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
• Archive 13: June 2007 - August 2007
• Archive 14: September 2007 - December 2007
• Archive 15: January 2008 - March 2008
• Archive 16: April 2008 - June 2008
• Archive 17: July 2008 - September 2008

FARC and new C-class

Raul, in case you want to weigh in at User talk:Marskell#C-class status.

GimmeBot automatically assigns a B-class assessment when an article is FARC'd. Now that they've added a new C-class assessment, we have a bot issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This one is done; GimmeBot is now leaving the assessment field blank. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I need your feedback at User talk:SandyGeorgia#Requests archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TFA/R

Afer 100KB of discussion, a new proposal and questions needing your feedback at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#NEW PAGE proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New page in place at WP:TFA/R; the only significant change is we now subtract points for recent mainpage appearance (pls check the point scheme), and it's now made more clear how to replace a request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Discussion at WP:TFA/R seems more stable (or maybe people are just away on summer break) and Karanacs is getting involved there. The page is now upgraded to the format of other FA pages, and there are some additional changes proposed to be implemented July 10 (to give you and others a chance to weigh in before we add them). We've also created a talk page template to 1) give advance notice of requests upcoming in the next 60 days, which 2) might help keep some of the reminder notices off of your talk page, and 3) will hopefully encourage some advance discussion and sorting of conflicts, while 4) providing a brief look ahead for you beyond the five on the page. For example, two editors have already proposed articles for the summer Olympics, one of which is political.

Also, on my talk page, Gimmetrow is waiting for some feedback on further automating some of the GimmeBot steps. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

André Kertész' change of mind

A TFA error comment at Talk:Main Page, that might interest you. 199.91.34.33 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby?

User:Slym_Gym? --BozMo talk 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was afraid he was going to pull a creepy crawly. I still think the latter is closely related... Brusegadi (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to contribute to the Scibaby block, I gathered he is using sockpuppets but I didn't really look into his transgressions. I just felt I should share that the IP range blocked is currently assigned to sprint mobile broadband (air cars) and is dynamic. Since I have an account its not a big deal to me, just thought I would share in case its important. I'm referring to the subnet 72.58.0.0/16 --Arjes (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Shenstar? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See the logs. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are blocking a small portion of a dynamically handed out IP range. You are not stopping scibaby, but you are annoying people willing to edit the wiki in good faith.

You had a nice demonstration last night of how futile your effort is, but your choice was not to lift an ineffective ban, but to delete the demonstration.

If you have any intellectual honesty, you would comment about your blocking a small portion of a dynamic address range, and why you don't either a) lift the ban entirely, or b) ban the entirety of Sprint Broadband Mobile.

I suspect you have no intellectual honesty. Please prove me wrong. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.16.129 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Am i right in my assumption on Heart of a Lion (talk • contribs)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

REDIRECTING rather than DELETING

You have helped me before (on video conversion) and perhaps you have some ideas on a current problem I am having, not related to electronics. I recently wrote an article on Conscript Fathers, however another editor wants to redirect the article instead of going through a formal AFD. The discussion on this can be found at the article Talk Page. I feel that if the other editor feels it is a very bad article, then he should submit it for AFD. He only wants to REDIRECT. Is it correct to just REDIRECT instead of going through the formal AFD. I believe the article will stand on its own and is well referenced. It was selected as a DYK on June 13 - which I indicted to him was evidence of this article's quality and accuracy (not a guarantee however). I have had clashes with this editor many times before pertaining to deleting or redirecting my articles, but did receive 40 DYKs since the last major event with him. He has not given me indications exactly (minor small things) why the article is bad, only personal feelings on how I write articles - which indicates to me a personal thing, rather than this being a bad article. He has put the article back as a REDIRECT 3 times from when I undone his REDIRECT. Can the article be put back as an article and IF that editor feels it is a dreadfully bad article that he should put it up as a AFD or (what I suggest) get a "third opinion" as to if the article should exist? What is your feelings on this? I'll look back here on your talk page for your answer. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've since asked for a "third opinion" - waiting on responses. --Doug ^talk 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but generally to redirect one article to another you do not need to go through AFD. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

July 11 main page article

Right now the July 11 main page article is To Kill a Mockingbird. Someone I suppose, should have pointed this out to me when I requested it, but it's two weeks after The General in His Labyrinth appeared. I blame someone, whoever it was. I'm not sure why I requested this. Mockingbird's 50th anniversary would probably be more appropriate in 2010. Can you replace July 11 with something else? --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Two book FAs on the main page within 2 weeks of each other is not something to worry about. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that train has left the station, clearly. I was, I must admit, also very intimidated about it being the subject of so much attention on the main page. TFA request remorse. Call me goofy. It's rather silly of me to concern myself with such issues when I choose one of the most influential books of the 20th century. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

9/11 stuff

Hi Raul. I know I should go to the articles and see what is being said there (please do direct me there if that is best), but I was reading a BBC news article here, and was wondering what that meant for the 9/11 sanctions and stuff like that. Is that one of the "more respectable" theories, and if so, is the balance struck right between the conspiracy theories that are more fringe than others, or are they all treated as fringe theories? I must confess that I had got the impression from the froth arising from those articles that there was a lot of fringe conspiracy theories, mostly of little merit, but seeing this report featured as one of the top stories on the BBC (the news channel I go to first), made me take another look. Of course, the actual situation on the ground on the articles and their talk pages, not the administrative froth and news reports, is what I should have been looking at, but still, it did make me think. One of my thoughts was where Basboll stood on these issues. My objection there was only ever procedural, and I dropped matters after you explained things, but I was wondering if stuff like would impact his ban or not? Carcharoth (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The theory is certainly notable, which is why we have an article Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. However, this theory is not the least bit respectable. There is no evidence whatsoever of anybody planting explosives in WTC7. Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the article. It should be noted that that article covers the theories about both the main two towers and the theory about WTC 7 (which appears to be a separate, if similar, theory). The documentary is about the latter. I've dumped a load of links to the BBC articles on this on the talk page. I suspect they are not reliable sources for the purpose of that article, but it is interesting to see the approach taken by the producers of that series (who I think were contracted by the BBC - ie. independent producers - but I'm not 100% on that). In other words, being the BBC doesn't mean a lot here, but it does give a lot of prominent coverage of the topic - ie. increases notability, which as you say had already been established. Probably worth a footnote somewhere in the article, similar to how the other documentary was mentioned (hopefully) in the main 9/11 conspiracy article, though now I look, it isn't. Also, we desperately need an overview article about the films and documentaries about 9/11. The current overview article appears to be the "in popular culture" one, which is a mess. Anyway, by talk page posts are here and here in case either of you are interested. Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass media outlets are in business to make money. They are not academic sources about history. Have you ever heard the expression that newspapers are the rough draft of history? Take a look at old news reports about any significant event, and you will most likely see major, glaring errors. Early newspaper reports about the Robert F. Kennedy assassination, and Dan Rather's off handed comment about the collapse of WTC looking like a building demolition have fed many of the conspiracy theorists. I hope you watchlist these 9/11 articles and do the hard work of keeping the articles free of misleading crap. Jehochman ^Talk 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Until recently, the general consensus was that falling debris and fire caused WTC-7 to collapse, and our WTC-7 article as it now stands reflects that. The NIST report is expected, essentially, to discount the role played by debris and say that fire was more-or-less the sole cause of the collapse. And if/when it comes out and says that, we can update our article accordingly. What we should not do, however, is give undo weight to conspiracy theories for which not a shred of evidence exists - the controlled demolition conspiracy theory being the most prominent example thereof. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Determining significant contributor

Please see the discussion at Talk:King Arthur#FAC?. I'm afraid that the new rule about primary contributors has led to some unfortunate results. Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please see the larger discussion I have started here on this topic. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

NY 32 MP blurb error

Raul,

Before you put it on the page, can you make sure the Main Page blurb for New York State Route 32 reflects this edit? I have to go now and I don't have the time. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you were away. I've fixed it now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article

I don't know if it's intentional or what, but you've been adding a (what would appear to be) stray </div> to each featured article subpage (e.g., here), which is breaking some of the new Main Page redesigns. From what I can tell, the stray div isn't doing anything beneficial or of value. But, maybe I'm simply missing something obvious. : - ) Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The alternatives (for sketches mentioned above) is to update TFA by hand every day, or add an extra div before TFA (which will break someday most likely). It took a lot of fooling around to figure out why columns wouldn't float and then undo the tables needed to work around it. Just seconding, would it be possible that the stray div could go away? Thank you. —SusanLesch (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A related conversation at Wikipedia talk:FA#Source bug. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The stray </div> could go away without any effect on the appearance of the section or the main page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2008 looks fine 18 July (the next open date) and after. Unless some promotion script is adding the div, maybe it will go away then. I hope so. —SusanLesch (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When I schedule the FAs, what I do is copy from the previous day, paste into the next day, (which is why, on those occasions when I screw up, the "More" points to the wrong FA) and then paste in the text from the article I'm scheduling. My best guess is that at some point, I messed up the pasting and included the extra div tag. Because I don't check the HTML, it would have been propagated the next time I copied the template, and I wouldn't have noticed. Raul654 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Brick nomination

I would like to nominate User:Moreschi for a common sense brick for bringing some of it into an ArbCom case that seems to be lacking thereof. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Obese People Causing Global Warming

There is new information available stating that obese people are causing global warming. Consequently, because you are such a "large presence" on wikipedia you should evaluate this charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelseanhof (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hot air is also an issue. Raul is surpassed by others on that issue....--BozMo talk 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, do obese people fart more, and therefore release more methane or something? Deamon138 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Meanwhile the politicians gorge themselves whilst telling others to eat less, much less. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An 8 course meal in Japan is really no larger than a 3 course meal in the West. Besides, Africans are starving so clearly the solution is to starve politicians. I hear if they'd just had bread and water at that summit, the world food crisis would be over. Yes the current crop of politicians could do more to help end poverty, but it is not their fault it exists, it is the fault of greedy corporations and politicians from before I was born. I think the reaction to this is going to be over-zealous. Sorry Raul for my political rant on your talk page: I'll shut up now lol. Deamon138 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

PowerBook 100

Hello. Any chance of seeing PowerBook 100 on the Main Page within the next month or so? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Weighted Companion Cube

User:Weighted Companion Cube doesn't look like a typical Scibaby sock, but he may be some reincarnation of some other sceptic. Count Iblis (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Witchhunt much? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SEWilco ? Count Iblis (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOCK and then stop with the nonsense. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a SOCK, but definitely an anonymous witness :) Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not Scibaby or anyone else you have to worry about. Raul654 (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bio split

Raul, per the discussion here, unless you disagree, I'm going to go ahead and make this split. I don't want to have to keep syncing the two versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Raul654 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AN

An ANI discussing the usage of an image not appearing in the TFA for Palpatine is being discussed. As you are the Director of such, you might wish to contribute to that discussion, located here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AN, not AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me; no misdirection was intended. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Parallel computing

Hello. I have noticed some problems with Parallel computing, which I have noted at Talk:Parallel_computing#Some_problems_with_this_article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied again at the Talk page to your comments. Let me know if you need help finding some more reliable sources. I would also be glad to help expand the History section, and possibly start a History of parallel computing article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceiling Cat

I don't think that User:Ceiling Cat should be appearing in the (article) category Category:Critically endangered species. This removal would require a bit of template-fiddling, I suspect. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 14:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Or substituting the template in and removing the offending category. Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To Althea, from Prison

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of To Althea, from Prison, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.4literature.net/Richard_Lovelace/To_Althea_from_Prison. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The text is from the poem, written in 1642, and is in the public domain. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lamentation of Christ

Will do - but I'm off for a short while now. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - DYK next. The various subjects making up the Life of Christ in art is something I'm slowly working on. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested it for DYK :) Raul654 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Hero and its eyeballs...

I know you watch everyone and everything... but just curious... how many people are watching Guitar Hero article? Is every FA of the day that "active"? I'd think though that some FAs are more featured than the others :P Lucifer (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some featured articles are more active than others. The more an article is quirky and/or appeals to popular sentiment (most video games do the latter), the more attention it attracts. And I suspect a greater-than-average number of people are watch that particular article. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thought so. And we can see it in action! Most of the edits to todays article are regular edits. And ofcourse, it being featured is invariably attracting more edits.. and lots of minor ones at that... Lucifer (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage query

Raul, I don't know how to check this, or how that might have happened? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If this helps: [1] Pagrashtak 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sex Pistols were on the main page sometime around 2004 - I specifically remember them being up. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been going month-by-month in the archives, but I can't find them yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the "what links here" from the sex pistols article and it wasn't listed there either. Raul654 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess we leave it be? I can't find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of Punk rock, which was up in March 2004, and linked to Sex Pistols in the blurb? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like Sex Pistols is in the archives from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2004 backwards; I went back a few months but couldn't find it. Gary King (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some months ago I had a script check the first bold link in every TFA subpage and verify/add that the corresponding talk page had a matching maindate= parameter. If the talk page does not have maindate=, it wasn't in a TFA subpage as they existed in April 2008. (This check did not exclude the possibility that some talk pages have maindate= pointing to an incorrect TFA blurb.) I also have a list of the articles checked, and "sex pistols" isn't there.Gimmetrow 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope somebody brought pizza and Dr. Pepper :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Scripts don't need to sleep :) Gimmetrow 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2003 lists it as being "Promoted in October 2003 and before" with it as not being on the main page. Halgin (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'm thinking of the punk rock main page blurb. I guess it stays marked as not-been-on-main-page until someone proves otherwise. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ACF Regionals answers

I'd like to look after the Robert Burns & Paul Klee articles at least, but am tied down with FAR for a bit. So a week or so, and sure. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exmoor as today's FA

Why is the date set to 24 July? I scheduled it for 19 October, because that's when it became a national park as discussed on the FA of the day requests talk page. Is it possible you could find another article for this date and postpone Exmoor? bsrboy (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bsrboy, the WP:TFA/R page is not where "scheduling" is done; it's where requests are submitted, subject to a five-request limit. The advice you were given there is that you'd have the best chance of getting one of the five slots on that date; that Raul scheduled it sooner shouldn't be a problem. For Raul to re-schedule is a huge amount of work; I recommend keeping the slot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's too much work then that's fine, but I would just like to inform you that it became a national park on 19 October 1954. bsrboy (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't always have to be a date connection; that's just one factor in mainpage scheduling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I look forward to 24 July then. (unless it changes) bsrboy (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

TFAR, new proposed changes

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#New proposed changes. Confusion about definition of "basic subject matter for a twelve-year-old", several other proposals, and in particular, can you look at Item F regarding the 30-day period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

About the point for what a 12-year-old might write a report on - yes, it should be changed! It's *really* subjective and needs to be replaced with something objective. (When I first described that point, I freely admitted that it was entirely subjective and that this could cause problems, but I couldn't think of something better) And if nobody's imaginative enough to think of one, you're best off recruiting a 12 year old somewhere on the project and asking him to be referee :)

For the 30 day window - the truth is that I don't like to turn down requests, but I don't want every day to be done by request. And the only way I can do both is to keep the ratio of requests to the request window small (5 requests per 30 days in the future). So for that reason, I'd prefer to keep the window as-is. Raul654 (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We are completely stalled on a decent working definition of the 12-yo concept; it makes perfect sense to me, but issues occur because many editors stretch the concept to include the point, resulting in friction. Stumped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing you could do is pick one or more reference works for kids (like this one), and give a point for topics that are represented in those works. Raul654 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm, gonna go dig around in my basement bookshelves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even have to be kids' encyclopedias - just pick a few general purpose, size-limited encyclopedias - preferably online ones for convience, and give a point for articles that they contain. Raul654 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good; I want to browse some of mine to see how they match. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Best admin ever

U know what, u are really strange...u really are! u just do not wanna discuss so that u just move articles to a protection level that prohibits others from sharing their points of view, and i think that they are usually right, but u just do not want to bother ur self discussing. the article should probably be protected from u. No wonder i found ur user name at the wikimania conference today as an example of users who do not use wikipedia the way it should be used. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the future when editing articles, please do not add claims that are (a) patently false [like your claims about Nickelgrass being the largest American airlift ever], (b) redundant [like mentioning Nickelgrass 2 paragraphs after it is already mentioned and linked], (c) falsely cited [like your claims that Americans were involved, cited to an article that said no such thing], (d) cited using a broken link, and (e) written in broken english. And if you don't understand why these things are detrimental to articles - or why edit warring after being told that your edits, being all of the above, is likewise detrimental- perhaps you need to re-evaluate your participation on this project. Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who deleted the claim about the niclegrass when i knew i was wrong. I copied the link, and pasted it, and even tested it, so even if it is broken that would be some thing that i did not know about, and that u should have pointed out to me to fix it. I then asked u to delete the part that u believe they should be deleted, rather than the whole contribution. BTW, i was ready to delete the claim about the american pilots as soon as we start discussing that on the talk page. For my english, i cannot find a rule that gives u the right to delete some thing because it is not well written. u could have fixed it instead, or place a tag that the subarticle needs to be improved regarding the way it's written.

The point is actually, u know all that, and did not need some one to say it to u, so it's very strange how u act. In case u did not know, it's very strange that u are an admin !

What i am saying is that u do not discuss, u just act as if u are the only one interested, or have the right to be interested in the article. Let us discuss the article in it's own talk page, please. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You "deleted" your patently false claim after I removed it once (saying it was false) and you then re-added it! You don't get credit for re-adding false claims and then deleting them. You shouldn't have re-added them *at all*.

As for testing the link, there is no way that this link - http://http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_266.shtml - could never work. Notice the double http:// in front. You did not test it within the article.

BTW, i was ready to delete the claim about the american pilots as soon as we start discussing that on the talk page. - how generous of you. In the future, how about instead of edit warring to re-insert falsely cited information that's already been deleted once, you don't add it in the first place?

For my english, i cannot find a rule that gives u the right to delete some thing because it is not well written. - Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for half-literate writing, especially not featured articles. If it wasn't already perfectly obvious to you, let me clear it up - Wikipedia articles should be written in grammatically and syntactically correct english. It is not every else's job to clean up your work.

u could have fixed it instead, or place a tag that the subarticle needs to be improved regarding the way it's written. - See above, re: it is not every else's job to clean up your work. But in fact I better than that. I removed the offending passage. That way, the featured article you were editing stays clear of tags, badly written english, false claims, falsely cited information, and broken citations. Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is this story about Wikimania? Is it one big gossip fest, or is that an untrue claim? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the "story" : [[2]]

Complaints lodged against you

Hi Raul, Please note that User:Mrg3105 has lodged complaints against you on three different noticeboards: [3], [4] [5] over you proposing a different name to Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation and then voting in a straw poll. He's also trying to get me sacked as an assistant coordinator at the Military History Wikiproject ([6]) for restoring the poll after he removed it and voting in it. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

After 3 very pleasant days vacationing in New Orleans/Baton Rouge with my girlfriend, what a thing that is to come back to. Anyway, apparently Mrg3105 is currently blocked and there's some discussion on ANI, including specific references to his behavior towards you and me. I just paged back through his article contribs, and it looks like he does his share of useful article editing, so I'd hate for him to end up perma-blocked. But with that said, his recent behavior towards you and me (and others on the talk page) is flatly unacceptable. Raul654 (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lamentation of Christ, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I'm surprised that it only got 2 edits while it was up. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

June 21 Dispatch

Wikipedia:FCDW/July 21, 2008, written by Karanacs, I had only a quick glance, and Tony hasn't looked yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I made some tweaks there, but it's otherwise an excellent history of the FA procedure. Karnacs deserves a big pat on the back for putting it together.

One thing did bother me - I could *swear* I added the stability criterion because someone nominated Beslan school hostage crisis while the event was going on (or very shortly thereafter) and the article was in complete flux. However, I checked the FA criteria page history. I added the stability criteria wit this edit, citing "some recent FAC noms" as my reason. But Beslan took place months before that edit, and wasn't nominated on the FAC until the following month. So I must be remembering the order of events incorrectly. I do wish I could remember which noms stimulated me to add that criteria, though. Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks, added some links, and submitted it; Tony will likely go through again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A little glitch: Pete's analysis referred to the original 110 brilliant prose articles from August 2001. My later analysis of longest FAs referred to the earliest version of the FA page, from December 2001.[7] The difference is Comet and Rudyard Kipling being among the oldest. Where do I find the first Aug 2001 version of Brilliant prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Marskell raised the same question on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FA question

Hey. You probably have no idea of who I am, but I have a question about FAs(I asked you cause you're the FA director). I want to promote Bush flying to FA, and I have a question. Two books I borrowed from the library state different things for the origin. Should I just say some of its original purposes, or should I say the actually flights? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two books I borrowed from the library state different things for the origin. - say that there's disagreement as to how the term originated, and give both origins (and cite both sources). Raul654 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you the director on the main page FA?

You might want to read this page! Steven Walling (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Snowcrash.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Snowcrash.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

T206 TFA

Note: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 27, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently featured

Just want to mention that, for the archives on Today's Featured Article as displayed here, the article T206 is not the same as T206 Honus Wagner. The former is not even close to achieving featured status. There is still a day and a half left (as of this writing) to make the correction. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO again

The ongoing saga. GimmeBot finally took over the archiving of that page (I heaved a huge sigh of relief), and now a Wiki programmer change has busted Gimme's bot work, creating extra work for him. Who uses that GO page anyway? I'd be happy to abandon it unless we find it has a useful purpose. Followup at User talk:Gimmetrow#WP:GO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the archiving itself isn't broken. More at link. Gimmetrow 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

I've been concerned about some of your checkuser blocking patterns and have opened up a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_amount_of_Rangeblocks_by_Raul654. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey raul, I'm not sure if you're still watching the thread there, I just had a question regarding these hardblocks:

1. 207.195.224.0/19 - 1 year ACB
2. 68.27.123.0/24 - 1 year ACB
3. 205.212.78.0/24 - 1 year ACB
4. 128.241.109.0/24 - 1 year ACB
5. 209.59.44.0/24 - 1 year ACB

Other than the first one that specifically mentions it's a range of open proxies, is there a reason the rest of hard blocked? I'm just trying to sort out how to respond to unblock requests from these ranges. Offer to create an account and grant IPBlockexempt flag or...? –xeno (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't use ranged blocks that affect logged in users unless the range is empty of non-scibaby users (or virtually so). They should stay blocked. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So if a seemingly new editor were to request unblocking from one of those ranges, would the proper procedure be to create an account with IP block exempt or soften the block? –xeno (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not all that sure how the IP exempt tags work - they're a pretty new feature and I don't have all that much experience with them. But more to the point - we can cross that bridge if we come to it. Raul654 (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it would basically let the account edit through the hardblock. I'll drop by your page if I ever get an unblock request from one of those ranges. cheers, –xeno (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If it does come up, I think the best thing to do would be to change the range block to no-anons-no-account-creation, and hard block a narrower range (that includes Scibaby but excludes the person who wants to be unblocked). Raul654 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

k, i'll let you know if it comes up. thanks, –xeno (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

TFA July 29th

Just a gentle reminder that TFA for the 29th is empty. KnightLago (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

I performed this in order to remove any complaint from the DYK group because time was slowly running out, you were not around, and I figured you could edit it later. I hope you do not mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Editing on Sunday

I also find it difficult to exercise in hot weather. I usually wait until the evening. A few years ago I almost blacked out when running in the heat. Anyway, when the people at ANI were becoming impatient, I thought that was unreasonable. At Wikipedia, we are volunteers, not employees who are always on call. Count Iblis (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article General Board of the United States Navy, 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.

--Wizardman 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Raul, are you around? Marskell archived the Reagan FAR, [8] [9] and the nominator brought it right back.[10] The same transcluded FAR is now at FAR and in the archive; GimmeBot hasn't been through yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot has come through, so we have an archived FAR listed at WP:FAR now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to remove it, but I just checked and it is not there now. So I consider the matter closed. Raul654 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Joelito and Marskell each got to it ... removed twice, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Manchuria

Hi Raul, is Mrg breaking the conditions of his restriction by proposing this move? It seems to me to be a continuation of his disruptive behavior over the article and unwillingness to accept what is a very clear consensus over its title. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I banned him from the article, but I didn't specify the ban so as to include the talk page. So no, I'd say that his latest posts there do not violate the ban. On the other hand, his single-minded pursuit of this is rapidly wearing down my patience. Raul654 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be wearing down your patience with insistence on basing renaming of articles on facts and not opinions, but does adding and also included in editing ban?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PS.

Single-mindedness—Creatively divergent thinking which sees through, over, under, between, around and beyond the warring, polar opposite pairs of realities we imagine with our words, thinking, acting and communicating.

so in fact Wikipedia promotes

dualistic thinking—dividing things into this or that and then making further dualistic judgments about the pairs of “opposites” we create with our words. Everything is either this or that and this is either good or bad, and that is either true or false.[11]

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming related reverts

Fair warning - if you continue to blindly revert good faith edits without discussion towards reaching consensus (bold-revert-discuss) I will initiate dispute resolution. Demonstratable edit warring is bad form for an Administrator, IMHO. Jaimaster (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you do not stop censoring valid and well sourced edits and deleting useful and well referenced new articles like my "Wikipropaganda" (shown below) I will also initiate dispute resolution. ~~ Rameses (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on re-inserting that nonsense, Rameses, I'm going to block you, as I should have done when I caught your two previous sockpuppets. Raul654 (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to us on the denial catagorisation and "see also" in climate change denial. I have assembled my case against your block warning as intimidation and your own reverting as edit warring here. I am going to invite comment from administrator Misza13 on their talk page, an administrator I have found completely at random from the administrator list and who appears to mostly be interested in chess. You are welcome to respond yourself or request others to do so of course.

I will also drop a note on John's talk page as I still believe his threat to block me for continuing my edits is inconsistent as no such notice was presented to yourself for your reversions.

Jaimaster (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Rameses

I endorse this block, but I was going to block him myself and you beat me to it. Remember there are lots of other admins out there if you ever need a second opinion of a block or anything else, to avoid the appearance of blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute, not something which applies in this case I think though, this was clearly a disruptive editor at work. --John (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock?

This [12], from the only non global warming article so far, seems to fit a pattern (one of the wikilinks leads to a disambiguation page with no relevant entry, the other was already in the article). N p holmes (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Has he run out of socks to use? 168.143.117.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he had one hiding behind that IP. Raul654 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles -> Portal:Featured articles

Similar to the move/redirect yesterday that I've never learned how to sort without admin tools, someone just moved Featured articles, its talk page, and its archiving to a portal !! How come other editors know how to undo and fix these kinds of moves, and I don't? I don't know how to fix it or why it was done. There is no button I can find for undoing a move or fixing a move over a redirect. I guess I'm dumber than the average bear, but in the meantime, Featured articles has been moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to retype the old name in the move box and you need to be an admin to move over a redirect page with more than one edit. I also have no idea what is going on and there are a lot of page moves to revert. Woody (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit summaries for the moves cite Portal talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace, but that discussion was inconclusive and there has been no activity in that thread for the past 7 months. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see now, he used the move with subpages tab, that is easy to reverse, should it be reversed though? Woody (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; let's wait to hear from Raul. I seem genetically impaired when it comes to figuring out moves (others have tried to teach me), and I made a big mess yesterday trying to sort a FAC. I'm in no hurry; I'll wait to do anything until we hear from Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this move should be done until the regulars have had a chance to chime in. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale in favor of a confusing setup in which some featured content pages are in the Wikipedia namespace and others are in the portal namespace? —David Levy 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia namespace is for Wikipedia-related activites. The FA process (and the featured pic, list, topic, and sound processes) are clearly Wikipedia-related. They have always been in the Wikipedia namespace. Perhaps a few of them were put in the portal namespace (I'm not sure) but certainly the vast majority were (correctly, IMO) in the Wikipedia namespace. Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what sets these pages apart from portals. —David Levy 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been no activity because the page actually was moved back then. It's remained in its new location since then, and two other featured content pages were in the portal namespace, so why on Earth shouldn't the rest be? It's the correct namespace for portals. —David Levy 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The page was moved by you 21 minutes ago. The odd vandalism here and there not withstanding, it's been at the same place it's been for years. Raul654 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion in question was about moving Wikipedia:Featured content to Portal:Featured content. That's the move to which I was referring. Additionally, prior to my moves, two other featured content pages were located in the portal namespace, so we had a seemingly random mishmash. Why, in your opinion, does it make sense to leave some of these pages (but not others) in a namespace intended for editors instead of having all of them in a namespace intended for precisely this type of reader-oriented page? —David Levy 20:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion of the move have been brought up on WT:FA? Not everyone checks portal space. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the main featured content page was moved many months ago. Was that not a visible enough indicator? —David Levy 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not, since this came as a surprise to the FAC directors and several FAC regulars. :) Don't be mad; let's discuss this calmly. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all mad. I'm just frustrated by the anger directed toward me for a well-intentioned undertaking that was easily reversed. I appreciate your call for calmness.  :) —David Levy 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably partly my fault, David. I got in the middle of fixing a FAC just last night when the nominator moved the article, and when he moved it back halfway through my fixes, I was unable to put Humpty Dumpty back together since I don't have admin tools. I started the section here as a "grrrr ... " because of my own frustration about understanding moves over redirects, and that set a bad tone for the discussion. For that, I apologize. Perhaps we should now find a better place to hold a broader discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's clear that I should have done that in the first place. I'd be very surprised if there weren't consensus to have all of the pages in question in one namespace or the other. —David Levy 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Namespace for featured content pages. —David Levy 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. David Levy has moved them again, so I'll take the evening off :-) Looking at featured content, best I can tell, Articles, Lists, Pictures and Topics are in Wikipedia space, while Portals and Sounds are in Portal Space. I'm quite surprised that David Levy has reverted the revert without discussion, and considering the discussions here and on his talk page. (Raul, please change the poor section heading I chose here if needed; I'll take greater care with my section headings in the future, but when I started the thread, I thought it was only about my move-impairment.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the section header to something more appropriate.

David has not moved them again. The order was David moved it to Portal with subpages, I moved it to Wikipedia (without subpages), I self-reverted, then moved it back to Wikipedia with subpages. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks (don't know where I picked up a record of a non-existent extra step; perhaps two tabs open, and looking at older tab.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no intention of reverting. I mistakenly regarded these moves as uncontroversial and wouldn't have carried them out if I'd known otherwise. —David Levy 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, getting back to the point at hand - I'm not committed one way or the other to where it should go. I agree that we should be consistent, but I think the Wikipedia namespace is a more appropriate than the portal namespace for all featured content. I am sure, however, that David should not have moved it based on a 7-month old discussion in an obscure location without letting the FA people know ahead of time. Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I cited the discussion to point out the reason why the original move was performed back then. I based these moves on the fact that the high-profile page in question remained in place for all of these months without controversy.

And I seriously would like to know why you feel that the pages in question are substantially different from portals. —David Levy 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking through some of the pieces now. At minimum, before moving anything related to featured content, I'd want to make sure we heard from WP:FAC (Raul and me :-), WP:FAR (Marskell (talk · contribs) and Joelr31 (talk · contribs)), WP:FLC (The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs)) and the three guys behind a lot of scripts and bots that make everything go (Gimmetrow (talk · contribs), Rick Block (talk · contribs) and Dr pda (talk · contribs)). Some months back, Marskell had some ideas about centralizing talk discussions. Also, the move raises a number of questions. What about FAC and FAR archives? What about WP:GO? What about the templates and instruction pages? What are the limits/boundaries to what all gets moved? How does that impact all the bots and scripts? And, in terms of something like WP:SIGNPOST, how is Wikipedia space defined anyway, relative to a Portal? Just moving FA and its talk page raises a lot of questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Various information/background:

1. The featured content page (hereafter 'FC') was originally created purely as a small 'showcase' portal in January of 2006, but was quickly incorporated into redesigns of the sidebar and main page going on around that time, given an integrated look and navigation structure with the other 'featured' pages, and moved to Wikipedia space in March by CJ.
2. Most of the 'featured' pages predate the FC page and were created in the Wikipedia namespace. The two featured types, sounds and topics, which were introduced after FC were created during the period FC was in the Wikipedia namespace and thus originally resided there also.
3. In December of 2007 the FC page was moved back to the Portal namespace along with some of the types of featured pages. This move was performed by Ruud Koot after discussion on the featured content talk page.
4. Because of its links from the sidebar and main page the FC page gets very high readership (consistently in the top 100 Wikipedia pages). However, because it is generally uncontroversial and requires fairly limited maintenance it attracts little discussion. This explains why the page is described as 'high profile' by some and 'low profile' by others. It is viewed alot, but discussed little.

• I think this last point is the heart of the original dispute. The FC talk page is sometimes treated as a central discussion point for ALL types of featured content. For instance, the consistent color scheme for the various types of featured pages was worked out there. However, the page isn't really watched by everyone involved in these processes... indeed, I suspect alot of people never even realized there was a color scheme. :]
• As to what to do going forward. I think we should first resolve what namespace 'makes most sense'. Any technichal issues deriving from that should be fairly easy to resolve. If the different types of featured pages (FA, FP, FL, FPo, FT, and FS) contained nothing but instructions for the 'featured' promotion process, guides to creation of featured items, et cetera then I think they would clearly belong in the Wikipedia space... they would be purely pages about the project. However, since they contain links to actual encyclopedia content of a particular type they stray into the traditional realm of 'portals'... id est 'pages providing navigation to both project processes and encyclopedia content'. The FC page goes much further in this direction than the others because it has 'showcase' boxes for the various types of featured content... consistent with general portal design. A case could thus be made for FC being in Portal space and the rest in Wikipedia space, but I'd prefer to keep them all together given the common navigation structure and obvious relationship. All that said, I've got no real preference which namespace they end up in. --CBD 22:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That explains a lot. Except for vandalism, the talk page there has only about 25 posts in 2008. I've never even been to that page; I guess I shall have to watchlist it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Old uploads

Hi Mark. I noticed you uploaded Image:Sea Gull 2.jpg back in '04. I have moved this one to Commons, but I would appreciate it if you could move any other old uploads of free images you might have made there as well. I don't think there is any easy way to see a list (which there should be...) unless you know something I don't, but you can search contribs just for images.

Maybe you could also geocode this image (assuming you remember where it was taken)? Richard001 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plan Dog memo, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

In case you haven't noticed, WP:AN#user:Ceiling Cat. - auburnpilot talk 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly. I need a pet. In getting through my morning watchlist, I actually got to AN before I got a chance to check all the diffs on my own talk page and find that someone had reverted a message. CNN today announced 100,000 previously undiscovered gorillas in Africa; maybe I can get a pet gorilla for my grrrrrrr-ing.  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Raul, I didn't realise Ceiling Cat was a legitimate sock of you. I came across an edit by Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) on my watchlist directed at several people's talkpages with "spam-like messages" with an edit summary "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ". I then checked it's block-log. Without even realising what the date said, it said the account had been blocked indefinitely, hence why I went to AN to request all the subpages deletion. It didn't even occur to me it was your "cat" until someone mentioned it there. D.M.N. (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Innocent mistake, DMN, but the message might have helped cheer me out of an I-lost-my-favorite-bot funk :-) Sometimes fun is just what the doctor ordered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow - the AN thread is... surreal. Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and getting more bizarre by the minute. I could really dump on that thread, since it seems to be the cat's edits to my page that led to it and I'm curious about how others are drawing conclusions about edits to my page, but I've decided to sit on my fingers and bite my tongue, for once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - DMN, I accept your apology. Raul654 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Travel

Raul, I'm going to be traveling from about 28 or 29 Aug to 3 or 4 Sep. As always, the travel preparations and the afterburn will consume more of my time than the actual travel, and I may have decent hotel internet access, but I'll be a busy in the surrounding days. Will you be around late August, early Sept to cover? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be traveling from Friday August 29 to Monday September 1 (inclusive). I think we can leave the FAC on autopilot for a weekend. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know how you sort these. Would an article like Edward VIII abdication crisis go in Royalty or Law at WP:FA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

On reflection

I have been reflecting on the discussion over the Manchurian article, and can only express regret that the debate turned ugly, for which I accept partial responsibility. However, I would like to ask you to also look at your own comment in this post in retrospect. How do you expect me to reply to your suggestion to rename the article merely because the title seemed to you "lousy"? I wonder whether "Barbarossa" appears "lousy" to you as well, but this is a side question. What I was suggesting, is a different title based on it being "less lousy" despite it not being found as a name of this action in a singe source. Don't you think there is a problem when content gets changed according to personal tastes of editors rather than sources? I think there are other options to Soviet invasion of Manchuria aside from the fully written out translation of the original that need to be examined also--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Blossoming friendship or Everyfrustrations

I got as frustrated as anyone whenever Everyking would make a mess at something tense that I worked hard to remedy, by just not bothering to take two minutes to review whatever he was talking about [and I realize it's difficult to swallow him denying such a problem existed —though in fairness(?) to him, that's consistent with his position throughout] but approaching him via a condescending History of himself that can equip him to better "con" the Arbcom (at its current state, far from a feat!), only serves to provoke and antagonize him. So, deep breath, onward & upward! El_C 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that description there because I noticed he was (again) trying to rewrite history in his favor, and (again) putting words in my mouth. As I said in my closing sentence - although it was written in the second person, he wasn't really the intended audience of what I wrote. My concern is more with him conning new users with his twisted version of history. If the price of educating these people is that Everyking gets a little harsh reality injected into the fantasyland he's constructed, well I suppose that's the price of doing business. With that said, though, I think I've done just that so I intend to let the matter drop. Raul654 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"you used admin powers to give someone privacy violating material from some deletion revisions" Did he, now? As I remember it he never actually posted those revisions. Haukur (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, you're right - he offered to provide the revisions, but things blew up before he could go through with it. My mistake - it happened a while ago and I mis-remembered that part. Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he offered to provide those revisions then several days passed without him doing it. Then you desysopped him. Why didn't he post the revisions? He certainly had plenty of time. His explanation was that he simply thought better of it. I believe that, you may choose not to. Haukur (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Plan Dog Debate

Hey friend. I just wanted to apologize for my indignance in an arguement that we entertained on the above article. I am new to wiki-world, but eager to jump in, and I promise that the diligence necessary will be worked hard for. My early statements were unclear (too much time in forums and chat) little care for grammar and spelling (as above) and quickness to publish while emotional (i still miss the flamewars of the old days). I respect your work, love wiki, and feel it is essential for more individuals like myself to care for her as a social/educational movement that could revolutionize access to information. Sorry to have gotten off to a bad start. I am not a vandal, and before actually registering kept my edits to fixing vandalism when it showed its ugly head.

As to the weight given to a phrase or sentance in the first line, I do feel that the original, unedited statement could have been understood differently than you did. I know that is confusing, but let me explain. The original is this:

The Plan Dog memorandum was a 1940 American government document written by Chief of Naval Operations Harold Rainsford Stark; it has been called "one of the best known documents of World War II".

The edit that seems most obvious, and how I had originally read it, would have read like this:

The Plan Dog memorandum was a 1940 American government document written by Chief of Naval Operations Harold Rainsford Stark. It has been called "one of the best known documents of World War II".

Your edit was more appropriate and, in my opinion, gave the "offending" statement less weight in the article. Again, I am not saying that the statement should have been removed entirely (I know I did momentarily, but we are all taken by evil humours at times, thus the ability to edit our statements), but given less weight due to it being opinion, especially opinion coming from consensus. ("Best known," I am not refering to the sourcing.) As the article stands, I would not change a thing. CancelHoo72 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sarah Knauss.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah Knauss.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Brick

Can I nominate somebody for one of your bricks of common sense? [13] Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is required

On the TGGWS talk page, see [14], Badger Drink is asserting ArbCom rulings do not set precedents. Since this obviously has implications for your argument regarding the ArbCom ruling on pseudo-science requiring peer-reviewed sources in science articles (when no official wikipedia policy includes such a requirement), I thought you might want to weigh in there. --GoRight (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Doppelganger

Today's New York Times "Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the Man of Many Heads" p. B26 has a bust of Cardinal Scipione Borghese (1632) by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. The bust is on loan to the Getty Art Museum, in Los Angeles, from Italy, in exchange for the repatriation of 40 pieces. The bust reminded me of you, having seen you in person at Wikimania 2006. The article notes specifically that Bernini executed the Cardinal's portrait with affection, showing Borghese's "rock-solid stability". That is also one of your attributes, in my opinion. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This one? Raul654 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Sea Gull 2.jpg

. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Laughing Gull juvenile.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)