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 - November 2003
• Archive 2: December - March 2004
• Archive 3: April - July 2004
• Archive 4: August - November 2004
• Archive 5: December - March 2005
• Archive 6: April - July 2005
• Archive 7: August - November 2005
• Archive 8: December - March 2006
• Archive 9: April - July 2006
• Archive 10: August - November 2006

• Archive 11: December - February 2007
• Archive 12: March - May 2007
• Archive 13: June - August 2007
• Archive 14: September - December 2007
• Archive 15: January - March 2008
• Archive 16: April - June 2008
• Archive 17: July - September 2008
• Archive 18: October - December 2008
• Archive 19: January - March 2009
• Archive 20: April 2009 - June 2009
• Archive 21: July 2009 - September 2009
• Archive 22: October 2009 - March 2010
• Archive 23: April 2010 - November 2010
• Archive 24: December 2010 - April 2011

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Epsilon Eridani

Hello,

I'm the nominator for the Epsilon Eridani article. Please could you remove this from the FAC list as it has not received sufficient support at this time and the reviews are more about style issues than FA criteria. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, please could you reject this FAC. The article needs some rework based on a recent paper. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing

Hi Raul - WP:Featured article review/Japan/archive1 looks to be getting close to a keep without FARC. However, it's going to be yours to close, as I initiated the review and have remained intimately involved in it. Also, sent you an e-mail. Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A ping on this, since it seems to be maturing. Your decision, though, obviously. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Promethean

I've closed the AN/I thread. If there are wider issues, I'd suggest that you thrash them out with him or open an RfC/U. However, it'd best to not call him a 'dick' or any other such insults; if part of the problem with his editing is incivility then dishing out more incivility in response is hardly going to help matters. Fences&Windows 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Raul654. You have new messages at Lanthanum-138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Groan!

Groan!

Looking ahead, I hereby award this barnstar for your choice of TFA on 12 April, following the pattern of the preceding week. Keep up the good work! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 02:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Grin - I was wondering when someone would notice that :) Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it, it just seemed silly to bring it up. But then I'm always reading the monthly lists for "similarity".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cites publisher wikilink

In citation templates, should the publisher name be linked?

First time only?

I searched, and can't find a good definitive answer - therefore, here I am!

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have a standard for that. Personally, I wouldn't do it - unlike linking authors or titles in refs (which, IMO, is a good idea) I don't think links to the imprint or publisher are particularly useful. Raul654 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Roy Orbison

Raul, sorry to bother you, but you are my only "friend" here who I can ask. Yesterday I did a good bit of work on the Roy Orbison article - added a new section "75th birthday tributes" with some content and six references. My plan was to continue to beef it up as the date of Roy's 75th birthday approaches (April 23) and other tributes become known. I am stunned to discover that all my hard work was reverted by another editor who said two of my references were "questionable" and therefore notability was in question. I thought we were to assume good faith. I don't do shabby work and one of my objectives here is to help as much as I can cleaning-up articles and citing sources (as evidenced by my participation in WP:URBLP). That said, having my hard work so casually dismissed is very discouraging. Would really appreciate you taking a look at the Roy Orbison article and letting me know if you think the revert was justified. Thank you for your time! Kmzundel (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the editor saying Roy Orbison isn't notable (raises eyebrows)?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that is NOT what the editor is saying. I suspect he/she is referring to the musicians doing the tribute concerts and/or the other musicians referenced. Kmzundel (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, listing non notable artists would be a question of editorial judgment. Since there's a fair amount to say about Orbison, I'm sure, I'd lean against it but I'm not doing the writing so I'm not there, so to speak. It seems to be something to work out on talk page, although it is certainly appropriate for you to seek advice from Raul or anyone else who cares to chime in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability can be subjective - especially when we're not familiar with the person/place/thing. I took a look at the venues hosting the two tribute concerts specifically mentioned and researched the artists before deciding to include them. If anything both affirm Roy's worldwide influence. The deletion seemed harsh when so much worse writing is often accepted and/or tagged instead. Kmzundel (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Raul. Check me out. I'm the subject of two unrelated threads here back to back, this one and the one below. I don't think that has ever happened. But Kmzundel, I replied to you on my talk page, where you first posted. Did you forget that you posted there or were you just hoping to find someone who makes less sense than I? --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Aspersions and concerns

Raul, I have been informed that I have cast aspersions in your direction at Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples and Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Amazing Grace‎. I am quite new to adding music .ogg files to articles. There is currently a ruckus at "Amazing Grace" regarding music samples and I an not so impressed with the version of the song that you added in terms of its ability to present a depiction of what the song sounds like to the reader. I have attempted to add samples that I would want to hear if I were a reader. This has led to debate on the article's contents. This leads me to note two things about the article which passed at FAC 15 months ago. First, the author is now claiming that there are particular notable renditions of the song that are associated with it although none are mentioned in the WP:LEAD. If this is the case, the FA process is not working for WP:SONGs. Also, the article has no musical structure section to teach the casual and trained interested parties what the song sounds like. Again this is a notable deficiency in the article, especially for an FA. Since you have enough of an interest in this article to have provide a musical sample, you may want to consider current concerns at Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As a result of this post, I have looked at the talk page and weighed in there: I don't think Dr. Blofeld showing up to support TTT is surprising, unexpected, or constitutes "a ruckus", and I hope TTT will learn more about sound files before trying to "learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing" on a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to bring up stuff irrelevant to the issue, it seems that I had already learned a bit before the example you point to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul, re this. Still no, but this and the thread above. QED. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples) Notable version is not a standard relevant to any other WP:FA that I can find. It seems to be made up for convenience. A quick run through WP:FA shows almost all renditions in articles are not described as notable versions in the text. See "Dixie (song)", Gianni Schicchi, "My Belarusy", "National Anthem of Russia", "Old Dan Tucker", "On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away", Sylvia (ballet), "Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)", Thespis (opera). Sandy of all people knows that notable rendition is a totally made-up standard that is not relevant to any discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of different things at issue here. I've commented where I tried to summarize them and give my opinion. Raul654 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (And Moni, it saddens me to hear that)

FAC recusal

Raul, I'm recused from Lecen's FAC nominations because we've interacted at the talk page of Hugo Chavez. Neither Karanacs nor Laser brain has been online for several days; would you be able to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil/archive1? I haven't read it thoroughly, but my sense is that there are no outstanding issues. I may not be able to get online today to promote, so if you see anything else at the bottom of the page and have time ... :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nafaanra language

Raul,

I may be mistaken and am certainly not an expert on the subject, but my impression is that the Nafaanra language was not traditionally written, and that the Nafana people did not read or write until recently. It looks like the picture Mark Dingemanse found was of Nafana people being taught to read Nafaanra using a system of writing first developed in the 1970s. The article says that only 1-5% of the Nafana people are literate in Nafaanra, suggesting that writing in the Nafaanra language has not widely caught on yet. As such, I personally don't think having a written sample of the Nafaanra language is very important to the article (or at least not important enough to prevent it being on the main page). Perhaps a spoken sample would be more useful if you are looking for something to put on the main page when the article runs. Calathan (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A spoken sample would be fantastic - better than a picture - and definitely suitable for the main page. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be several audio clips in the article. Would one of those be usable? Calathan (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, those things (the speaker symbols) are tiny. I would never have noticed if I weren't looking for them.

I like File:Muura.ogg, but I would prefer something a bit longer in duration. Raul654 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to find a longer clip (all my knowledge on the subject comes from reading the article and doing a short Google search). Are any of the main authors of the article still active on Wikipedia? Maybe one of them would be able to provide a longer audio clip. Calathan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship and the upcoming movie

Nothing wrong about the article per se, but is there a conflict of interest posting this on the main page so close to the release date of the upcoming movie on the same subject? What better free advertising than to be mentioned on the main page of one of the most visited sites on the web. Delmlsfan (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this until today. No, I don't really consider it much of a problem to feature it close to the movie's release. Raul654 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

---

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

unit cohesion - ideas about organization?

See [1]. Your thoughts much appreciated.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 29, 2011

Raul (or TPSs, preferably admins because it will be protected in a couple of hours), perhpas you could take a look at the changes the TFA blurb for the 29th. The primary contributor of the article has made some pretty major modifications. Some of them have introduced prose that doesn't come close to 1a standards while others have replaced the village's location with something about some MP resinging, which I feel has major issues with "recentism" and undue weight. I don't think the blurb is fit to go on the Main Page as it is at the moment, but in two hours, only admins will be able to edit it so I'm backing off to avoid the appearance of being under-handed (by reverting just before cascading protection takes effect) or of using my tools in a dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul is away;[2] I looked at the blurb, see your concerns, and reinstated the original blurb. If the blurb is changed again without discussion, I'll request protection. I can't find discussion anywhere of the new blurb, but it does seem to contain undue text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm here for a few more hours. (The crazy train gets under way tonight once my fiance flies in and we go into final wedding prep). From looking at the edits, this change wasn't so good, but this one was fine. I'm going to fix it by taking the best parts of both revisions. Raul654 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've also let Myosotis know about this discussion so everyone's on the same page. Raul654 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy and well done Raul. Oh, and congratualtions! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mitchell :) Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Raul - looks just great. I only tweaked the blurb because I got a message on my talk page to say I could. I hadn't finished when the above conversation started, and was just trying to work out what might draw people to the article. Myosotis Scorpioides 14:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats from here as well! Best wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Article moves

Raul, While I realize that moves like this are technically correct, as none of the zillions of other artworks of this subject as yet have articles, I don't think they are very helpful unless the work concerned is very clearly the best known of the subject, which is certainly not the case here, or in other examples I've seen. At some point the move will hopefully need to be reversed, as other treatments get articles, which will now mean a requested move. Congratulations & I hope all goes smoothly, btw. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article of the day for May 27th

I would like to promote Ernst Lindemann for May 27th's article of the day. Lindemann was the captain of the German battleship Bismarck and was killed in action 70 years ago on that date. How do I go about nominating the article for that day? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, make sure that you read all of the instructions before delving in. Hope this helps, Woody (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article for May 12

Might it be useful to include the year 2009 in the description of this article? It is in the article title, but I found it a little confusing to have all those dates and no year to anchor them to. Thanks. 132.244.72.6 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added that in now, it seemed reasonable to me. Woody (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for minding the shop while I'm away, Woody :) Raul654 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I hope you're enjoying the break! Woody (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've wanted to go scuba diving since I was 8 years old, and I finally got the chance on Thursday. It was *AWESOME*. Got moderately sunburned but it was well worth it. Raul654 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Preventing an article from becoming TFA on the wrong date?

Pigeon photography would probably have become this year's TFA on 1 April if I had submitted it to FAC early enough. (There is even more April Fools material than what is currently in the article. E.g. the inventor's house was previously a Catholic church built by Protestants against the protest of an official Swedish delegation, and later a pub.) Now it has been promoted, but I just discovered that there might be a risk it will become TFA before the next suitable date (1 April 2012), with no prior warning. Is there any good process for preventing this? Hans Adler 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly ask Raul to hold the article (I have asked him to hold Statue of Liberty for the 125th anniversary in a few months), but there is no guarantee that it will be TFA next April 1. There's a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and then, you know!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that there is no guarantee that it will become TFA on a certain date. But I think it has very good chances, or I would not have asked. And in fact I would not have taken it through FAC if it were not a perfect fit for the occasion. Hans Adler 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with holding off until next April. But my memory is imperfect, so if I should happen to forget your request and accidentally schedule it, please drop a note here so I can unschedule it. Raul654 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. At WT:TFA I saw a comment by an editor who wasn't notified before 'his' article became TFA. I have no idea if this is the norm or was a rare exception. Would a hidden comment at the top of the article help in such a case? Hans Adler 21:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Such notifications now occur.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks. Hans Adler 21:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:University of Delaware coat of arms.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:University of Delaware coat of arms.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just making sure you know that there's no scheduled TFA for tomorrow, since you scheduled three weeks' worth on 26 April, which run out at midnight UTC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. I've scheduled tomorrow's article already. I'll put more in the queue a bit later. Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I never doubted you. I was just checking. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding Today's Featured Article

Hello. I was alerted yesterday to the fact that the article that I worked on, Taare Zameen Par, is today's featured article. I am curious about its nomination, but I have been unable to find it anywhere in the request page's history. Do you know of an easier way to locate it? Thanks. Ωphois 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It was not nominated. Raul selects some community nominations to fill slots, but the majority are entirely his decision. There would not be anything to see, in other words, other than the TFA itself. Generally, a note is placed on the article talk page, and on the user talk page of the major contributors and/or FA nominators after Raul puts it in the queue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Ωphois 18:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What Wehwalt said. Most of the featured articles that appear on the main page were not nominated, but instead selected by me using a pseudorandom process involving tea leaves, chicken entrails, and a cat named Skipper. Raul654 (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, recusal, and plea for help

Mark, my belated congratulations on your wedding, and best wishes to you and your bride for a long and happy marriage !! As mentioned earlier, I've been swamped with IRL business, and am likely to remain so through June. Neither Karanacs nor Laser brain have edited for about a month, so I seem to be all alone at FAC. I've entered a commentary on the Philip Baird Shearer RFC, so would appreciate if you could handle Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. If you have any time this week or next to run through FAC, it would ease the burden on me, considering my online time in the next few weeks is very limited. I've been able to keep up with archiving, but not with promoting. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I'll look it over later today. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

God Hates Us All

Hi Raul, can you take the words during the terrorist attacks out of the blurb for the TFA the 22nd. The album has nothing to do with anything, obviously, and it looks abit odd, and has been out of the lead now anyway. Ta. Ceoil 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, but it's done. Raul654 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good service around here. Ceoil 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping this talk section had some humor about the correlation with the 2011 end times prediction. :( « ₣M₣ » 04:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Someone out there got the joke :) (I 100% intentionally choose that article as a reference to all of us who, when May 22 rolls around, are still here and weren't raptured away. The article title seemed intimately appropriate). Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just posted something about this on my Facebook status, then came here to ask if it was deliberate. Epic. Kudos to you, sir. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant! I just fell off my chair with laughter! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant indeed - I posted the article on Facebook too. David Gerard posted something similar on NewsTechnica called God: "Sorry, you all suck". --mav (reviews needed) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, guys :) Raul654 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert of my question at Talk:Kids for cash scandal

Hi, can you tell me the reason for this revert? --CliffC (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - I didn't mean to make that edit. I think I accidentally reverted you while looking at my watchlist. Sorry, my mistake. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No biggie, I've done that too. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Boletus edulis

Hi Raul, did you catch the report at WP:ERRORS before removing the alternate names from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 23, 2011? Graham87 07:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen that before I removed it. I'm not thrilled at the prospect of setting a precedent on this article, but I'll grit my teeth and add two of the names back. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. Graham87 08:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask what the reason for the avoidance of common names is? Surely the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, and the point of TFA is to draw attention to our better articles. If we avoid informing people what we are talking about by the terms they will recognise, and dodge the chance to encourage them to take an interest by presenting the TFA as something they are already familiar with, then we are acting contrary to those goals. Obviously the lead paragraph needs some trimming to fit the requisite size for the Main Page space, and in many cases alternative names will be a suitable place to make those cuts for conciseness, but what is the thinking in making it an assumption that these names, only necessary because wp:commonname has been overlooked, should not be shown on the main page? Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article title is supposed to be the common name, and alternate names should not be necessary - hence, they are cut. Raul654 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But in cases such as this, the binomial is not the common name for anyone except experts in the field, and if there is to be recognition (which is the purpose of naming anything) then at least some of the common names need to be given. Kevin McE (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Hi Raul, I'd just like to say it is a great choice for tomorrow's featured article. I'm guessing it is being featured because of Towel Day. Cheers, IrishStephen (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. Raul654 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I must agree, excellent decision Raul. I very much enjoyed the article. Neftchi (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

May 28

Dear Raul, I want to propose Azerbaijani people as featured article for May 28. The date has a special meaning as it marks the Republic Day or Independence Day for the Azerbaijani people. However I do not know the exact procedure on how to get a featured article of the day. Could you please help me on this matter? Neftchi (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I saw you have put this at TFA for May 28, don't know whether you were aware it was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 6, 2006? Woody (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Doh. I checked to see if it was an FA, but I didn't check if it had appeared on the main page. I'll revert myself. Raul654 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

29 May

Hello. I want to suggest Manchester United F.C. as 29 May Today's Featured article because there is a tournament final on the previous day (28 May). TGilmour (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 UEFA Champions League Final (to save Raul having to look for which final you're talking about). Bencherlite^Talk 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The tech behind TFA

Hi Raul. I'm currently volunteering to build the backend for the proposed Today's featured list, and I'm wondering if you could point me to the key templates that are used for TFA, so I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Thanks in advance. — Edokter (talk) — 17:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing is to get the archive and footers in place. Using the featured article stuff as a template, I've started it for you here -- Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 2011. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a full list of pages I created:

• Template:TFL archive/day
• Template:TFL archive
• Template:TFLfooter
• Template:TFLempty
• Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 30, 2011
• Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 2011

Hope that helps. Raul654 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That will get me along nicely. — Edokter (talk) — 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photography

I notice you've scheduled Pigeon photography for later this month. You might want to pull it; I believe it was written intentionally as an April 1 TFA, and I think it makes sense to keep it back. While we do have other potential candidates, AFAIK they're all on English history or US places, which have been the themes for I think every April 1 TFA since it began, whereas this is on a non-Anglosphere topic and very different to those which have been used before. (As you probably know, I dislike the liturgical-calendar "April 1 is odd topics, October 31 is morbid topics" approach to TFA but if we're going to have this tradition, we may as well do it as well as possible.) – iridescent 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about -- it's not scheduled as far as I can tell. Raul654 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Today's featured article/June 6, 2011. I wasn't notified, either. I only noticed because the article was protected. Hans Adler 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's Dabomb and not you; he may be unaware of the previous discussions. I'll ping him. – iridescent 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I needed to purge the archive. I was seeing the first article he scheduled, not the pigeon photography article. Yea, he's probably not aware that that's an April 1 special. Raul654 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All fixed. I figured little things like this would crop up as Dabomb gets up to speed. Raul654 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

While I'm here, are there any other unusual situations I need to be aware of? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has their own personal bailiwick when it comes to FA scheduling. Certain article authors don't want their articles go up, ever; other people think certain categories are over-represented and don't want to see those articles scheduled again anytime soon. You'll just have to discover these things as you go along. And don't worry if you make a mistake or someone drops a note on your talk page asking that you reconsider a choice you've made - it's bound to happen. Be polite and reasonably accommodating (particularly towards the wishes of the articles' authors) :) Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of things like that.. I'm going to be on the road most of June (8th-23rd) so probably not a good idea to schedule any of mine during that period. I won't have sources, I won't be around on a regular schedule, etc. etc... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing on my articles: Statue of Liberty is going to be nominated for October 28, its 125th anniversary.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I previously wasn't one to push for a TFA request for any of the Michigan highway articles because I'm trying to pin down some better designation dates. (M-28 and M-35 date to the system creation, but the initial system highway designations were only assigned on paper.) That said, M-6's first section opened to traffic on November 20 2001, so I'm planning on requesting that for the tenth anniversary this year. I know the guys behind SS Edmund Fitzgerald are looking at at the anniversary of the sinking (November 10) for a possible TFA. Imzadi 1979 → 18:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured list looks just about ready

I know that you've seen the current thread on the main page. But just to keep you up to date, we're just doing a final few checks and tweaks to the Today's featured list process, with the intention of requesting formal approval tonight. Everything going well, the first list will hopefully go on the main page on June 13.

An exact working model of the main page can be found at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (live): this contains the source code that we intend to use.

Edoktor has created an "always Monday" version at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (visible), so that users can see what the page will look like when lists are there.

The meat and bones of the process itself can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured list and Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions.

To my knowledge, the only major thing we haven't done is protected everything that should be. That's not an oversight, but down to the fact that myself and RexxS are non-admins, and we're two of the people best-placed to deal with any minor issues during the formal approval stage. The proposal will run all week, but if it is going well, we will lock down everything that should be protected on Wednesday, and double-check that we haven't missed anything on Thursday and Friday.

As someone with quite possibly more relevant main page experience than anyone else, I was wondering if you had any final thoughts before we go ahead with this? Regards, —WFC— 18:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All the template that are used when a TFL appears on the main page have indeed been protected. The TFLs themselves become protected automatically through cascading protection. — Edokter (talk) — 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection is unnecessary. The main page and main page/tomorrow are both cascade protected, which means that as soon as blurbs are <24 hours from hitting the main page, they will not be editable by non-admins. (Check the TFA blurbs to confirm this - they are cascade protected, but otherwise not protected at all).

Also, the blurbs themselves have been a bit wonky. The featured list should be the first link in the blurb, that link should be one of the first phrases in the blurb, and the writer should be careful not to introduce any new errors (like this one) This blurb, for example, should be rewritten so the link is at the beginning of the blurb. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the templates to be protected, as TFL is not present every day, vandals could still have their way with the templates from tuesdays to saturdays. — Edokter (talk) — 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Raul, for the advice on writing blurbs and your specific edit to improve TFL June 13. We are just beginners in this arena, and while we learn the ropes, your input and guidance is much appreciated. I'll try to write up advice such as you give above into a hints and tips section if I can find a suitable page to place it on. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost—could you please check?

Hi Raul, long-time-no-speak! Could you please check over what I've written about the FL slot on the main page? I've also asked the other guys to do so. Thanks. Tony (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean ??

We like to think we take prose, the Manual of Style, and Wikipedia's policies such as verification even more seriously than featured article candidates.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The questionable statement pointed out by Sandy not withstanding, it looks good. Raul654 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The offending sentence has been removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still curious what it means :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It means that someone fucked up. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it means when you have a full week to scrutinize anything that hits the main page, you have the luxury of taking everything very seriously ? We don't all have that luxury -- we rely on the reviewers that show up. Anyway, it didn't seem a very gracious comment, glad it's gone :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd interpret it somewhat differently. I'd say that as the new guy on the block FL is desperate to prove itself, and what was meant was that as such they're very keen to make certain that MoS compliance and so is rigorously enforced; the rest was just the normal foot in mouth stuff. But as you say, prepping one article a week is rather an easier challenge than dealing with tens of articles. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Although I've yet to come across a week with tens of days in it. —WFC— 01:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So have I. Have you been drinking? Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Trial program" at WP:TFAR

The non-specific date nomination slot has now been in place for just over one year - is it now time to say that the trial is over? Bencherlite^Talk 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, by all means. I didn't realize it was still labeled as a trial. Raul654 (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Availability note

Mark, I'm going to be away during June 21–28. Hopefully there should be no problems, but let me if there is. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I hope I'm not stepping on toes here, but since the primary author was reluctant and the general consensus was to save Bart for a more "special" date, I switched him out. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I make it a point to defer to the author's wishes. I hadn't seen Scorpion's comment, but if I had, I would not have scheduled it. Thanks for catching that, Dabomb. And I'm also going to be traveling from the 23rd until the 26th, but I'll schedule them ahead of time. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bought in for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bought in is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bought in until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bought in for deletion

You were "informed" twice of the AfD discussion? Ouch. I'm sorry.

Good luck,
I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC) (changed on 20:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Tight scheduling for TFA chosen blurbs

Raul, I don't know whether this has been a chronic problem, but the default situation for the selection of some TFAs seems to be precariously close to the time they have to be locked. This meant, for example, that the other day the community was denied direct access to the ability to edit the blurb. A 24-hour lead-time would enable proper support for the finished product, for you and the delegate. I'd previously imagined competition so intense for these spots that they'd be queued in line for a week before their MP appearance: but it's not so. Can you advise whether it's a short-staffing issue? I started a thread on the MP talk page related to this. Tony (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Tony here; scheduling far in advance would be good in other ways as well, as it would give time for people to notice if there were reasons not to run an article. ("I was saving that for his 100th birthday", "I'm about to do a total rewrite", "I'll be on vacation on that day and it's likely to prompt a lot of questions only I can answer"…) – iridescent 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you guys talked to Dabomb87? I had the impression he was doing much of the actual scheduling right now and that he had pledged to keep 3 or 4 days ahead. My favorite excuse (not used yet) "Can you schedule it for after the 27th when the statute of limitation runs out?"--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Dabomb87 is away for a few more days. Don't expect anything from him until 28 June at the earliest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There must be a serious staffing/time issue: the blurbs for tomorrow onwards, for the rest of the month, are blank. Tony (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading these comments, I've started an RfC here to measure support for a proposal that blurbs for the three featured-content sections on the main page be posted for community input at least 24 hours ahead of the deadline for cascade-protection. Tony (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

MOTD

I'm just curious as the currently oldest still active participant, where did MOTD originate from? I've noticed in the history that you and Pstudier are really the oldest still active users from when our project began. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know. I've only edited there once. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't remember but I didn't originate it. Paul Studier (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony1's corrections

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the broad range of changes that Tony1 is introducing into blurbs, including John A. Macdonald. They go well beyond mere corrections see here, and seem to vary from TFA practice by for example, having the death year have only two digits when the century's the same. I would have no trouble with minor changes to conform with MOS (though I think we can assume a recent FA is more or less MOS-compliant). But now we have an article blurb which has significant textual differences from the article lede. There should be some deference, I think, to the principal author and/or nominator, or if Tony wants to make changes that go beyond obvious MOS issues, at least he should open dialogue with the writers/nominators. These aren't corrections, he's making judgment calls (i.e. whether or not the comparison with Mackenzie King should be in there) that I think are unwise and that really should be left to the editors who improved the article and brought it to this point, or at least to the director or his delegate. As I am about to check out of my hotel, it will probably be several hours before I can reply to any comments, but I will accept whatever you have to say about this without further complaint, but Tony1 had a month to suggest whatever changes he wanted to the blurb while it was sitting at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a real hide to completely revert my edit in one swoop, damaging the text, introducing inconsistencies, and then claiming some precious principle that text in a blurb should be the same as in a lede. They are two different genres, and the original editors of the article, if they're still around, are quite welcome to edit the blurb too. I suggest you take lessons in English, Wehwalt, before you tell me how to write. Tony (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I made two edits in four minutes, the combined diff is here. As you will note, I recognized the validity of your concern over the generic term "prime minister". The rest seem purely judgement calls, plus the variation from TFA practice I noted above. This article sat at TFA/R for almost a month and no one complained about the blurb. Where were you then? I'm not going to get into the "take lessons in English", Tony, let's stick to business.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Raul, Tony went to my latest FA C and opposed within minutes of the above. He had not reviewed oneof my noms in a year.That raises a serious conduct issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I was quite open there about the logic of my review, in which your lead failed by any standard and I had to oppose. I hope you're able to make the suggested changes in your own FA lead, which neatly parallel your objections to non-admins' participation in the blurb copy-editing process, and your unexpected principle that a blurb should depart from the lead of the associated article (whereas the blurb serves a quite different purpose to the lead). Thank you. Tony (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've begun an AN/I thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Raul, could you please help fix this? Thanks so much. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Never mind - all settled. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm going to proceed from FA process first principles here. Wehwalt is right that the rule of thumb is that the blurb and the article text should be identical or close to it, except for:

• Title issues - the title does not fit the lead sentence
• Birth and death dates - If the year of birth and death are known, they should be given, with the month and day omitted; if either is unknown, both should be omitted
• Alternative names - should be omitted
• Honorifics - should be omitted
• Length - if the lead is longer than the blurb should be, it has to be selectively edited

Tony - Wehwalt's concern here is two-fold: you made changes to the blurb that were not made to the article, which violates the above principle; and he believes that the changes you made were not merely cosmetic, but substantial, and that you need to work with the articles' authors (who, presumably, know the most about the topic). Now if you have an issue with the blurb-matches-the-article principle itself, I'd be happy to discuss that with you and anyone else who wants to talk about it. (I like it that way but I'm not married to the idea) But you can't unilaterally decide to ignore it. About his second concern, that some of your edits went beyond cosmetic MOS editing, looking at the diff, I think two of your changes (excising he is surpassed in tenure only by William Lyon Mackenzie King and a means of transportation and freight conveyance which helped unite Canada as one nation.) were substantial, and the rest were cosmetic. Assuming the latter were MOS complaint, I think the right thing for Wehwalt to do would have been to make those same cosmetic edits to the article itself, revert the substantial ones to the blurb, and have a discussion on the article's talk page about them. Raul654 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, about the allegations of retribution on the FAC, I see from the ANI discussion that Sandy is aware of it. I'm going to trust her judgement to evaluate the validity of that objection. 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a reasonable course of action, though not intuitive, I think you will grant. However, it takes a situation where raising a concern does not result in: well, I won't repeat it all. And considering the latest screed on Dabomb's talk page, it is not a comfortable situation. A reasonable course, as well, would be for TFA noms, since the vast majority are granted, to have the blurbs edited, or better, changes proposed, during the course of the nomination, perhaps on WT:TFA/R. I do have the concerns about tracking the lede in the article. And, to be honest, I would rather have the article I got to FA advertised on the main page of the world's seventh leading website with my words, not Tony's. Yes, I am human and selfish in that regard, but is that so terrible? After all, we don't get paid! I did not visit any archives or libraries on Macdonald, but I did spend well over a hundred dollars on books, and I don't think I will be able to use them again for another article, and with the second volume of Gwyn's bio out in September, that's another thirty dollars. I think the allure of that is important to at least some TFA nominators, and if there is something that would have an advanced expert in English going tsk, but be unnoticed by the general population and is not offensive to the MOS, I think we should go with the article author, one of the body of people on whom TFA relies on the supply side.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Where there's stylistic disagreement, I think it's perfectly reasonable to defer to the wishes of the article author(s), at least until it's off the main page. Raul654 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Very easy to say that, but I'd like to know exactly why my multi-word edit, which was all an impovement as far as I can see, was reverted, rather than just the matters noted in the edit-summary. Repetitions were re-introduced, and a new inconsistency. Is that what you mean by "defer to the wishes of the article author"? I don't agree unless they're reasonable. Tony (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying he was right to revert your edit in its entirety. I think many of your changes were good ("Macdonald became the first prime minister of the new nation" is a better construction than "Macdonald was designated as the first Prime Minister of the new nation") some were not (using only the last two digits of the year is definitely not the standard formatting used for the main page). Unless I'm missing something, the two sentences I described above as non-cosmetic (about William Lyon Mackenzie King having a longer tenure and explaining what the Canadian Pacific Railroad was) are not redundant with anything else in the blurb, and definitely a judgement call. (Personally, I think it helps to have a sentence explaining what the Canadian pacific railraod was; the sentence about King needn't be there but it's not exactly hurting anything either.)

But we're getting lost in the weeds here of that particular blurb. The big picture I'm getting at here is that, for almost any blurb I schedule, there is clearly room for reasonable people to disagree about what should and should not be there. When an article is about to hit the main page, it's best to err on the side the status quo and not make substantive edits until after it's off the main page. And for any edits you make, it's important that the article match the blurb (with the exceptions I noted above). Raul654 (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why must there be this one-to-one matching? A blurb has quite a different function from a lead; it's not paragraphed, by convention, for example. And if the choice is clear in time, the article should really be given a once-over, too, don't you think? Tony (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • A blurb has quite a different function from a lead - is that really the case? I believe the FA criteria explicitly state that the lead should serve a concise summary of an article, such that it can be used in blurb form on the main page. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says basically the same thing. (The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.) The single-paragraph thing is a stylistic choice on my part. It's not meant to convey a functional difference between the two. And if the choice is clear in time, the article should really be given a once-over, too, don't you think? - I'm not really sure I follow what you are saying here. I fully support anyone who wants to tweak articles and blurbs that are about to hit the main page to fix non-substantive/style issues. Substantive content-related changes, in my opinion, should be postponed until after the article is off the main page. Raul654 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The single-para idea is very appropriate. My view is that linking should be sparser in a blurb than in an the corresponding article lead, since the links are all accessible at the article, in full context, and lower-value links can have the effect of reducing visits to the TFA. I also suspect that removing a sentence or two from a blurb often makes it crisper, and a blurb is essentially a short text, space-poor. In an article, a lead is expected to be more expansive. When the reader clicks on ...more, I believe they go back to the top of the article.

Your full support for the polishing and scrutiny of the article is gladly noted; I think it's really important, given how FAs can sometimes degrade over time, even factually (shouldn't a TFA about a modern topic, including BLPs, be updated before the TFA day, where necessary?). This is why I'm so keen that a few days be available for community input. In particular, where there seem to be no main authors available, it would be good to encourage other editors to do a quick run-through of the text. On just one matter, image use guidelines and policy have changed over the past 18 months, and many FAs could do with an audit of pic locations and size. Text-squashing is still under-recognised as a problem, because everyone assumes all readers see the dispaly as they do. I see some pretty messy image use in older FAs. Tony (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Raul, I note your "trust" in Sandy's judgment. I'm afraid you're being fooled; it appears to be part of a continuing campaign against me for writing The Signpost's "Featured content". She has damaged herself, FAC, and me by impugning my honesty, and it's not going to stop there, obviously. I now cannot review at FAC without fear that she will act in ways that are influenced by a conflict of interest. It is a most undesirable situation. Tony (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Walk the walk

[3] If you're going to accuse me of something this serious and unethical, then you should be prepared to go through with your threat to seek "consequences" for what you say has taken place. If not, I recommend that you retract your statement, or I will act on it. I'll give you 24 hours. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The RFC you wrote is full of accusations that are either false (claiming that it is a misrepresentation of a source to say two is "several") or otherwise invalid (normal editing spun in such as way as to make it seem nefarious). And I'm not the only one who has noticed:

• "But what I see here is an attempt to spin a whole bunch of non-issues and minor complaints into a pattern of nefarious behavior that is not backed by any evidence." - Gamaliel
• "It looks to me like a handful of editors have made a hobby of finding issue with Cirt's behavior, to the point of stretching the truth to fit a predetermined point of view." - macwhiz
• "most of it is simply overblown" - JoshuaZ
• "First, I find that the attacks on Cirt have been much worse than anything I can see assembled above. " - Hobit.

I will not be retracting my statement. Raul654 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I already know that you and at least four other people, disagree with the conclusions of me and other editors. What I'm still waiting for, and time is ticking, on you to back up your statement of "demonstratably false". This statement means, I assume, that you can back up your allegation with actual evidence, not opinion. You make a statement as serious as the one you made, you had better be prepared to back it up, which so far you haven't. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just that I disagree with your conclusions. It's obvious to me (and lots of other people) that your whole purpose with that RFC is to harass Cirt, and your method is to throw shit at the wall until something sticks, by trumping up ordinary editing behavior to make it seem nefarious. If you want some outright falsities in your RFC, here you go:

1. You claim that this edit had a misleading edit summary. Cirt said "better to keep in chronological order", moved a paragraph into the correct chronological position, and deleted two others. While his edit summary did not deal with the entirety of his edit, this is common editing practice. An edit summary does not have to summarize the entire contents of an edit - hell, it's optional to begin with. Your allegation that his edit summary was misleading is false.
2. You claim he misstated the content of a source by using the word "several" to characterize the two recipes from Everything Tastes Better with Bacon that were The Best American Recipes 2003–2004. some; an amount that is not exact but is fewer than many - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/several_1 Your allegation that cirt mistated the contents of that source is false.
3. You claim that Cirt misstated the contents of a source when he wrote that The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining". As your own "evidence" (I use the term loosely) shows, the entry is entirely supportive of his summary: An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. Your claim that he misummarized this source is false.

If you are still waiting for an apology, I hope you are not holding your breath. Raul654 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I too think your comment was uncalled for. First, while this is really one of the most minor points in the RfC/U, several is defined as "more than two or three, but not [very] many" both in the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters. And by focusing on this point, a minor detail in the RfC/U, you are ignoring the substantial evidence of what User:DGG described as "outrageously promotional" editing at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Outside_view_by_DGG; as well as views on systematic NPOV violations expressed here for example and complaints from multiple editors about BLP violations and bullying. In view of the latter, I was disappointed with the ad-hominem nature of your own comment. If the statements from the RfC/U were as outlandish as you characterised them to be, they would have been unlikely to attract support from some longstanding and widely respected editors like DGG and SlimVirgin, who would clearly deserve sanction as well then for supporting them. That is absurd, and you have simply made a mistake.

Misleading edit summaries of the kind Cirt made are regularly cited in arbitrtation decisions, and are explicitly mentioned in the arbitration principles. We all get edit summaries wrong sometimes, and this may have been an innocent oversight, but deleting four paragraphs of unflattering information from a clearly promotional article about a company, written at the personal request of someone professionally associated with that company, with an edit summary of "better to keep in chronological order" raises a justifiable eyebrow and is part of the overall promotional pattern that some editors perceive in Cirt's editing.

To claim that Cirt did not misrepresent Partridge is not a view I can support, nor is it supported by editors generally who have worked on that article. The source said,

As we drew from written sources, we were also mindful of the possibility of hoax or intentional coinings without widespread usage. An example of a hoax is the 15th November, 1992, article in the New York Times on the grunge youth movement in Seattle. The article included a sidebar on the 'Lexicon of Grunge'. The lexicon had an authentic ring, but turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by a record company employee in Seattle. An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.

Cirt's summary said, "The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining", and he placed that summary both in the lead and body of the article. This wording misled editors (including myself at first) into thinking the term was listed in the dictionary, a 2,000-page tome and standard work in this field, when it was not, and it was a key consideration in the voluminous discussions as to whether the article should be named after the word, or after Dan Savage's campaign to create such a word. I hope that you might familiarise yourself with the evidence in the RfC/U, as well as other editors' views expressed to date at the RfC/U page, and then perhaps reconsider your rash comment. It was not a fair assessment, nor one I believe actually based on a proper review of the evidence. Regards, --JN466 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"I too think your comment was uncalled for." - Funny enough, I feel exactly the same way about your RFC.

"First, while this is really one of the most minor points in the RfC/U, several is defined as "more than two or three, but not [very] many" both in the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters" - the fact that any dictionaries support Cirt's edit means that your allegations of mis-summarizing are false.

"If the statements from the RfC/U were as outlandish as you characterised them to be, they would have been unlikely to attract support from some longstanding and widely respected editors like DGG and SlimVirgin, who would clearly deserve sanction as well then for supporting them. That is absurd, and you have simply made a mistake." - I'm not going to fall into the trap of defending every one of Cirt's tens of thousands of edits from the level of pedantic criticism expressed in that RFC. But I do think Gamaliel said it best when he said "If creating an article on some obscure restaurant is a crime, we're all guilty. Even Jimbo, whose complaint in the AFD is cited above, has done it. Remember the Mzoli's Meats controversy? Plenty of people in the AFD thought that Cirt's article was sufficiently sourced and notable. Are they secretly promoting anti-Scientology too?" You are dredging up common editing behavior and trying to spin it to make it look like Cirt was up to no good.

"Misleading edit summaries of the kind Cirt made are regularly cited in arbitrtation decisions, and are explicitly mentioned in the arbitration principles. " - saying his edit summary is misleading does not make it so. The arbitration principles refer to summaries that are actually misleading, like saying you are doing X and instead doing Y. Cirt's edit summary said he was doing X, and he did X and Y. An incomplete edit summary (including a blank one) and a misleading one are not the same thing. Or, to put it another way, by your logic a blank edit summary is a misleading one. I've never seen the arbcom or anyone else ever make that claim. What he did was not ideal, but your allegation against him is (still) false.

"This wording misled editors (including myself at first) into thinking the term was listed in the dictionary, a 2,000-page tome and standard work in this field, when it was not" - His edit was 100% supported by the citation. He said the dictionary said it's an example of coined usage, and did not claim that it had its own entry. And I see nothing in the full citation to make that any less true. If you assumed from his edit that santorum had its own entry, you should have checked the dictionary yourself, or at least asked him that directly. It sounds to me like you are blaming him for your own faulty assumption.

"I hope that you might familiarise yourself with the evidence in the RfC/U" - I've seen the evidence. I'm unconvinced by it. So are most of the people who have seen it. Perhaps in the future you should concentrate on one or two or a small number of actual bad behaviors, supported by convincing evidence, instead of producing a laundry list of allegations and a mountain of mostly harmless diffs.

"and then perhaps reconsider your rash comment. It was not a fair assessment, nor one I believe actually based on a proper review of the evidence." - I'm not saying Cirt is a model editor. And since I'm not about to rebut every one of the many allegations thrown at him, I'll even concede that some of them are could be true. But the fact remains that a large number of the allegations in the RFC are without merit - some are plainly factually wrong, and many are accusations of what is otherwise normal editing behavior. When the allegations are looked at in detail, one is left with a distinct feeling of 'where's the beef?' And this dumping of harmless diffs is a recurring pattern where Cla is concerned (For see this RFC thread and this comment from RA regarding Cla from 2008) So thank you for your invitation to retract my comment, but I will let it stand precisely as is. Raul654 (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am mystified. Dictionaries do not support Cirt's edit, as they are in universal agreement that several is defined as more than two or three. These are from the top of Google: [4][5][6][7][8] I concede that this is not a major point, and indeed a silly one to argue about, but I find your bending over backwards to argue that "several" means "two", in support of Cirt and against all major dictionaries, strange and indeed troubling.

In response to the problems highlighted in the RfC, over a dozen editors to date have supported DGG's view that Cirt should be stripped of OTRS access and, ideally autopatrolled status. That you want to sanction Cla68 and me for bringing that RfC in light of that response is truly bizarre, all the more so as the RfC in part concerns use of of the main page for political advocacy. Regards, --JN466 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed an utter waste of time on your part. Unaccountably, you missed Consisting of a number more than one but not very many; diverse [9]. Isn't that weird, that you would only manage to turn up defs that happened to support your opinion? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC) [Update: note that what I said was correct at the time. Subsequently the partisan AHC has restored the <cough> correct defn [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)]

(e.c.) Cla68 and Jayen, I find Raul's opinion balanced and rooted in solid evidence (of lack thereof). I will, by the way, be writing a brief statement there critical of Cirt's naive behaviour and failure to understand a few basic things, in case you think I'm coming from a biased perspective. Yes, you don't have to be paid by an external agent to commit a breach. But more AGF about his future intentions at this stage would be welcome. This spiralling witch-hunt has consumed too much of your valuable time. Why not drop it and keep a watch on him? Tony (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me if I consider the OED, Webster's, Longman and Collins more authoritative sources than Wiktionary. The links I gave are all the pertinent ones from the first page of a Google search for several dictionary. I will grant you that the Shorter OED says, "2b: In legal use: more than one ... 4: As a vague numeral: Of an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three; more than two or three but not very many", but bacon recipes hardly qualify as "legal use". Sorry this wasn't a more agreeable conversation; I'll leave it at that. --JN466 17:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree about Wiktionary. But I'm uneasy that this is occupying so much time and space, when Cirt himself seems to have accepted that he's been very unwise in the past and has withdrawn from problematic areas. Tony (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the aspects of the RfC/U that I find most puzzling. Cirt has already said he is taking corrective action. What, then, is the RfC/U supposed to achieve? It has predictably degenerated into a re-run of the Santorum fight (not surprising as JN466 advertised the RfC/U prominently on the Santorum talk page) and is proving nothing more than an exercise in mud-slinging and partisan sniping. I read somewhere that JN466 has been pursuing this for two and a half years on and off Wikipedia. It is hard to avoid the impression that the RfC/U is being used to lay the groundwork for an arbitration case and that the ultimate objective is to get rid of Cirt altogether. Prioryman (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be my impression as well, Prioryman. I've tried to stay away from this mess but it appears that the time has come to take exception to this RfC/U. At one point Cla wanted to create an "Cirt's enablers" list, but was forced to drop that tactic. Most decent people avoid unpleasant ones, and what with the wikihounding and forum shopping we have seen, the goal appears to be to discourage a prolific content creator who is shown more than willing to work with his detractors. Whatever Cirt does, it is never enough for them. Jusdafax 05:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I mentioned your name in this ArbCom request. Cla68 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not surprised at this; like I said above, I always thought the RfC/U was a pretext to fit Cirt up for an arbitration case. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate thread

I just wanted to note, Raul, that the "designated as" language in the Macdonald lede and blurb was a deliberate word choice, meant to remind the reader that someone had to make Macdonald prime minister, that is, the governor general, in this case, Lord Monck. "became" might be superior grammatically, but I felt that and similar usages were not as nuanced. I felt it especially important in this case as Macdonald was not premier on 30 June 1867, the day before Confederation, Belleau was. I felt it was a good way of hinting to the reader that fact, which given the fact that Macdonald was prime minister for 19 of the following 23 years, might otherwise be lost. It's not a big deal either way, but I suspect that a lot of word choices could be lost that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but the word is clunky and unexplained at the opening. Passive voice raises the question of who designated him. Many Americans, for example, won't understand the business of governor-generals. The blurb (and the article opening) would be better to avoid this, since presumably the issue will be explained in the body of the article. Tony (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I have some experience in article writing and what to tell the reader then, I think I am content to do it my way. The reason I mentioned this is that Raul mentioned it specifically. All the more reason why copyedits of blurb without consultation with principal editors before TFA day is a bad idea, if you do not know the material, nuance can be lost. And by the way, it is governor general in Canada, not governor-general as in Australia, as I gather you consider the natural usage?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you are breaking a basic policy of the site: no WP:OWNERSHIP. You have been behaving in a very aggressive way about the blurb and the article. Truth is, you don't own diddly-squat of either. Stop acting as though it's yours, and read the details below the edit-box, which you by default agree to. Enough of this. When the blurb comes up again, I'll be back to edit it. We can talk about it then. Tony (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think there should be a change, please bring it up on the article talk page, where it will attract the attention of our Canadian editors. As substantive changes to the blurb must bring with them parallel changes to the lede, you will need to build some consensus. This is not that forum.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Raul, please feel free to run any of the articles of which I am principal author at your discretion. We'll see how it goes, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'll be along to copy-edit the blurb, thanks. Tony (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of TeleZapper

The article TeleZapper has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced product article with no indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dialectric (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)