User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:44, 24 June 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

TFA years of birth and death

Hello Raul! I'd be very interested in your feedback about a suggestion for placing the year of birth and death on the TFA blurb of biographies. There's a discussion here. Cheers, --Zvika (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied below, "Birth and death dates in TFA blurbs" thread. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note about the Scibaby situation

I'm finding it hard to write kindly to you because of the intense disagreement I had with you over your claim that User:CreepyCrawly was a sock of Scibaby. I proved conclusively that, given the fact they were using two different IP addresses, and the fact that they interleaved four edits in a four-minute window, and extensive behavioral evidence of different methods and voices, CreepyCrawly and Scibaby were definitely two different people. I wrote on my blog how upset I was that you wrote: "It's possible that [CreepyCrawly is] not necessarily Scibaby." I thought it was an absolute certainty, given the accumulated evidence I had assembled over a three-day period, that CreepyCrawly was not Scibaby, and I could not understand why you failed to see what was obvious to me. The frustration in trying to fight an indefinite block on an innocent user, who would still be blocked were it not for my intervention, led directly to my decision to leave Wikipedia indefinitely. I returned about six weeks later.

Now I understand how Scibaby was causing you so much stress as to reduce your ability to assume good faith on any user without a substantial edit history arguing against the consensus on global warming articles. In my review of the Scibaby socks up to March 16, which I undertook comprehensively in order to contrast CreepyCrawly's activity with Scibaby's pattern, I gained an appreciation for just how disruptive this one person had become. I honestly have no idea how he does it, but he simply refuses to stop. I asked myself, along the way of proving CreepyCrawly's innocence, if anything could be done to stop this sockmaster. I supported the increase of autoconfirm because I knew it would deter sockpuppeteers from attacking semiprotected pages. I have not checked the recent sockpuppets' contribs, but I assume that Scibaby has simply made ten edits and then attacked the global warming pages, with essentially the same result as before. So I guess that strategy did not work.

Ironically, blatant page-move vandalism is much easier to deal with than Scibaby's attacks. It becomes immediately obvious that HAGGER??? is not the name of any nation or commonwealth on earth. I see no reason why thousands of pages can't be move-protected, but that is a separate concern that does not hinder good-faith editors in the least. Even with Taiketsu moving "global warming" to "global warming hoax", which I reported to ANI after it had lasted for 59 minutes - if I had not noticed that, someone else would have found it soon after. In contrast, with a sophisticated, sneaky vandal, it really is possible for his edits to sneak through the cracks if nobody is watching. Since your patience with this pest has been exhausted a long time ago, you took an extreme action, but one that I consider reasonable under the prevailing circumstance of consistent vandalism for the past six months and more. I believe that we as editors do not choose which pages to semi-protect or full-protect: the vandals choose for us. Scibaby made his choice, and you made a commensurate response. I supported TimVickers' protection of the Evolution article for the same reason. (See an edit by Special:Contributions/71.174.111.245 to AN or ANI: that was I.) I do not know if full protection was needed for all the pages you protected, but certainly Global Warming and IPCC needed it. I commend you for your reasonable response to a very difficult situation. I find it unfortunate that other users simply fail to comprehend the scale of the problem Scibaby has caused.

I worry with CreepyCrawly that instead of banning people, we may be moving in the direction of banning opinions. CreepyCrawly was accused of being a meatpuppet even if he was not a sockpuppet: that really made me lose my composure. We should never stop anyone from posting to the global warming page a dissenting opinion if that user does so in good faith: BOLD, revert, discuss still applies. But when that person is Scibaby, and when that person has used up your valuable time and patience tenfold, it is entirely appropriate to take extreme measures in response to extreme provocation, and I commend you for making a bold decision despite the criticism. I will support your right to make that decision even if others oppose it. You, of all people, by your tireless work on the Scibaby problem, have earned the right to say, "Enough is enough." Yechiel (Shalom) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October War categories

You didn't do the process right for listing the October War categories. First of all, you tacked the discussion onto an existing one instead of creating a new page. Furthermore, if you want categories to be deleted, they go to Categories for discussion, not Articles for deletion. I'll list these at Categories for Discussion for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You mean to tell me you're an admin and a bureaucrat and you didn't know a.) how to do an AfD listing properly, and b.) that categories to go to WP:CFD not WP:AFD?! I'm shocked. Don't make me break out my trout. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - that was me being careless, both for typing AFD instead of CFD, and not noticing that it was a templated discussion (CFD isn't, AFD is). Raul654 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Raul, I'm afraid that you might think I think poorly of you after I made this comment. That's not true. I think very highly of you, and appreciate all of the work you've done for Wikipedia, in the past, and especially the recent past, knowing that it has built exponentially. Again, thank you for all of your work. —Over My Head 07:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took no offense from your comment. Raul654 (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Raul, I was forced to a dialup this week when my house was poltergeisted by a power surge. When Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church reached 340KB, I restarted; it's again over 400KB, with new comments being added to the talk page because the main page won't load. It's impacting the overall FAC page; I couldn't load FAC from a dialup. There are 12 unstruck opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's a monster. Yes, I can take care of it, but what do you suggest? Raul654 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss. It has been impossible to keep discussion focused on WIAFA, combativeness and divisiveness have polarized everyone with reviewers stating they're giving up, and I'm unclear as to which issues have and haven't been resolved. I'm concerned about the size of the article (in the sense that it has grown so much at FAC in response to reviews, and I'm not clear if the organization, flow and prose are well thought out or if the article has grown piecemeal in response to FAC pressures, but it's almost 50% larger than it was at one point in one of the FACs). I can't recall any other FA with 30 refs in the lead so I don't understand what that is about; if so much of the article is controversial that the lead needs 30 refs, including double and triple refs on individual clauses, that could be an indication of unresolved issues, but even that is unclear. The biggest issue is that I don't have a sense that the nominators understand that reviewers seek to prevent a mainpage bashing if there is any perceived POV in the article; I'm not sure nominators understand that reviewers have the article's and Wiki's best interests in mind, and this has made it very hard to get parties to work together to assure a smooth potential main page day. I simply can't determine if we have consensus or what issues remain because the FAC has been so combative. Some of the polarization revolves around charges of reviewers being pro- and anti-Catholic, overlooking that even some Catholic editors have opposed. I've pondered whether an unprecedented second restart would help; I don't think so, because it doesn't seem that nominators understand the process. I'm concerned it's going to end up in Marskell's lap if parties don't work together. On the other hand, there have been improvements, parties are almost starting to work together, just when the page is too massive to deal with ... Something novel is needed here, but my last attempt at a novel approach (archive the long page rather than a permalink restart) didn't help, and made reviewers mad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards failing the nomination. Letting it sit fallow for a while might give everyone the chance to cool off, and hammer things out before bringing it back to FAC. Personally, I think there are some things that are over-referenced, like the claim that the RCC has been an important influence on western history (trivially common knowledge does not need to be cited). Raul654 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time off hasn't cooled it off before (similar issues have repeated, even grown, in each FAC), so a closing note about the process might help. Yes, I suspect the answer to some of the opposes has been to add additional references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have to deal with electrician, phone company, cable company and tree removal ... back on later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Canada on main page

Thanks for choosing an article I worked on for main page today. I'm actually kind of surprised because I thought that usually articles that have been promoted a long time ago have higher priority? Gary King (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, explained at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#My_FA_article_is_on_the_main_page_right_now. Thanks anyways! Gary King (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

Hi. There is a request here from a user that you have unblocked before. Also, I wonder if there is any chance that this request could be legit. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's caught in an anon-only range block. Once he logs in, he should be unaffected. Raul654 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death dates in TFA blurbs

There's been some discussion on Talk:Main Page about whether (birth and death) dates should be included in the TFA blurb for biographical or historical articles. The most recent discussion is at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_123#TFA_without_date_of_birth_or_death. The basic concern was that it becomes difficult to place the information in context without the date, particularly when a date is later mentioned in the blurb (as occurred for George I). My personal opinion is that it would be useful to include the dates, but just the years to prevent things getting too long. Thoughts? Modest Genius ^talk 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but I wasn't sure how to respond. I started removing DOB/DOD a long time ago. I *think* the reason was blurb length - back in the day, FA blurbs were about half the size they are today. Your suggestion about including just the year makes sense. Let me consider it. Raul654 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to respond to Zvika's comment there - if he counts by characters, not words, he'll see the two blurbs he mentioned are 1185 and 1206 characters, respectively - almost identical in size. Raul654 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, although worth remembering the years only take up 12 characters <shrug> Modest Genius ^talk 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you put in a birth date for today's TFA, thanks! I really think this helps. --Zvika (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church 2

Dear Raul, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs have asked the editors of this page not to contact those who opposed the page for the last FAC. [1] [2] In response to your message asking opposers to provide a specific list for us page editors to then take our time addressing, we considered some sort of generic message inviting them to the talk page to provide this list. We are now being told that everyone needs a break and we should not contact them. Could you please clarify for us what you want us to do? We do not intend to resubmit this for another FAC until maybe August. Xandar and I have received several unkind messages from Tony and Sandy that are not encouraging us to do any more work on Wikipedia ever. We are not sure you are feeling the same. If you would prefer someone else we can leave the project. Please do not encourage us to bring this to FA if it is not your intention to give it fair consideration. It is very discouraging for us knowing that we have to go through Tony and Sandy after these messages we have received. NancyHeise (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a correct understanding of the discussion, NancyHeise; we've asked that you organize/prioritize how you approach them rather than approaching them all at once.[3][4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to Tony's kind comment here [5] NancyHeise (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654, I do think it would help if you could be more hands-on with this article. As can be seen in a series of conversations here, and as I have tried to clarify also on my own talk page, a number of us feel that your closing comments on the last failed FAC for Roman Catholic Church have been misinterpreted.

I would add that I very much fear that, within a matter of weeks, we're going to end up back where we began, with a contentious FAC that will satisfy nobody and frustrate everybody.

Personally, I think that it is vital that the current major editors (NancyHeise and Xandar) expand the team of people working with them. I have suggested User:Ceoil as one such editor who was, at the latter stages of the last FAC, working productively with NancyHeise. However, I think that they should seek others, and that this would help break down the opposition between editors and reviewers, so it does not get repeated at FAC.

I also think that the current major editors should accept that the past FAC failed, and take this as an opportunity for a creative rethink of major issues with the article. The article is no longer at FAC, and pretending otherwise hampers its improvement.

I do recognize that you are no doubt up to your ears with other issues. But the last FAC was a drain on everyone, not least your delegate, SandyGeorgia. I do think this is a case where you proactive intervention would save trouble in the longer term. It would also help make it more likely that this article ultimately becomes featured. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an unprecedented situation, and finding a way to communicate with two well-meaning nominators has escaped well-meaning reviewers (and me). It seems as if everything anyone has typed anywhere has been misunderstood, misread or misinterpreted. But, Jb, I respectfully disagree that Raul should take a more hands-on approach here; it may be helpful for Raul to maintain a hands-off neutral stance, particularly since the track record has been one of misunderstanding of any commentary, no matter how positive, and a neutral judge of consensus will be needed when the article returns to FAC. Don't worry about it being a drain on me; the only drain has been seeing what it has done to FAC, the reviewers, and the nominators, and feeling impotent to redirect the FAC more productively. The article has steadily improved, so in that sense, everyone can feel good about something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like JB's idea, I think it would help all of us to know what Raul's intentions are here. I would like to participate in bringing the article to FA with other editors including JB. I appreciate his non-Catholic point of views and input. I intend to work with Ceoil as JB suggested. I posted a star on her page thanking her for her tremendous help and will call on her again when we are at the point of collaboration. NancyHeise (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil is a he, by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just spent the last half-hour reading all the various discussions surrounding the article. First - there are too many discussions occurring on too many pages. I'd prefer to focus all the article-improvement talk back onto Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Second, reading Xandar's message in its current form (for example, at User_talk:Jbmurray#Feature_Article_Candidate_Roman_Catholic_Church) - I don't see anything objectionable to it. It looks like a polite request for remaining objectors to list any outstanding issues with the article, so that he can fix them prior to a renomination. That's exactly what I suggested in my closing note. I don't understand where all the claims of misunderstanding are coming from. (And, just for the record - the FAC nom was most definitely closed as unsuccessful; not suspended.) I've added talk:RCC to my watchlist, so I'll be keeping an eye on it. It looks like people are, in fact, provided exactly the list that Xandar asked for. Is there anything specific I should be looking at? Raul654 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; at my request, Xandar adjusted his message (and re-edited all of the old messages[6]), and the current message is much better. Some of the conversations at User talk:NancyHeise and User talk:Jbmurray show some of the confusion about Wiki in general and FAC in particular that is occurring. For example, Xandar recently posted to Jbmurray that: "Your comments on the RCC talk page need to be the full and complete extent of any remaining oppose. Xandar (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)," (misunderstanding of the dynamic nature of Wiki articles?) I suspect the way forward for this article and nom is to convince experienced editors like Ceoil or Johnbod to help prepare and present the nom, as there is no so much inflammation and misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, you asked if there is anything specific you should be looking at. Yes, please read the answers I provided to Karanacs list of objections to the article. They clearly present the problems we have had with FAC reviewers asking us to do things that we should not be asked to do. Please also read the responses to Awadewit who wants us to eliminate the first section of RCC history to reflect a radical view that the Church did not exist before the 4th century. NancyHeise (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, you are again misrepresenting my view. I have continually asked you to stop this. You are worried about a demand that is not being made. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a section of the talk page where you can see the reaction to Awadewit's suggestions. I've unwatched, but notice that many editors have tried very hard and are willing to help, but are making little headway. It's taken a large amount of some of Wiki's best resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I have suggested a plan that I think might work here. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights

Hey, I noticed in your permissions email for Image:Michael Flynn.jpg, you wrote, "If you paid the person who took it, that makes it a work-for-hire and you do [own the copyright]," but this is unfortunately false in most cases. Per 17 USC § 204 (a), "A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent." A work for hire situation only exists when there is an explicit contract for it, such as an employment contract. If I pay a photography studio for my head shot, the studio still owns the copyright to that head shot, unless they specifically sign the rights over to me. I realize for the photosubmission OTRS queue it means a bit more work to make sure that the sender is actually the copyright holder (and also it means we might have to reject some more photos), but that's unfortunately how copyright law is. Regards, howcheng {chat} 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot note

Raul, Gimmetrow has taken a short vacation, so I'll have to manually botify anything that gets promoted/archived; Maralia has agreed to help, and knows the ropes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow's back (Maralia and I were able to keep up in his absence). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kdbuffalo again

67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs) locates to Minneapolis, edits the same ID-based articles, attacks in the same tendentious manner, and is probably our old pal, friend, and nemesis, User:Kdbuffalo. I'll do the RfCU if you want. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He bounces around that range a bit (e.g, as 67.135.49.254, 67.135.49.78, and 67.135.49.85) but I see no evidence of sockpuppetry. So, the content of his edits not withstanding, he looks like a legit logged-out user to me. Raul654 (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should have remembered. It's User:Jinxmchue, who has abused socks before. Is it blockable? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post concerning you

I seem to be doing this a lot recently, sorry. I mentioned you in an edit on someone else's user page. See here. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on whether you see your position as any different to any of the other former arbitrators or not. I recognise that some former arbitrators would also not have been re-elected (I think you were the first ever to run for re-election, and I respect you for that - though having checked, I see The Cunctator and Fennec failed in their re-election bids), but I think it boils down to whether the election showed support for you (I think it did), or whether failing to be re-elected should mean anything. More generally, your mention of the arbitration committee mailing list in the block rationale brings up the perennnial issue of access to the mailing list by former arbitrators. If something is discussed on the arbitration mailing list, would it not make more sense for a sitting arbitrator to enact the decision? Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to your questions here. First, I don't consider myself any different than any of the other ex-arbitrators. They choose not to run, where I did. As for the election, IIRC, I got more support than any other candidate except NYB, and half of the objections were to my inactivity rather than my judgement. (And I dont begrudge anyone who voted against me for inactivity, because it was a perfectly valid point - I was inactive in arbcom matters for much of 2007) My non-reelection is a reflection of the arbcom election system (which favors people who have never been involved in any disputes) more so than any reflection on me. So, yes, I believe the election showed support for me in the community as an arbitrator.

As for the arbcom mailing list - unless I am mistaken, several months ago a second arbcom mailing list was created for current members only. The discussion mentioned on the_undertow's talk page occurred on the older one which includes both current and former arbitrators. As to your last question ( If something is discussed on the arbitration mailing list, would it not make more sense for a sitting arbitrator to enact the decision? ) - no, I see no reason why such a rule would be desirable. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply. I agree with most of that, except the last bit. Thanks for the clarification about the two mailing lists. Hopefully the distinction will become clearer in the future. I had heard that there were two, but I think, unless specifically stated, most references to the "arbitration committee mailing list" are to the older one. That seems to be the one mention at WP:ARBCOM anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very premature notice

Hi Raul. I'm gearing up for nominating Donald Bradman at FAC. Driving the massive amount of work behind this is that it's the 100th anniversary of his birth on August 27th. Assuming that the article passes FAC, I would very much like it if you could arrange for his biog to appear on Main Page on that date. I'm very hopeful of a success at FAC, given the huge PR and extensive post-PR discussion and consensus-seeking I've had with a number of FAC regulars, copyeditors and with the WP:CRIC community. Mind you, I'm experienced enough at FAC to know that there's a surprise sting in the tail for many a confident nominator! :-) Hope you're well... --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your help would be appreciated in determining consensus

Hello, I am Atyndall and I am one of the Mediation Cabal's informal mediator. Currently I have taken on a case regarding the naming of the Burma/Myanmar article here. I have decided, after realizing that the article has to be named either Burma or Myanmar, that I need to get everyone to list their opinions and determine the consensus (which I have done here. The problem is, to put it bluntly, I would find it very hard to determine the consensus on this issue as both sides have equally good arguments. So I was wondering, if, after 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (exactly 14 days after the first post) you could evaluate the consensus (along with another 2 'crats) at that page (as crats are good at, having to deal with RfAs) and list and try to detail why you think this at the top of the page in the section provided? Please do not feel obliged to do so, if you are busy I can ask someone else, but please let me know. Thankyou very much and happy editing :-) Atyndall93 | talk 00:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to help. When the discussion is over, drop me a note here and I'll give it a look. Raul654 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. Atyndall93 | talk 01:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mmm

[7] Mario Vargas Llosa The General in his Labyrinth. Pretty please. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all are shameless! (For Jb = Sin Vergüenza.) Now I'm going to have to ask someone to upload some giandujas for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Damn, beaten to it! (And thanks!!) giggy _(:O) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw; if Giggy gets a video game article on the main page, then I'm requesting Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. :) Gary King (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Thundercats2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Thundercats2.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, 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, 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}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thundercats2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thundercats2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for FAC work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Too often we reviewers and nominators forget to thank the people who make the FAC process run smoothly. Sometimes I think of you as "the man behind the curtain" in The Wizard of Oz because we so rarely see you, but instead of being a fraud you are a real wizard: you have made FAC one of the few effective and sane processes on Wikipedia. Thank you. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words :) Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wootton Report

Apparently you have banned user Steve Abrams from editing the Wootton Report article. He is a leading expert and there are inaccuracies needing urgent attention. Please remove the block! Steve's email is steve.abrams@gmail.com

These are in the message he is getting:

Range used by Tile/Eir Witt This block has been set to expire: 23:53, 27 February 2009.

You can contact Raul654 (the blocking administrator) via email --Nick Green (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, as you will know from your email this matter has been resolved as a DHCP induced block. Steve has rebooted his router and his access has been restored.--Nick Green (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's main page article

For Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 22, 2008, since when are birth and death years included in the main page text? I find it odd that they are there. Gary King (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look halfway up this page, at the "birthh and death dates in TFA blur" section. Raul654 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine optimization

Raul, can you look at this FAR? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Search engine optimization ... concerned about the post referencing litigation, not sure if the FAR is necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed it. Marskell (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's featured article

Hi Raul. I have Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow as my home page, and I noticed there was no featured article there yet. In fact, Wikipedia:Today's featured article and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2008 look a bit bare. I'm sure you know, but just dropping a note off in case. Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP Computing

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article

An article you re-nominated for FA gets on the main page? What a strange coincidence! Ho ho ho. Anyway - I'm here to question the use of "sight unseen" in the lead of Bradley Joseph. I've rephrased it in the article but it's still present in the main page summary. What do you think regarding use of american idioms? A quick google search seems to confirm its US only usage. Do you agree? Good choice on Blue Iguana by the way. Thanks Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're confused about how FAC works. When I'm promoting new featured articles and a nomination is too long and convoluted for me to makes heads or tales of it, I'll sometimes restart it - essentially wiping out the previous commentary, and giving the nom a fresh start. I'd say when I'm doing the promoting, about 5% of FAC noms get restarted, but I don't have a horse in the race one way or the other. Right now, the FAs I've written that haven't appeared on the main page are Battle of Dien Bien Phu and Parallel Computing. I've written about a dozen or so others that have appeared at some time or another as the main page FA. Raul654 (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Joseph Bradley article, I've updated the main page blurb to reflect your changes to the lead. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two very disparate subjects! Good work on both. I have to say I'm not up to speed on the way FAC works but then again i've been told it's not the simplest of processes to understand. I imagine the articles you've worked on will be featured at some point because i assume we don't get a new FA every day (?). Thanks for the featured article work and i hope my update has been useful. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we get a new FA at least once a day. Gary King (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFA x2

Is it true that an article cannot appear on the Main Page twice? When I mentioned putting a request in for Canada here, SandyGeorgia claimed that it cannot be requested because it already appeared as TFA on June 23, 2006. However, I did not find anything stating this at WP:TFA or any subpages. -- Reaper X 05:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 212: / Line 212: @@
 ::Those are two very disparate subjects! Good work on both. I have to say I'm not up to speed on the way FAC works but then again i've been told it's not the simplest of processes to understand. I imagine the articles you've worked on will be featured at some point because i assume we don't get a new FA ''every'' day (?). Thanks for the featured article work and i hope my update has been useful. [[User:Sillyfolkboy|Sillyfolkboy]] ([[User talk:Sillyfolkboy|talk]]) 04:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::: I think we get a new FA ''at least'' once a day. [[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b><font size="+1"><i>K</i></font>ing</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]]) 04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
+== TFA x2 ==
+Is it true that an article cannot appear on the Main Page twice? When I mentioned putting a request in for [[Canada]] [[Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests#Facilitating_TFA_suggestions|here]], [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] claimed that it cannot be requested because it [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 23, 2006|already appeared as TFA on June 23, 2006]]. However, I did not find anything stating this at [[WP:TFA]] or any subpages. --'''[[User:Reaper_X|<font color="#000000"> Reaper</font>]] [[User talk:Reaper_X|<font color="#ff0000"> X</font>]]''' 05:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)