User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:36, 2 February 2006

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

Is it possible to have "old" and "new" FA tags?

I think it's great to see the "in a previous version" bit in the FA tag. However, linking as it does to the History page isn't too helpful, probably more confusing than anything. It would be good to link directly to the promoted version. I assume the current implementation is done so as not to break the existing FA tags. Is it possible to have a new FA tag, so the current promotions can be explicitly linked to their promoted versions, while existing FA tags won't be broken? --Tsavage 05:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:QuickTime to Theora

Hi! Thanks for the link... although I had already made it work after many, many hours in front of the computer! I've appended additional notes for those users with QuickTime Pro [1]. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Neto rampage

Sorry to bang on, and you might actually already be aware, but we have a WP:OWN problem here. I know you have supported Neto in the past, but it now turns out that the main plank of his argument might not be as solid as was thought. Basically Brion has expressed surprise that people are invoking the mantra of "the servers can't take it" in their ongoing struggle against the template system: it certainly is not the combined opinion of the developers as a group. Neto's response ("He would say that wouldn't he" is possibly the low point but trawling all the way through the history is more than I can bear right now) has hardly been helpful, conciliatory or respectful. He is now, as I suggested, giving the appearance of a WP:OWN campaign, a situation which apparently is not a new one.

I'm posting this to David Gerard and to you in the hope that your combined wisdom might be brought to bear upon the situation before someone gets hurt. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia

I no longer seek/need op powers. After beeing banned for requesting a ban on MARMOT I have no reason to be among people who keep trolls/vandals over good users. I dont intend to ever join #wikipedia hence op access is redundent. Sorry for bothering you with the access issue, I shouldn't have requested it. --~~Cool~~ Cat^Talk|@ 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And man do archive this page. --~~Cool~~ Cat^Talk|@ 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote here

exscuse me but also Muriel has done this trying to get people to delete this article important for a monarchic branch. This is democratic encyclopedia and so this page has right to stay here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Using video

Since your name is mentioned on Wikipedia:Media#Video as being willing to offer advice, I wondered whether you can tell me whether there is a Wiki-syntax for creating a link to an (ogg/theora) video which rather than showing the (somewhat naff) default 'video' icon, uses a specified image instead? Something equivalent to <a href="vid.ogg"><img src="thumb.jpg"></a>. Thanks, cdv 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's are templates for vorbis (videos) and theora (sounds). Here is an example of the video template and here is an example of the audio template. Raul654 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry Raul654 about the Wikipedia:Featured articles, i didn't know?

sorry again Pece Kocovski 00:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right - we all make mistakes. Raul654 03:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser

Hi, Sorry for the delay, I've now replied on my talk page. -- Curps 03:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued on your talk page. Raul654 03:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political integration of India

Raul, can you please consider promoting Political integration of India today? The article has got 12 support votes with no objections and all suggestions from voters resolved. It would be fitting to promote it on India's Republic Day. Thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been on the FAC for two days - I usually promote after 5 days, or maybe 4 at a minimum. Raul654 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you here

Raul, Hi
Although I've only created an account fairly recently(1) I've been a Wikipedia fan & editor since March. That's when I read a Wired article about Jimmy and Wikipedia. That article inspired me. Looking at your user page/picture today I recognized you were one of the people featured in that article. Cool, I feel like I met a celebrity of sorts. Thx for your work & dedication, —Achille 2006-01-26 21:52Z

[1] - Darn restrictions forced me to create an acct, i'm now a wikipediaholic.

Why thank you. Here is a page pertaining to the wired article -- it's about the meetup where we met Dan Pink (who wrote the article). He got to listen into our discussion and ask us questions. Raul654 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brick

Thank you, I am honored. I've stuck it on my userpage, and sincerely hope that I won't need to hit anybody with it (but then, my cluebat broke yesternight, so who knows? :) ) R adiant _>|< 03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur

Unarchived FAC

Hi Raul654, I unarchived Australia at the Winter Olympics. Andjam 14:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why? Raul654 17:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had dealt with the objections. I was mistaken, so I've undone the unarchiving. Sorry. Andjam 06:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lir

heh, i'm having some year lag i guess. I thought that was the diff you just added. ;p --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 19:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 v. OGG

Hey, posted a reply re: MP3 vs. OGG.

Any suggestions as to what step to take to get this issue re-considered by the powers that be? From what I've seen, there has been a lot of support for adding MP3 (or some other common alternative) to Spoken Wikipedia and audio articles. -WAZAAAA 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can beg Jimbo to reconsider, but realistically it's not going to happen. Raul654 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of crazy OGG/Wikipedia connection other than the fact that they are both open source? Shared developers, or what? Can we somehow choose a format realistically--objectively? -WAZAAAA 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the connection is philophical. We want our information (article text, pictures, audio, and video media) to be as free as possible. To that end, it is a sine qua non that whatever format we use not be patented, which rules out virtually all common audio and video file formats. Ogg vorbis and theora are totally, 100% open - which is why we use them. Raul654 05:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I feel like audio and video are two totally separate issues. There is no huge winner in clash of the video formats, and it can be hard to find a codec that works, so I support theora in that sense. But the compressed audio (and audio in general) war was won years ago, and MP3 is the de facto standard. OGG is such a small improvement over MP3, users have little to no reason to switch. I get why the software exists, I respect it. But MP3s have become the .jpegs, the .gifs, the .wavs. IANAL, but I believe the first two mentioned were somewhat legally ambiguous? There is little argument to be made for Fraunhofer crippling players and restricting anything, the worst I think they've done was get pissed at Winamp in 1999 for not using an ISO MP3 decoder. I don't know, I guess I'm just pissed off I found this great new feature of Wikipedia (spoken wiki) and it's a giant pain for those around me to use it. I might mention that most library computers don't allow software to be installed, especially codecs, and pretty much every library everywhere doesn't have OGG. And in places that still carry four times as many VHSes as DVDs, new formats take a long, long time to catch on. Sorry for all the crazy rants and such, WAZAAAA 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I think you are overstating the effort required to support these formats. There are (literally) dozens of vorbis-capable players for all major operating systems (including Winamp). Ditto for hardware players - my cheap Samsung YP-Mt6 plays ogg. Raul654 06:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My zaurus played OGG too, I just think Wikipedia should consider the amount of users already with technologies. # iPods > # everything else. # MP3-ready computers > #OGG, or any other alternative-ready computers. If WikiCommons is worried about the harddrive space required to host both types of files, they should look objectively at what the effect of having MP3s would be. -WAZAAAA 06:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagle

-seen message, got to go out very soon, will check asap, but may not be today. jimfbleak 06:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why this isn't an adult. Even 3-year-old birds lack the white head and tail, and show much white flecking on the brown body plumage. Your bird has a solidly white head and tail, solidly yellow beak (3rd years mainly dark) andessentially unmarked brown body plumage - all diagnostic of adult plumage. There is a single pale feather on the breast, but this is not unusual in eagle species. I've seen a few Bald Eagles in Canada and Florida, and I would certainly have put this down as an adult. jimfbleak 17:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right - I've changed the caption accordingly. Raul654 17:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are see also sections evil?

as you wrote here. It was pretty tiny...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it brings us back to that question that if-it's-important-enough-to-merit-a-mention-then-it-should-be-mentioned-in-the-text. Raul654 17:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

(from User talk:Joy Stovall)

Regarding this edit - you removed a number of interwiki links, deleted section of informations, and introduced at least one grammatical error, but the edit summary simply stated you were removing a link. I'm assuming it wasn't your intention to make such big changes and that something simply went wrong, so I've reverted it. Raul654 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, thanks for reverting the edit. That is absolutely bizarre; I only removed a spammed link, as here. Is it possible for 2 people's edits to get mingled together on one dif? Joyous | Talk 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My best guess is that you somehow reverted to a very old version of the page. Raul654 18:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahhhh.... That would make sense, as I was tracing backwards through the history to try and find just when the link was added. I bet I forgot to edit the current version, rather than the old one. Thanks for solving the mystery. And fixing the damage. Joyous | Talk 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

idiotic comments

Raul,

As I was checking up on Xed's behavior today, I was distressed at his needlessly contentious attitude on Clerks. I was also distressed to see you remark about people coming out of the woodwork with "idiot comments". I'll simply note that I consider myself far from an idiot. I'd invite you to identify which of my comments, or those of mark, or those of danny yee, or those of banyantree you consider "idiotic". I'd also note that the members of arbcom are apparently shockingly easily persuaded by "idiocy" as several of them have now changed their votes, or abstained, based on "idiotic" community concerns coming out of the "woodwork". Perhaps I misinterpret your intended meaning, if so I apologize and simply suggest you be a bit more careful about phrasing.

I have also raised the same point with Jtkiefer, who seemed to be following up your comment by labeling those who commented as "trolls", User_talk:Jtkiefer#trolls. While I can understand your frustration with Xed, and indeed I am quite pissed as someone who stuck my neck out for him, neither your attitude nor that of Jtkiefer strikes me as particularly civil either.

Derex 20:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the sentiments of above person --Comrade Jesus (13) 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (14 year old socialist)[reply]

I admit I was a bit intemperate in my comments there - I did not meant to imply that everyone who commented negatively was an idiot, and I'm sorry if you were offended. Raul654 01:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand upon the above a bit - I welcome constructive comments and criticisms on the talk page (and, in fact, have used them to refine the proposal since I first wrote it). Xed's comment was far from both. Raul654 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pun

A couple of anonIP's have been changing the biography in this article to one found from [2]. The latter specifically states that "Wikipedia may use this," but I just wnated to make sure that that's a kosher thing to do. Let me know, jglc | t | c 02:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough. The target website needs to have a disclaimer saying the page is licensed under the GFDL Raul654 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Khoikhoi

Alright, I'll keep an eye on him.--Shanel 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Raul654 02:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSS verification

Can you take a look at Template:Featured article. It creates a star at the top of a page. I'm concerned about possible collisions with site notices or other kinds of screw ups. Can you verify that this isn't likely to break easily. Raul654 06:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links to use for testing... with them you can preview it in each of the supported skins.

As you can see, MySkin and CologneBlue aren't ideal, the rest are not bad. You may want to consider designing this marking as skin-specific CSS code placed into MediaWiki:Monobook.css, and others. -- Netoholic @ 06:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not a fan of relying on templates to put articles in categories - it's a flaky mechanism and is a bit of surprise factor. It's also currently using a meta-template ("click") >:-| -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

What happens when the site notice or some other thing changes? Will that wreck havoc on this? Raul654 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible... I do remember the fundraising notice at one point appearing in that spot, but I think they were using a variation of the same method as the FA star. Just tossing out ideas.... Positioning the star immediately before or after the page title might not look bad, but would require that a simple software extention be created. Perhaps integrate with the "stable version" feature to create a super-set of stable "Featured" versions? -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, modifying the software (Mediawiki) is not an option. Additionally, I'm wary of trying to pages render with tricks like this - it's just asking for some minor change to break it. (I'm adamantly opposed to the use of this template at all). Raul654 06:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The method is fairly "forced", being that the star is set to a rigidly-fixed position. It's not at all open to user personalization. -- Netoholic @ 07:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personalization that concerns me. I'm worried that as soon as we post a new donations notice, or make some minor change in the monobook CSS, suddenly every article with template:featured article looks funny with overlappying text or other nastiness Raul654 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Prison.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Prison.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

I have said - repeatedly - that this image should probably be deleted. Raul654 07:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Commons

Raul, I'm fairly new to all of this though learning quickly. I already asked Lucky; he said you'd probably be able to help me. I'm working on translating German Geography pages to English and am in the process of putting the town info boxes on quite a few stubs I created. I've done a few already but so far have downloaded the maps and coat of arms (and other images) from the German site (example: de:Bruchsal and then uploaded them to the English site. Now my question is this: Can I assume that if they are on the German pages they all qualify for uploading to the Commons? (the warning there had me worried) If that is a valid assumption, I'd really appreciate if you have some quick instructions on how to do it and what to watch out for. Thanks in advance. --Mmounties 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the individual file (and, specifically, what license it is available under). Files with no licenses (e.g. - fair use or fail dealings) are not allowed on teh commons, and (I suspect) aren't allowed on the german wikipedia either. (About the latter point - you need to ask someone more familiar with the german wikipedia to confirm it. de:Benutzer:Elian is probably a good place to start.) Raul654 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Featured

Hi, I did this edit to Talk:History of New Jersey. I tried to change the template to allow for it to identify which version was originally chosen as featured so we could more easily find diffs for FARCs and maybe salvage any good content that was lost in the sands of time... However if you look at the URL I added it doesn't work. The reason is because of the two equal signs in the URL... If you remove them it links to anything you want. I found in this edit that you can add nowiki tags around the equal signs to fix this problem... do you have any idea why this is that way? Also, would you add the version URL when you add the template? I think it will make it much easier to fix article decay if it happens.

Also, since you made it a FA right as I was commenting on the FAC... what do you think of my comments Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of New Jersey? gren グレン ^? 09:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you have to add the nowiki signs in order to prevent mediawiki from interpreting the text as a section header and instead allow it to interpret it as a URL. Raul654 09:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to your specific criticisms - I vehemently disagree with the first one, that notes and references needs to be seperate. Katyn Massacre, currently on FAC, uses that kind of setup for its references and IT SUCKS. I'm not sure about the rest as I haven't looked at the article carefully. Raul654 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that article is worse than History of New Jersey for references... I don't think it's a necssary thing to have them separated... but at least in the case of the history article it made it easier to see what sources are and to see the notes. I think Trade and usage of saffron does an exemplary job of separating them. I changed it in this edit. Not even columns but I thought it better not to break up sections. I think the problem is that the article has so many references... and it would look even worse if you put the references and notes together... it would be longer than the article!

Also, do you plan to add the version ID number to the featured template when you add them to articles? or, is there a way to make it easier like {{featured|versionIDnumber}} instead of the whole URL and linking? In case you can't tell I think that's probably one of my more useful ideas... although no one else seems enthused :) gren グレン ^? 09:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage suggested that to me a couple weeks ago, and I tried it without much success. If someone comes up with an easy way to do it, I'll seriously consider doing it. Raul654 10:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I saw your edits re the Katyn massacre article -- at some point in the next day or two, I think I'm going to root canal the references for that page -- switch over to the new mediawiki citation style and do some major reorganizing at the end. Raul654 10:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I made it work so that {{featured|ID}} now links to the proper ID. The downside is that it's a slight hack so when no ID is listed the "version" link directs you to the current version. I couldn't figure out how to keep it directing to history... but I think the benefits of the change outweigh that negative... especially considering that until a month ago there was not even a version link. So, if you can check the article version when you add the tag and just use that style everything should work well. A lot easier than all of that no wiki stuff. I made sure to clean up the ones I had changed and moved them to the new syntax. Does that sound good? gren グレン ^? 10:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I saw how you redid references at Katyn Massacre. I do think they are bettered integrated when each note is done as you did it to one reference entry.... however, I think separate is better if notes are done as they are on History of NJ. Just to clarify. Glad you converted it. I should do that to history of NJ at somepoint gren グレン ^? 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename user

Aren't you supposed to move the fulfilled requests to the archive? Also you missed mine, which was formatted according to the directions, with the new username in the title and the old username in the signature. I guess you can't rename users at this time of day, but at least clear the requests so that mine becomes visible for the next time. Thanks. Pifvyubjwm 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my eye must have skipped over that one. I've renamed you now. Raul654 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pifvyubjwm 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for changing my user name. You also have the (dubious) honour that this page is the first where I sign with my new username. :) Garion96 ^(talk) 14:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Raul654 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriaen van der Donck summary

Hey there. There's a repeat sentence accidentally in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2006. Since it's protected I thought I'd ask you to fix it. Thanks, — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Raul654 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New picture

Your new picture looks way better. silsor 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request re Police state

Hi,

We've had a sudden influx of new users with similar style and opinions:

There's some POV pushing, some unwarrented accusations of vandalism on users' pages, and at least one fake signature. One of these users was blocked for a while, but the others have kept going.

If it's appropriate, could I trouble you to see if any or all of the above are coming from the same IP(s)?

Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't realise, but a request had already been raised at Requests for Checkuser [3], so I've also copied this to there. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Newbie

Thanks for answering that question. By the way, I noticed your image gallery and hope you enjoyed your stay here in the Sunshine State! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vacation was a blast. The week I spent on my death bed after I got back was not. (Apparently I cought a respiratory infection while I was down there; doctor told me it was close to become pnemonia). But I'm all better now, and I think the pictures came out quite good. From what I hear, it sounds like these January meet-ups in St. Petersburg are probably going to become a regular events, so I hope to see you at the next one. Raul654 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie

Raul, I agree in principle, but we really need to temporarily sprotect this for a while. The damage of readers coming across this serious vandalism is just worse than other concerns right now.--Pharos 00:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm building up an IP profile so I can do some mass blocking. Raul654 00:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good work, but shouldn't we at least sprotect for a few minutes till you can finish that? Thousands of readers are being exposed to very embarrassing material.--Pharos 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've alreay blocked two /16's (64,000 IPs each) Raul654 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAs should just be protected for the whole day they're featured. I don't understand it. Yeah, I suppose during that day they have a better chance of being improved than usual, but if they're already FA we shouldn't be too concerned about improvement, and they can wait a day to change something. Alternatively, obviously good edits could be proposed on talk and quickly done by an admin. I am pretty uncomfortable with such a high chance of a reader coming across some horrible vandalism. Not only could they be badly embarrassed or disgusted, it might turn them off of Wikipedia permanently. On normal articles we accept this risk because the payoff is much higher, but I don't believe that's the case for an FA of the day. Everyking 09:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See user:Raul654/protection for the reasons why we do not protect it. Raul654 09:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't seem like very good reasons to me. Didn't I already more or less address them above? Did you just dictate this policy as FA director, or has there been a community-based decision on it? Everyking 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't decide it - it's been our policy to avoid protecting main-page linked articles for as long as I can remember. The semi-protection one is new (for the obvious reason that semi-protection is new) but the principle holds the same. Raul654 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did that get decided in the first place? And does it reflect present conditions? Wikipedia is a more prominent site now. I think there should be a vote to resolve this issue. Everyking 10:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a wiki - it is supposed to be editable. In fact, I do believe that's one of the basic tenets of the site. And no, I don't think we should be having a vote to decide one of the basic principles that you should already know by now. Raul654 10:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A general principle shouldn't force us to deal with every particular issue in a particular way. You know good and well that the question I'm dealing with has no bearing on the general principle, which I support as firmly as anybody. We protect in cases of severe revert wars, and we protect when we're overwhelmed by vandals (although I'm not sure you endorse the second point). I'm just saying there's another particular instance in which protection is appropriate—when we can expect the level of vandalism and its harm to exceed the level at which allowing editing would be beneficial. You underestimate the extent to which your average Joe and Jane get repelled by seeing, for instance, a giant picture of a penis on a supposedly top-quality article. Aside from giving the impression of chaos, of a bunch of kids getting into mischief, it will disgust, embarrass, and/or horrify many people.

I'm not convinced by those diffs you provide on your argument page. The second two don't appear to have improved very substantially, and if that's your evidence, I've got to think those are the best examples you've got, which makes me think most FAs of the day are improved little or not at all during their moments in the sun. And I'm not convinced by your argument that having it editable makes such a great impression. Whenever I see Wikipedia mentioned on a forum, someone usually makes the point (which tends to be very effective with others) that anybody can edit, so you can't trust it. I'm not saying they're making a great argument there, because of course I fundamentally disagree with it; what I'm saying is that there is a common tendency to think less of Wikipedia when it is realized that anyone can edit it. I hypothesize that if we reduced the level of editing we allowed in some situations (eventually I'd like to see two encyclopedias, one version editable and the other uneditable except in particular circumstances by particular people), we'd actually gain more credibility. I think the editability of Wikipedia is so widely known that having FAs editable is not going to do anything significant to advance your point, to prove to readers that we are editable—people either know this already, will figure it out anyway, or won't figure it out either way. So if anything, I think protecting them gives people a better impression of our reliability and the fact that we are actually governed and there isn't chaos. Everyking 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katyń references

Tnx Raul for your conversion of references at Katyń massacre! --Piotrus

Bah, and again Piotrus beat me to it... Halibu tt 15:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur

Regarding me "overwriting" comments made by Zscout370. I don't know how it happened, but it was an accident on my part. I apoligize for this.Soothing R 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - I suspect it was a technical issue beyond your control (e.g, that you clicked edit before he had saved and thus overwrote him without realizing it) Raul654 15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What overwriting? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officiality

Thx Raul for making that de-listing official... I didn't want to overstep myself by reverting an admin but I saw the cite of WP:SNOW and thought wtf... Marskell 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Wp:snow hasn't always been listed as humor, nor is being listed as humor intended to discourage people from acting on it (there is something to be said for having a mercy rule). But if my making it official makes everyone content, then I am happy to oblidge. Raul654 15:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the votes were 14-16 with 5 days left, 6-12 with 5 days left, and 3-23 ending today. Only one was crying out for mercy and indeed the first (Benon) should probably still be up there. If they are to be removed a crat should do it, hence my note on officiality! Marskell 16:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Benon to reach even the minimum threshold for promotion (75%), he'd have to get 34 consecutive support votes. Realistically, I don't see that ever happening. Raul654 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, well, WP:SNOW (at least in its written out form) is only a couple weeks old. So I wouldn't say it has an established track record of being listed as much of anything. Dragons flight 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allied POWs

I looked into the lists of massacres-obviously they were larger massacres of civilians during WW2, but I didn't notice larger executions of military Allied personall.So it indeed seems that Katyn Massacre is one of the largest if not the largest mass murder of Allied soldiers during WW2.I will be gladly corrected If anybody nows any bigger massacre. --Molobo 16:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my rfa

I would like to enquire as to the reasons that my rfa was closed early for. it was tallyed at (14/16/12), one of those opposes was an anon hence did not count, and one had less than 100 contibs so may not have counted making it around 50/50 (alough not passing not a ceratin failure yet)[4]

I also had a spoort to come from a few pepole yet who said they would vote towards the end to hopefully tip the conseus i my favour. yet this rfa [5] was allowed to run its course depite having a hudge ammount of opposes and some of the supports and nuteruals where to "avoid pile on"

as the closing buercrat i would like to hear the reasons pleaseBenon 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above. Raul654 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair - I'm willing to restore it and let it run its course if you feel strongly about it. Raul654 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes please i would prefer my rfa to run its course, especially for some additional feedback please, thanks Benon 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 17:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes Raul, you closed down my RFA when it still had about 4 days to go. Not very nice. I would have preferred for it to run it's course. --Mb1000 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think it'll make a difference, I'll relist it. Raul654 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must add this (and I know it sounds accusatory after our brief discussion earlier) but "must get X if they are to have a hope" is only part of the issue, and I really think it bad if that logic equals delisting five days before the vote is over. Benon does have an outside chance. The second last vote, when I noticed his page, was an anon. So, you know, 31 not 34. And even if it were 3434, maybe he wants this week to take criticism and compliments and opinions. This isn't vandalism or trolling on his part (or that of Mb), it's just "OK, give me the seven days like the page says". I really think we should be careful before de-listing stuff. Marskell 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism!!!

Wiktionary is being Overrun by a vandal. You're a steward right - block him please. Can i get part-time admin rights to revert? --Dangherous 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (wikt:User:Dangherous) --Dangherous 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not a steward. However, I notified Datrio (who is a steward). He told me that "they're already on it" Raul654 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mb1000's RfA

Agreed. I just put the offer on his talk page, since sometimes people do not followup on the talk pages where they left a comment. --Durin 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

Please explicitly document the 3rr violation(s) you cited as authority to revert the article, thank you. Wyss 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Raul654 01:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't even close to being alike, serial reversions. In a couple of the diffs you've cited, completely different text is involved. Since they don't qualify as a 3rr vio, I don't think you had authority to revert back to any version. Wyss 01:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Raul654. I haven't looked to see if they're 3RR violations. (I'll take your word for it.) But I'm a bit surprised that you reverted to ROHA's version. ROHA started some time ago by suggesting that a different picture of Hitler should be used, as the one there gave too favourable an impression of Hitler. At first, he was answered very seriously and courteously, but then he began to call people nazi supporters, and make other personal attacks (some of which were removed from the talk pages). He began to edit war, by inserting his preferred image, and people began to revert him, as it went against consensus on the talk page. (I have no particular interest in the article. It's on my watchlist as it's frequently vandalized.) The article was protected a few times, simply because of him. He grossly violated 3RR, but couldn't be blocked because he used a different (though similar) IP every few minutes, though he always put ROHA in the edit summary. (I think User:Nlu did try a range block on one occasion. He was also causing problems at Bob Dylan and elsewhere. (His behaviour was discussed at one of the admins' noticeboards recently.) Several admins are aware of the problem, and have been using rollback for his picture change, even though they don't normally use rollback for non-vandalism edits. I'm not going to edit war or wheel war, but I do ask you to reconsider, since the policy you refer to says, "admins may protect the version immediately before the first violation". You may not have been following the ROHA situation in the last few weeks, but I think you're playing right into the hands of one of the biggest menaces we have, who has been taunting Wikipedians for weeks! Admins have already pointed out the it was because of his behaviour that the page has been protected so much recently. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect user:Raul654, I do feel compelled to assert that the diffs you list above in no way comprise a 3rr violation and that your revert was unauthorized and inappropriate. I also don't think there was any need to protect the page, it's not an edit war, it's a typical and hardly disruptive spat about some wording in the intro and it'll work itself through. Wyss 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, bearing in mind Anne's comments, I'll take you at your word and unprotect the page. I don't expect to see a resumption of warring, though. Raul654 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user:Raul654 :) Wyss 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Raul654. Does that mean that you'd object if I reverted ROHA? (I don't particularly care which picture is used, but as I explained, this replacing of the image is part of a pattern of making a nuisance of himself, and several admins are already in the habit of reverting it.) AnnH ^(talk) 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize he was a problem until your comment. Yes, if he's been that much of a PITA, by all means revert/thwap him accordingly. Raul654 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I simply changed the picture back, without "reverting" to the version of anyone in particular. I note from WP:AN/3RR#User:Wyss that Wyss was blocked for 24 hours, but I hadn't really been following the reverts. AnnH ^(talk) 12:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice/possible mediation on 9/11 article

Raul: Tom Harrison is intruding on the September 11, 2001 attacks article by insisting that the 9/11 Commission be mentioned in a specific way in the lead section in order to possibly "prove" to the reader that the attackers were terrorists. Some other editors feel that this wastes the reader's time since most civilized people already know that hijackers of large, commerical passenger airlines are terrorists. Could you please offer some perspective on this matter? -- Pinktulip 18:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I agree with Tom - any summary of the attacks would be grossly negligent if it did not mention the Commission and/or its findings. Raul654 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castles in the air

Nice photo! Elf | Talk 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Featured article

Are you aware of the new {{Featured article}}, which places a small star in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is an FA? I ask because I noticed that you just promoted 5 articles without putting this template on them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assume you do because you made an edit on it about a few days ago [11]. But it seems that all of the other FAs now have the template on them now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind I forgot that you voted "Oppose" on the FA star idea so I assume that you may be very reluctant to follow through anyway. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Opinion on Robert I's Arbitration

I am a 61 year old retired English solicitor. I know both Robert Isherwood and Gregory Lauder-Frost. I can confirm that they are friends and that they live not far from one another (60 miles apart).

I was asked by Robert to examine what has happened to him and to give my opinion. My view is that he has been treated unfairly.

Robert made several attempts at complaints and also requested arbitration before other users. These were ignored. It may be that (like me) he is unable to properly find his way around the very confusing Wikipedia pages and headings.

User C.J.Curry however, made a request for arbitration which was immediately taken up. He appears to be the main protaganist in this dispute although he called in support from at least two other users, home on the range and ground zero, all of whom appear to know each other, and, indeed, praise each other. All three would appear to have the same political ideas.

Robert has one computer at his flat. He and his son use it. Gregory Lauder-Frost lives in Berwickshire and having remarried in 1998 has a young family. He has a very old computer which he and his wife both use. Gregory is not IT literate. He regards the internet as a dangerous source of disinformation.

It has been suggested that occasionally the same computer or computers with similar ISP number have been used, purportedly by one person using aliases. Without proof this would not stand up in our courts.

It has been suggested that several posters use similar language terms, phraseology, etc., and therefore it has to be the same individual making the postings. This would be thrown out of our courts. The majority of those attending a good public school, especially boarders, leave school with the same English language and linguistic attributes.

Robert has been banned for "aggressive editing". However, it was Robert's articles which were aggressively edited and often deleted, not visa-versa.

On several occasions "sources" were absolutely demanded and even when given were still ignored on the most specious grounds, such as assertions that a speaker/writer was being "sarcastic" or that the source had then to be checked. On several occasions sources were given in the references or publications and they were still ignored and the comment in the article deleted.

Robert's articles have been stated by Mr C J Curry to be "right-wing propaganda" which he a some sort of duty to eliminate. Having examined the original articles it may be contended that by quoting the organisation's won opinions and objectives may appear biased. But nor more biased than deleting them and relacing them instead with the detrimental opinions of a few journalists. In British courts a quote from a journalist is inadmissable without the journalist being present with the evidence used for the article concerned.

One of Robert's detractors has stated that Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was "vanity" and that Lauder-Frost was "on the fringe of the fringe". These statements were absolute opinion. The evidence does not stand up.

It may be that an article has not been written in a particular Wikipedia manner, but that should not make it inadmissable. Gregory was, in his time, a prominent figure. His activities in the various pressure groups, and indeed within the Conservative Party, made him, shall we say, a fascinating figure. He was a friend with Alec Douglas Home and numerous MPs. He was on a restricted guest list for a House of Commons Dinner on 4th October 1990 for John Major following his becoming Prime Minister (that is not on your article page) and he sat in front of Margaret Thatcher in a reserved seat for McWhirter's memorial service (deleted from the article). These things demonstrate that he was far from persona non grata, and definitely not on the fringe.

I have not the time to list here the seemingly endless lists of the manner in which Robert's comments and articles have been attacked. But it is unjust that these attackers are now confirmed as being wholly in the right and Robert wholly in the wrong. Articles on individuals and groups on the British Right should be fair and balanced and give some good idea of their opinions and views, of what they believe they stand for, and also the juxtaposed comments of others. Comments designed to place them in an unfair and bad light should at the very least be supported by evidence.

It has been suggested that the term "European" is meaningless. The Oxxford English Dictionary is cited with definitions. Some wors have numerous definitions. It is not possible to accept them all. most people would settle upon one. Robert has done this and been unjustly attacked as denying the "authority" of a dictionary which today carries words and definitions which would never have been acceptable to pre-1950 editors, and which are, at the end of the day, the opinions of the editors. Its all a matter of opinion.

The most appalling aspect of Robert's treatment appears to be that he has been treated as though he had made shocking or pornographic statements, that he had abused others in a dreadful manner etc. My reading is that he was very often provoked into robust responses by seemingly quite arrogant, even pompous, comments made by his detractors.

None of these points appear to have been noted by the arbitrators at all.

The arbitrators appear to have commenced their arbitration from an automatic position that Robert was absolutely wrong, and that he had committed some fantastic crime on Wikipedia. My own opinion is that he has obviously spent hours on end researching and submitting articles and information to Wikipedia, articles which previously were not there, and which filled a vital information gap. These were then attacked by ideological enemies under the guise of "neutrality" etc. In fact, what was criticised as opinion, was usually replaced by opinion.

Phrases such as "hard-right", "far-right", "extreme-right", "holocaust denier", "White-minority government" etc., are all loaded with political inuendo. They weould not be permitted when giving evidence in a British court as the court would be making the decision, not the witness.

His detractors' arguments, I submit, would not have the gravity of evidence in our courts for the drastic treatment/decision made by you on Robert Isherwood.

Michael.

Seeking guidance

Do you remember me? I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to kindly on my talk page please. I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heydrich/anthropoid

Hi Raul, what is your opinion about puting an article about Reinhard Heydrich or Operation Anthropoid as the featured one? Sz

How quaint

All those carbs in your brownies seem to be affecting your judgement. User:Another Orange Flowerpot

@@ Line 402: / Line 402: @@
 Hi Raul,
 what is your opinion about puting an article about [[Reinhard Heydrich]] or [[Operation Anthropoid]] as the featured one? [[User:Szalas|Sz]]
+== How quaint ==
+All those carbs in your brownies seem to be affecting your judgement. [[User:Another Orange Flowerpot]]