've unified my accounts (vandals apparently used this nick to vandalize on 3 wikis I don't use. I'm still waiting to usurp those). I'll be ready to talk about it for next time :) Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested Monday for the next discussion, and we're trying to make it earlier in the evening so you can participate. Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your reply, and for accommodating me ;) Anthøny 07:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 30, 2008

I asked a few weeks ago whether I could have December to Dismember (2006) as the TFA on this date. My reasoning is that it is a WWE wrestling event, and the biggest wrestling event of the year, WrestleMania takes place this Sunday, and I therefore feel it would be appropriate to have it on the front page on Sunday. However, I am very dismayed to notice that Celine Dion is instead expected to be on the Main Page on Sunday. Could you please explain your decision? Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight on my part. I'll rejigger the queue once we figure out what we're doing for April 1 (god help us all). Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banners

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 26 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account renamed

Hello, you just rename my account. I just would like to say thanks. Maybe for you its a tired work, you do it often, but, its very plesant for me to be allowed to log me with this name. Few year ago no body do it for me, maybe another policy. Thanks another time :) bayo 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil

This is uncalled for. My bot works within community consensus, and claiming it spams is uncivil. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turf war

Just letting you know that I intervened in an edit war at your Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests page. User:Mesplay was adding some votes and a new nomination when there were already five noms up, and Users Cirt and RelHistBuff reverted both the vote and the nom. Mesplay reinserted the vote and the nomination, with the nomination commented out. Cirt reverted (again removing Mesplay's vote), and then reported Mesplay for a 3RR infringement.

I declined the 3RR report under the unclean hands doctrine, but am dropping you this note as a courtesy given that it's your turf. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has since accepted the decision so it probably won't be a big deal. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "final warning" to NCdave

Raul, on my user Talk page you accused me of "unhelpful and counterproductive" editing and "disruption" of the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. You also asserted that that you can block me because "The rules prohibit me from blocking someone I am currently in a dispute with. You do not qualify." You also announced on the article talk page that you had issued a "final warning" to me.

It appears that you didn't notice my response, so I'm repeating it here.

You and I most certainly are in dispute at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. You are actively involved with editing this article and talk page, and you have sided against me repeatedly. For example, you have reinserted material that I explicitly objected to, regarding the Establishment Clause. Perhaps you were unaware of my objection to that material, since Hrafn deleted the discussion from the Talk page, but you can read it in the diff.

However, you also reverted edits which were in agreement with my stated view that ID is not a form of creationism.

Additionally, you've made no secret of your disdain for the film, even to the point of expressing glee that it is playing in few theaters, and reverting other edits which were intended to make the article less unbalanced, and even defending incivility on the Talk page.

You are not a neutral admin, Raul, so please recuse yourself.

Also, please do me the courtesy of <s>striking</s> your "warning" on my Talk page, and noting that it was a mistake, since it is embarrassing to have that sort of thing on my Talk page.

Nevertheless, if you are aware of any comments that I've made which are impolite or violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, I would be grateful if you would point them out to me. I do my best to apply the Golden Rule to my Wikipedia editing, but that doesn't mean that I never slip up, and I'd like to know about it when I do.

Thanks in advance, NCdave (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I hadn't edited the article. I edit there to make sure that idiocy doesn't seep in (articles like that seem to attract it). You've collected more-or-less every edit I've ever made there, and tried to claim bias against you. This is false. Your tenditious editing there led to your final warning, and if you persist in the behavior I and others have made you aware of, I'm going to follow through on my warning. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's Day Featured Article

There is currently a debate about which FA should be put on the main page on April 1. One of things brought up during the discussion was that, "An aburd date-appropriate blurp needs to be written for the "winner"."

Thanks, ISD (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration

I was significantly involved, so leaving Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ima Hogg to you. (By the way, Kirill solved the banners thing, will explain later.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm a Hogg"... are you sure this is a real name not 1 April?

I agree, if Uncyclopedia cant get to FA by April 1, use Ima Hogg. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks and collateral damage

Hi. Please be careful when range-blocking, like you did with the 90.204.64.0/18 range. That range block caused some collateral damage, as it also disabled my IP, which I'm not particularly fond of. Also, you blocked the range for nearly a year, whilst most range blocks should be blocked for about a day or two at most (at least according to my knowledge). Please take this into consideration for next time. Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

File:City hall and clothespin.JPG

You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
April 5, 2008
Time: 5:00 PM
Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Another Sprint PCS Scibaby casualty

See unblock request here. They look OK to me ... should we tell them to register an account via email. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, but why?

Hi Raul, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for some months now but suddenly find I am blocked (although no problem when I am logged in). I've done nothing to deserve this BUT I have recently changed ISP from BT to Sky. The block message states:

Editing from 90.204.64.0/18 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Raul654 for the following reason(s): Range used by Eirwitt/TileJoin. The block is set to expire: 05:47, 27 February 2009.

Please help! Thanks, Weydonian (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can edit while logged in, you are not blocked. Your IP address falls into the rage used by a persistent vandal, so that anonymous editing from it has been disabled. Just log in - or do I misunderstand your problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find policy

Where is the policy (but that's prob not the right word) on why we protect the main page? I can't find it but I've seen it before. I know someone that wants to read it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008

Hi Raul, your logs say it's unprotected, but we can't seem to edit the page. Also, is there a target character limit for the front page blurb?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely unprotected (I protected it, then very shortly thereafter decided I wanted others to edit it and unprotected it). The target character limit is 1,400 characters (with spaces). Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get this when I try to edit:

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following page, which is protected with the "cascading" option:

Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow For my taste, it has too many not quite true things right now (from the FerryLodge version, as listed on talk), and I want to get closer to the Outriggr/The Fat Man version, but can't edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cascading protection. Well, rather than undoing the cascading protection, I've created a sandbox copy at User:Raul654/test. Tweak that, and I'll update the main page blurb before tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better idea :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Man finished working his magic at User:Raul654/test, but we can't move it over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus version (among Texas editors) is all done at User:Raul654/test (within the character limit), User:DragonflySixtyseven moved most of it into the blurb page, but he disliked and removed the sentences referencing her name (see Talk:Ima Hogg/Archive 1#Note), so you may want to compare the two versions to see if you want to use any more of that content. Do you need to reprotect the blurb page? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the critics have been too harsh on my favorite Fat Man, but this one makes up for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: Range used by Scibaby

Dunno who this Scibaby is but my entire ISP is blocked by this ban which is set by you. Could you please look into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenport (talk • contribs) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making a comment, but I was on this talk page, and I notice you say your entire ISP was blocked. There must have been a LOT of people vandalising or something, because if everyone that uses an ISP gets blocked? "Yeah, im with Charter, and my entire ISP just got blocked. Did Charter do something wrong?" Just seems a little odd if you ask me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada literature FAC

I've made a comment here. You may wish to respond to it to clarify the doubts that exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional proposal to deal with Evolution vandalism

Hi there, I've become a little tired of this constant protect/unprotect, checkuser/block cycle. I've made a proposal for an interesting experiment here. You and Alison's comments as the people dealing with most of the checkuser requests would be most valuable in the discussion, so I'd be grateful if you could comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Plague is up for deletion

Thought you might be interested since you added the pic and his birthdate to the article, and are thus the only person besides myself to have contributed content to it recently. The AfD is here. Yilloslime (t) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentiously?

Are you really being serious, or is this some April Fool's Day prank? Thats truly insulting, because I dont believe I added any kind of bias to that article. If you believe thats being tendentious, then please, review yourself carefully, because if I get blocked, Im taking a whole bunch of people with me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we supposed to understand this cryptic threat?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it what you want, Nazis. Your propoganda doesnt intimidate me. Your bias just sickens me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You lose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for FA for April 5: Bette Davis (her 100th birthday)

I apologize for going over the head of WP:TFA/R, but this opportunity might be too good to pass up: I was just reading some news articles on the 100th birthday of actress Bette Davis this coming Saturday April 5, both here in the U.S. and internationally as well, and it just so happens that it currently is an FA that has not been on the main page yet. I realize that another article for this day has been suggested on WP:TFA/R, and it might screw up your scheduling. But it might be worthwhile to think about actually putting that on the main page as the FA for April 5. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through it; for such an old article, it's in very good shape. A couple of non-reliable sources, but looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20 year anniversary - Main page request

Hi Raul. Just a quick note to mention that as indicated by the infobox, 7th May is the 20th anniversary of the start of the summer of 4 captains. Resorting to cricket commentator-speak: A main page appearance would be perfectly splendid! --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa

Raul654, hi. Thanks for choosing Lisa del Giocondo for the main page on 13 April, or to whoever did the deed. The advance notice is plenty of time for me to get in gear to add another excellent source. I am traveling that weekend but am sure other people will be around (I will keep adding TFAs to my watchlist to return the favor). Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Raul654 (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate sock

I'm not too familiar with what goes on with sockpuppets involving climate articles, but I know you're usually hot on their cases. It looks like User:Victim of Changes is the latest one. I'm still new to how administrative tasks get handled, so if could point me in the right direction of what to do next time I spot a blatant sock like this to get it taken care of more quickly, that would be much appreciated. Jason Patton (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's him. And he's just used a tactic I've never seen before - it took me a while to figure out how he pulled it off. Raul654 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Typewriter Company

Mainpage has been protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent warning

I have responded on my talk page. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rv to Greenhouse Gas

I have restored the contribution on methane by Victim of Changes which you reverted. It has its faults, in particular it is not in the most encyclopaedic form, so modification may indeed be required, but please don't simply rub it out again without justification. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by a banned user (and an extremely prolific sockpuppeteer), and as WMC accurately noted when he re-removed it, the source ("Bovine Belching Called Udderly Serious Gas Problem") is laughably weak. Raul654 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free right now?

I am talking to Durova right now on Skype if you want to join us.--Filll (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer, but I was just getting ready to go offline. Maybe some other time, though. Raul654 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP range block

While I was at a different house I couldn't edit wikipedia because of some giant year-long block from you. How many people would this block affect? It seems you're probably going to lose a lot of constructive edits and possible new users who don't sign up, so isn't it a bit excessive? It doesn't affect me anymore but it was in London so I'd assume quite a few computers would be cut off by that. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch preview

If you have time, WP:FCDW/April 7, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new guideline consensus

Hi - user:Mufka has been working on a guideline at WP:DOY for what to include and not to include in the day of the year articles. It's been tagged as a proposed guideline for a while, he's solicited input from all the usual spots, the feedback on the talk page is unanimously in favor of it being an official guideline. Sound like time to change "proposed" to "guideline"? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was unanimous until this edit. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stumped on Prague Spring

Raul, I'm unsure what to do with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring. I won't summarize the problem to you so that you can read it fresh and not be predisposed by what I say, but I'm not sure which way to go with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Señor Presidente

Raul, I'm sorry to hit you with two at once, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Señor Presidente has a tricky image issue, and that's a weak area for me. The article has extremely solid, unanimous support, ready for promotion, sans the image problem. A University class has worked with the FA-Team and they may be bringing several other FACs soon that may have the same or similar issues (two book cover images, one Spanish, one English, unclear if policy allows both), so I don't want to set a bad precedent. I hope you can look in, since some tension seems to be building around this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can i has catz?

can i has catz?

TOFA date request

I want to add a date request for a prospective TOFA, and, although the directions say to replace the one with the lowest point value, I'm tempted to replace the first one (for April 16: Virginia Tech massacre). It already has a large amount of feedback -- all in support -- and it's for the next slot that has not been assigned yet. Further, none of the other requests are failing catastrophically (or at all, really), so should I go ahead and replace the April 16 request or take down one of the one-point requests (and, if so, which one)? -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove anything from the requests queue until I've actually scheduled that date. I most certainly do not want to have to memorize dates for nominations which have been removed. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation

I can't help but be curious about this usurpation. Was there a particular reason you performed the request sooner than two hours after the request was made, instead of waiting the full seven days to perform this request? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cometstyles requested it in IRC. Raul654 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what was the justification for waiving the week waiting time? The week wait has been key point in the usurpation process for its entire existence. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem. The purpose of the week-long wait is to allow notification on the talk page of the person to be usurped. I thought that had been done last week, before the request was made; I see now that it was done 24 hours ago. I'll be more careful in the future. Raul654 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR

Thanks. I had my mind on Coeliac disease, which was featured a little over a year ago; May is celiac awareness month in the U.S., and I thought it would be a good time. Rotavirus was featured the day before yesterday, so if nothing bio/med is put in the queue soon, it would be a reasonable gap between two health-related articles. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem

Raul654, first of all thanks so much for your early interest in our project. It's very shortly coming to an end, and I should say it's been a remarkable success. It could soon be even more of a success, as we have an article right on the verge of becoming a featured article. There is quite a debate there on images, and I understand that User:SandyGeorgia is going to consult you about that very shortly. I'll leave that in her and your hands, though I can tell you that the article's principle editor (who's worked incredibly hard over the semester) is hoping for resolution soon. I know, however, how busy you are.

But I wanted to ask you about something else. I asked SandyGeorgia about whether it would be possible to get this article, which when passed would be the first FA ever produced by a class project, put on the main page. It would certainly make the students inordinately (and deservedly) proud and happy. She directed me to WP:TFA/R, but looking at that, we'd be very low priority and quickly bumped off. Do you have any thoughts or advice? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If and when it passes the featured article candidacy process, I'd be happy to put it on the main page. This is just the kind of thing that should be encouraged in the strongest way. Raul654 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, marvellous! And thanks so much for your speedy reply. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: El Señor Presidente promoted

Thanks so much! The students will be thrilled. And they thoroughly deserve it. :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Raul (and the MMM contributors as well, of course), on FA #2000. It's exciting that this special project also happens to be a numerical milestone.--ragesoss (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very exciting. I had no idea! I have suggested to User:Mfreud that she get in touch with you with a date for the mainpage. :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say: El Señor Presidente is FA #2000, right? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted 5 simultaneously, so really there's no true 2000th FA. But if people want to say El Señor Presidente was, I won't nitpick. Raul654 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are choosing ESP because it was the last article you promoted in your contrib log. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<- don't forget the Red-billed Chough! - p'raps 5 joint 2000th is the fairest way...! Privatemusings (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Thanks; you fixed it just as I was halfway through leaving you a note dealing with the bigger issue of respect for archiving decisions at FAC and asking for your help. Is an admin supposed to use the tools that way, to delete his own archived FAC? Doesn't feel right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, Gimmetrow beat me to it, but I would have fixed it had he not. Second, as my proxy, your decisions on FAC need to be respected just as I had made them. If they aren't, there's something going wrong with the FAC. Raul654 (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Senor Presidente

That looks great! Thank-you very much. This is extremly exciting for me!--Mfreud (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not worry about changing the date, Cinco de Mayo is perfect!! Thanks again, I cannot actually contain my excitement!!! :D --Mfreud (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If editors are disrupting WP, why are they not sanctioned?

In a recent discussion, you described an editor as: "a reprobate POV pusher who does, in fact, push an anti-science agenda in one article after another". Now that may be true - I don't know, and I'm not really here to discuss that specific editor. I do know that there are many, many editors pushing all sorts of agendas on many contentious topics. Admittedly, I've only been editing for about 6 months so I'm no expert in how WP operates, but what I don't understand is why sanctions never seem to be brought against these editors. There are policies against disruption, that mandate colloborative editing.... why are these policies not enforced? Why aren't people regularly topic banned from subjects about which they are too passionate to be effective editors? I look forward to your respectful reply. Dlabtot (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question you are asking - why do people who systematically undermine our science articles stay around, and even proliferate in Wikipedia's environment? - has no simple or short answer. It might well take an entire PhD thesis to answer it completely and satisfactorily. (Any budding english or journalism grad students out there feel up to the task?)

Anti-science POV pushers use a variety of tactics to confuse the issue and wear down other editors who are knowledgable of and competent to write about science. Often times, figuring out who is a crank requires an understanding of the subject, which - frankly - most administrators do not have. That's why anti-science POV pushers can do what they do.

Sometimes they are sanctioned. Sometimes t h e y are not. If sanctioned, Often they appeal.

The arbitration committee itself has a mixed record on the matter. Sometimes it makes good decisions. Sometimes it makes bad ones. Occasionally it corrects a bad one, but that's a rarity. (Personally, I am proud of my record on this matter as an arbitrator.) Unfortunately, the systemic failure of the dispute resolution process to deal with the problem means that individual administrators (myself included) have to deal with these things on an individual basis. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I worded my question so poorly that you got the impression it was about "science articles", or that I had the impression that no one is ever sanctioned for anything. I'm asking a much broader question that applies as much to nationalist, political, or simply lame disputes as it does to science articles. This project is supposedly about writing an encyclopedia, yet an enormous amount of energy is spent on dispute resolution that, imho, amounts to mollycoddling. It's not hard in most cases when examining a contentious article and its talkpage, to identify the problematic editors. I guess my asking 'why' these editors are not simply topic banned is slightly rhetorical; what I'm trying to do is advance the ideas that editing an encyclopedia should be a dispassionate endeavor, no editor is indispensable in any one topic, and that enforcement of many policies should be must stricter. Pretty much the only way to be sanctioned right now is by engaging in incivility or violating the three revert rule. But a multitude of reprobate POV pushers who do, in fact, push an agenda in one article after another seem to be a much bigger problem for the encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of pro-science editors sanctioned. Look at ScienceApologist's block log. However, there is something that people do not quite seem to absorb.

NPOV does not mean neutral or positive. It means that if you have two views, A and B that disagree with each other about a topic, A and B will be presented, and A's criticisms of B will be presented and B's criticism's of A will be presented. If A is much more prominent than B, then more of A's criticism's of B will be presented.

What I have seen, over and over, by people who complain as you do, is that if there is a topic with disagreement, they want only one side presented and no criticism of that side. That is when there are problems.

There are also problems when A is much more prominent than B, but editors want to present A and B as being on equal footing. That also causes problems.

So if someone is a proponent of a minority position B, they often feel things are unfair. Well they are sort of unfair, but the unfairness is built into the rules of Wikipedia. If people do not like this unfairness, they are free to go to other Wikis with different sets of rules which they might find more fair.--Filll (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA milestones/Dispatch

Hi Raul, Sandy and I were discussing whether the April 14 Dispatch should discuss the 2000th FA as well as the first FA from an educational project. Do you think this should be a stand-alone article or should it be a Dispatch? We'll bow to your wisdom (and the prose of anyone who might have already volunteered to write it). Karanacs (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

crossposted at Newsroom Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, are you interested in watching this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it when Tony posted to the FAC and saw nothing wrong with it (which is why I didn't comment). Obviously as a signpost article, it should not be tagged as an essay. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCDave

Hi Raul, I have to admit I was a bit surprised to see NCDave blocked for reinstating my edit. There were a couple of reasons I added "reportedly", just so you know, the first being as said that the movie isn't out yet. Since the contents aren't publicly available, I think some readers will be unsure how Wikipedia can know what's in the movie. The second reason was simply because the claims are obviously a bit bizarre; in that context I think it may be better to be clear we're saying what's reported and not that we decided ourselves this was the point. I think NCDave should have brought it up on the talk page rather than reverting, but I wonder if a week block is a bit much, unless there's more to it I'm missing? Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 308: / Line 308: @@
 == El Senor Presidente ==
 That looks great! Thank-you very much. This is extremly exciting for me!--[[User:Mfreud|Mfreud]] ([[User talk:Mfreud|talk]]) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
+::Please do not worry about changing the date, Cinco de Mayo is perfect!! Thanks again, I cannot actually contain my excitement!!! :D --[[User:Mfreud|Mfreud]] ([[User talk:Mfreud|talk]]) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 == If editors are disrupting WP, why are they not sanctioned? ==