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

Village pump conversation regarding templates

See here this concerns several aspects of the WikiProject templates and their implementation. Quadzilla99 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Leo Szilard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Leo Szilard.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chahax

Raul, you blocked User:Chahax on grounds of being a sockpuppet. Whose sockpuppet do you allege this is, and where is the checkuser report you cited in your block statement? It isn't enough to just say he's a sockpuppet without evidence, and even if there's evidence of sockpuppetry that still isn't enough; he needs to be using a sockpuppet in violation of policy. Everyking 08:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I blocked him on the grounds of being a sockpuppeteer, not a sockpuppet. Specifically, using the IP address I noted to make ridiculous POV edits, and then for using Chahax account to attempt to create a FAR listing on an article he was POV editing with his IP address (claiming the article was unstable because people were POV editing it - a self fulfilling comlaint seeing as how he was the one doing it) Raul654 12:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chahax has posted an unblock review request and has also e-mailed me asking that I make sure the block is reviewed (and that an arbitration case be started, but I can advise him how to do that later, if necessary). Please comment regarding this request, including whether the sock or alternate account was used disruptively and whether the duration of the block should remain indefinite. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was being used most disruptively (see above). He was given a warning beforehand, and decided to ignore it. Raul654 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Still, I'm not quite sure what the next step should be here, procedurally. A blocked user is entitled to a review, especially when he alleges (even if unmeritoriously) that the blocking administrator had a bias against him, but I am hardly in a position to review the matter without having the checkuser information. Would it be in order to ask another checkuser to conduct the review? Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser identification is not at issue - he admits it was him Raul654 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, sorry I missed that (*smacks forehead*). Please monitor Chahax's page for any continued dialog. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk is continuing on User talk:216.67.29.113, where he has used the unblock template a dozen or more times already (with every edit he makes) despite being warned not to do so. If he keeps it up, I'll be protecting that page soon. Raul654 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been monitoring only User talk:Chahax, where he'd seemingly been more reasonable. I guess the remaining question is duration. Do you have a view on that, or was "indefinite" to be taken literally? Newyorkbrad 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by email. Raul654 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chahax seems to have explained himself adequately; however, I suspect that isn't enough for you, so could you give me an idea what it would take for you to unblock? If he will agree not to nominate the article again, will that suffice? Also, would you block anybody who nominated that article, or is it just an individual thing with Chahax? Everyking 06:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting definition of "explained himself adequately" - he admits he made the biased edits in question, and denies he did anything wrong. And if you see nothing wrong with that, then we really have nothing more to talk about.

"If he will agree not to nominate the article again, will that suffice?" - no, that is insufficient. If he can't edit within the bounds of the neutrality policy, he should not be editing. Raul654 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you what would be enough. Everyking 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he were made to see the error of his ways - that Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for his anti-scientific POV pushing; that duplicitous editing and gaming the system will not be tolerated; that abusing the unblock template is wrong - then I could, in principle, accept him editing again. I'm also concerned about the fact that, I'm told, he's now shown up on two attack sites: WR and RightToRace. Raul654 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible he already believes this things? I will see if I can get him to profess these views, but in turn I expect that I won't be wasting my time and you would in fact unblock. And surely it does not surprise you that a person might appear on an "attack site" if wrongly treated on WP? Everyking 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible he already believes this things? Unless he has markedly changed his beliefs since yesterday ("Disruptive how? Please cite a disruptive post. The three cited above certainly show no disruptions, click on them for yourself.") - No, it is not possible he already believes this. Raul654 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. He may believe those things and simply not agree with the claims you make about him. He may not think he has engaged in POV pushing or "duplicitous editing", or that he has abused the unblock template, for instance, while agreeing that if one were to actually do those things they would be wrong. Everyking 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't agree that his actions were problematic, then he cannot have been made to see the error of his ways, and I will not be unblocking him. Raul654 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I will see if I can get him to profess these views, but in turn I expect that I won't be wasting my time and you would in fact unblock" - do not expect me to unblock him if he professes a Non-apology apology Raul654 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute: you're looking for a profession of belief, or an apology? The second is obviously a lot less likely. Everyking 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an apology, per se, but I will not accept anything short of a repudiation of his actions. Raul654 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFA/April 18

Could you fix a link in this? "E³" has been moved to "E3", so the link needs to be fixed. TJ Spyke 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any upcoming TFAs without a free image?

If there are any upcoming TFAs without a free image, could you please try to leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free images as far in advance as you can. If we have more lead time, it might be possible to avoid more controversies in future (for example, I think I found a Scooby-Doo image that just needed some more confirmation on the day of its TFA). Thanks.--Pharos 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to schedule them for several days now. Here's my tentative list for the next week (subject to change):

20: Yosemite National Park

21: City of Manchester Stadium

22: Jake Gyllenhaal

23: Scottish Parliament Building

24: Military brat

25: Dhaka

26: Chrono Trigger

27: Michael Woodruff

Chrono Trigger and Michael Woodruff will have issues. Raul654 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason that you have not yet made these pubic?Buc 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list is one I keep for my own private benefit - that is, the list of ones I intend to schedule but might change on a whim. Once I schedule them, it's very time consuming to change the order - so I keep personal list that is easy to reorder. Raul654 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This intrigues me because (this is going to sound very nerdy) I keep watch over your contributions page to see when you’ve added to the TFA archive. Is it possible you could keep a list like the one above on you user page or something? This would be easier to check and would inform people sooner. Buc 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NYC meetup Jimbo.jpg

Oddly, someone tagged this photo you took as a {{promophoto}}. I've removed that tag, but, actually, it isn't clear that this image is licensed under the GFDL. I've tagged it as an orphaned unfree image, but I wanted to leave you a note so that you can decide if you want to freely license it or not. Jkelly 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched that license. I doubt Jimbo would object to it being GFDL. Raul654 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a safe bet. Thanks for fixing it. Jkelly 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting a closed FAC

The bot recently (April 12) closed the FAC discussion for Mackinac Island, I presume due to a lack of comments and a general consensus of oppose at that time. However, the only oppositions were for prose and the article is currently near the top of the list for copyediting (its a little backlogged). Would it be okay to relist it after the copyedit is completed, hopefully sometime soon? Or, should I just start a second FAC and link to the first? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot archives it after I list it as a failed nomination. I usually recommend waiting at least a couple of weeks before renominating a failed article. Make sure when you renominate it that you take care of all the previous issues. Raul654 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the only outstanding problem was prose, so I'll start a new FAC once it gets a copyedit. It never did get a lot of comments to begin with. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Form IV deleted.

Could you please close the FA nomination of Form IV: Ataru, as the deletion discussion has ended with its destruction? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article/requests

I reverted this addition of an FAC (not yet an FA), on the assumption it creates more work for you to have to sort out articles that aren't even FA yet. Please correct if I'm mistaken. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, my removal has been reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On talk page: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want my picture

I WANT MY PICTURE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocks411 (talk • contribs)

IT'S IN THE MAIL Raul654 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chahax

It seems sensible to commute the block to 1 month as per my comment on his talk page; what do you think?--Eloquence * 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's also turned up on two attack sites - WikipediaReview and RighttoRace (the latter is an organizing ground for anti-science POV pushing)

As I said above (previous thread named Chahax) I don't think he should be unblocked until (at the very least) he repudiates his actions. Raul654 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going by his edits here for now. My key point is that the initial block seems to be overly heavy (indefinite block, which is equivalent to the Usenet Death Penalty unless the user creates a sock puppet, in which case they violate policy); a permanent block should normally be an ArbCom matter. Hence, I would suggest commuting and a warning, rather than trying to extract some promises (which is always, psychologically, very difficult).--Eloquence * 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID article

Ah, well, be that as it may, there's no point editing an article when every two or three days some anon or person who's said two lines ofn the talk page promptly claims consensus for an old version and undoes every single change by fiat. What's the point? Any change I make is just going to be reverted anyway next time someone reverts back. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mark

They may write you down in history
With their bitter, twisted lies,
They may trod you in the very dirt
But still, like dust, you'll rise.

Did they want to see you broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops
Weakened by your soulful cries?

But... they may shoot you with their words,
They may cut you with their eyes,
They may kill you with their hatefulness,
And still, like air... you will rise!

Maya Angelou

Dear Mark, I know you've been trough stress, pressure and mistreat
But, no matter what, remain strong and proud, for bright and wonderful people like you are too rare and precious.
And thank you for your beautiful words! :)
Phaedriel
09:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]

If you have a few moments

Hi - Any chance you could comment at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations#Nominations by the FA Director? I've been trying to avoid listing you as the nominator for procedural relistings, and I'll take a look again. Probably the easiest way to review these would be to peruse the by-year lists looking for your user name. In the grand scheme of things this is not at all important (at least not to me), so I wouldn't call it urgent or anything. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rbj

Rbj being incivil again over at Talk:Intelligent design:

He's also been deleting well-sourced content from the article again. 151.151.21.105 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFA list

You mentioned you keep a personal list of TFA before you make them public. This intrigues me because (this is going to sound very nerdy) I keep watch over your contributions page to see when you’ve added to the TFA archive. Is it possible you could keep a list like the one above on you user page or something? This would be easier to check and would inform people sooner. Buc 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The choice is between the current system (which, as you say, may not provide as much advance warning as is possible) and the system you want (wherein I keep my personal list on-wiki somewhere). The latter is bad for two reason - it adds another page for me to keep track of (and respond to questions/objections etc when they come up). More importantly, it creates the definite possibility that I'll put something on the list, people will get excited that it's coming up on the main page, then I'll change my mind and remove it, disappointing them. Give the choice between the current system, and people having a few extra days of advanced notice with the very-likely possibility that some of them will be severely disappointed, I prefer to keep the system as-is. Raul654 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

I presume this was a typo but as a courtesy I'm informing you of my edit since I don't want to be changing the meaning anyone's talk comments! --kingboyk 10:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed a typo. Raul654 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem FAC

Would you mind if I separate the previous FAC and the current FAC into two different pages? -- tariqabjotu 11:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. Raul654 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least two people on the Jerusalem FAC have questioned why you restarted the FAC. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning. -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a discussion like the one that occured on the previous FAC, it is difficult for me to make heads or tails of which comments are valid or invalid, settled or still in dispute, 'etc. Raul654 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Brodeur FAC

Why was this article not promoted when it had so much support? There were a couple of objects, yes, but one of them wasn't even valid and the others were taken care of...Sportskido8 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, you're right - I made a mistake when I failed that nom. Raul654 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

As part of my admin coaching with The Transhumanist, I've been working on a "lesson" for him. It's currently at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates. My mentor suggested (and he's quite right) that as I name you there, I should drop you a line as a courtesy and let you know. If there's anything there you dislike or disagree with, please feel free to amend or let me know. --Dweller 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an excellent page. Raul654 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian historical articles

Hello Raul,
It has been over several months now, an article on some historical dynasties/Empires of India appeared on main page. There are several in the queue and some have been waiting since very long. Some of the TFA requests in the list include, but may not be limited to, Chalukya dynasty, Hoysala Empire, Hoysala architecture, Vijayanagara Empire, Western Chalukya Empire. Would it be possible to consider any of these in the near future? Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We just had Dhaka on the main page. While, strictly speaking, it's not Indian, it's right next door ;) Raul654 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had seen that. In fact I removed "Dhaka" entry from TFA requests page, just some time ago. :-)

The last historical article from India, that I am aware of is, Chola Dynasty, which appeared as a TFA on October 16, 2006. And that is more than 6 months back. - KNM ^Talk 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way late from me...

But thanks for all you do for the site. KOS | talk 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC page loading problem

The FAC page is far too long. I have a cable modem, and yet the page takes such a long time to load that I'm deterred from reading the nominations at all. Isn't there something that can be done about this? I'd be content if there were a page that just linked to the individual page discussions without presenting all the discussions together, but I can't find one. Everyking 07:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of any fully automated way to do what you ask using only Mediawiki syntax and parser functions. (Someone more clever than I might be able to devise a way, but I cannot think of one)

The best suggestions I can offer are Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates (which links to the talk pages instead of the discussion itself) and User:Deckiller/FAC urgents (which will be manually maintained by Deckkiller, and list the FAC nominations most in need of attention (e.g, having the fewest comments).

Beyond that, it sounds like what you need is a bot. It shouldn't be too difficult to do (I could easily supply you with a python script and instructions that would fetch the FAC page, parse it, and print out the wiki code necessary to generate such a page. You would then have to paste it into a page somewhere. Writing a bot that posts on-wiki requires knowledge of cURL, pycURL, or some other URL form posting scheme that depends on arcane HTML knowledge I do not really possess) Raul654 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why can't we just create a page like that and manually maintain it? I can't be the only one having this problem. Everyking 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to maintain such a page, that's fine by me. (But even in such a case, a bot would eliminate most if not all of the grunt work) Raul654 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem FAC

You should know better than to direct people to disregard another editor's opinion, and also to put words in my mouth. I've deleted your comments from both discussions. Since you are an admin and have been on the Arbcom (if I read your user page correctly) one can expect more, much more, from you. --Leifern 10:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is your comment (this article "will never be entirely stable... Featuring it will invite more strife and discord, and that's precisely something we don't need on this topic.") helpful to the article author? How is the author supposed to make the article uncontroversial? Answer - it is not a helpful, nor is it an actionable objection. And if you don't like me noting that it is inactionable and telling the author not to worry about it - then don't make inactionable objections.

And, as far as putting words in your mouth, while you didn't explicitly say 'this article can never be a featured article because', that's the form your objection took. Raul654 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Don't come on my page warning me, especially when you're well known for blocking people in disputes you're involved with. Also, you're well known for your "toxic" attitude also. I stand by every word I said about you earlier - you have acted as though you own Global Warning for quite some time. I am fully entitled to my opinion and don't think of censoring me as it won't work.

When I came to you when a certain "friend" of yours was bad mouthing me, you couldn't be bothered to assist. Now I've told the truth about you, you dislike it and are using your powers like a tyrant.

Just because you're an admin, don't think you can bully me around. I never put up with your attitude before and I won't now. I'm not the only person who thinks you've used ANI like a farce and it should stop. And the best laugh about it is you've done exactly what I said you do - use your admin powers for your own agenda. LuciferMorgan 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... are you sure it's wise to block somebody you are in dispute with? --kingboyk 23:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He claims there is a dispute. That doesn't mean there is one. I had previously warned him to be civil (following disputes he precipiated with least a half-dozen others - BIshonen, George, Aloan, Pitorious, 'etc). He then choose to attack me, and I blocked him. Raul654 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know that blocking people who personally attack you is rarely the best approach. Ask somebody else to do it. Also, I'm concerned that you have blocked punitively. We don't do "consecutive" sentences here... If you think he needs a cooling off period, fine, but unless you're Arbcom you shouldn't be handing out "punishment". 48 hours is an excessive amount of time to be blocking an established user, imho. Please reconsider. --kingboyk 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I've shortened the block to 24 hours. However, as I said, there is no dispute. The last time I even interacted with him prior to today was when I issued him the civility warning, almost two months His claim that there is a dispute is a transparent, self-serving attempt to avoid any repercussions from his actions. Raul654 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for listening and the prompt action, much appreciated. Cheers. --kingboyk 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Situation

Mr. Mark Pellegrini,

I have recently found myself in a very complex and confusing situation. On the 25th of April, 2007, 16:37 (UTC), I received an email from an unknown and suspicious user, User:Freespeec3. I looked up his account on wikipedia to find no user page had been created and nothing on his talk page. Also, the user has no contributions at all. I looked up the user in the user creation log, and found out that the account was created just yesterday, the 24th of April, 2007 at 21:06 (UTC) by another suspicious and unknown user, Shiftnever. User Shiftnever also has no user page, no talk page, and no contributions. The account for Shiftnever was also created recently, on the 24th of April, 2007, at 20:39 (UTC), only 27 minutes prior to the creation of the Freespeec3 account. The email I received from Freespeec3 is approximately 50 pages long, as well as having 23,479 words, and 209,347 characters with spaces. As is the incredible length of this message, I have not read it in entirety, but skimming through the first few lines, it just bothered me.

Here is a short unedited excerpt from the email mentioning Rama's Arrow.

I have no time to research this any further and have a very slow internet connection. So I send this per Email. Please go to the talkpage of Dangerous-Boy, Bakasuprman, Sbushan and Scheibenzahl and to the Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Four Indian editors in good standing are indefinitely being banned from one day to the other without any prior warning and without any sensible reason. I suspect they just want to ban their opinion from Wikipedia. They got blocked by Rama's Arrow. He is a good guy, but is making a mistake. The problem is that he wants to be the "sexy boy" for everybody he thinks is important, and in the process he ends up being disrespected by all. (sexy boy is his signature, I give him the award for the worst signature any day).

I looked up the user, Rama's Arrow, and I sent him a message identical to this one. I asked him for an explanation of what the situation was, and why I received this email. He replied to me on my talk page and sent me an email as well requesting the email so he could take care of the problem because "this matter is serious." I complied with his request, but afterward I tried to look into the situation a little more, and honestly, I am very confused, and I am unsure of whether any of these parties are trustworthy.

I am holding onto the original email, as well as the email sent by Rama's Arrow for a short time, and if you would like to view it in its entire, please feel free to contact me.

Thank You,

Respectfully Yours,

--Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but, what exactly does this have to do with me? Raul654 01:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there was a little typo there, but it seems to me that something irresponsible is going on both sides here, and I thought that it would be good to contact somebody higher up, that is why I wanted to consult you. It just seems weird that someone that I have no knowledge or acquaintance with would send me a 50 page long email. It doesn't really have anything to do with you either, but just looking through the previous arbitration log and parts of the email, I think whatever that maybe was resolved between these two people was somewhat sketchy perhaps, and perhaps there is some larger conflict, and in fact maybe Rama's Arrow is not completely honest and does not hold the best intentions either. If there is someone else or somewhere else that I should be bringing this up with, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to that person or group.

Thank You for your time.

Respectfully Yours,

--Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 05:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want more...

I've just noticed that recent Main Page FA abstracts have been lacking the 'more' tag at the end of the text. Has this been deliberately removed, or is it an oversight. My apoligies if this is something that has already been discussed and decided upon, but if so I can't find any record of it. Keep up the great work ! Far Canal 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both (in a way). I scheduled the articles, noticed I had removed the "more" link by accident, and decided I like it that way better. I've never been particularly fond of it (By far the most common mistake I make when scheduling FAs is to forget to update the More link; it's also one more thing to do, and I think it's redundant) but other people apparently seem to like it. I'm not sure whether or not I'm going to restore it - I'd prefer hearing from a wider group of people before making up my mind. Raul654 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the discussion. I can see why it would be a hassle. Looks like people generally like it though.Far Canal 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "more" link is a bit superfluous, as the article is linked in the first line anyway, but people seem to like it. Shrug.

On another matter, can I lodge a request for Adam Gilchrist to appear on the Main Page this Saturday, 28 April. It is the final of the 2007 Cricket World Cup, and Gilchrist is playing for the Australian cricket team in his 3rd successive final. The slot appears to be free at WP:TFA and we haven't had a cricket one since the tourmanent started on 13 March. (The most recent sport TFA was City of Manchester Stadium on 21 April, but this is cricket not football, and a biography not a stadium, and Australia not England. I can probably think other good reasons if I need to :) ) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - it is much appreciated. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm likewise competing for the spot, to have William Monahan on the Saturday, 28 April.-BillDeanCarter 10:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how that is a competing spot though for William Monahan, because there isn't really a specific reason for him to be on the main page on April 28th other than it's workers day where as Adam Gilchrist is playing in his 3rd consecutive world cup final and probably his last one too and he will actually be working that day ;)--THUG CHILD z 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the working class Workers Memorial Day is pretty damn important. It would be best to showcase someone who struggled for years, trying to earn a living, and finally in Monahan's case, in his 40s, made it.-BillDeanCarter 11:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote, just to give you an understanding of the difficulties some people with families go through trying to earn a living:

“

Books aren't a real business any more -- most novelists might as well be basketweavers for all they're doing either for the language or for their own families or their effect on the world, so I had my fling there and decided that the novel was a thing of the past; my past, anyway. I like film because it's big, because it's the art that contains all the other arts. I like it because it's difficult.

”

— William Monahan

Yeah, I got that but that a general thing though, 'cause lots of people go through struggles in their work etc. That's really general and even Gilchrist went through struggles in his life but that's not why it is proposed up there. I think that's really general date for William Monahan and nothing really special to do with the subject. And I don't think Workers Memorial day has really got much more to do with William Monahan than Adam Gilchrist. But there's additional reasons for Adam Gilchrist to be on there.--THUG CHILD z 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cricket World Cup is one of the biggest sporting events in the world and Gilchrist is one of the most important players in the sport who may well be celebrating victory on that day. Workers Memorial Day isn't a memorial to Mr Monahan and perhaps he could be featured on another day in this case? Nick mallory 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often do you go through the FACs and promote them?

I'm trying to create a sort of "Article of the Month," but then I noticed that you usually promote 40-80 articles a month, which is way too much to handle. So, I'm going to create an "Article of the Week," or 2 weeks, if necessary, but I really need to know how often you go through the FACs and promote articles based on consensus. Thank you! Diez2 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several times a week, although as of late it's been on the low side (once or twice a week). Raul654 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

Raul, you recently promoted George Washington (inventor) to Featured Article status. It was Featured on the Main Page on April Fools Day. Is the article a joke or not? Because if it is, I'm ashamed to say I've fallen for it. Together with someone else, I've translated the article to Dutch, at nl:George Washington (uitvinder), so that it could be featured on the Dutch Wikipedia... Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^Rule^/^{Contributions} 15:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 100% true and legitimate. Raul654 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it was an April Fools Day joke in the sense that it wasn't an April Fools Day joke: people were deceived in their expectation to be deceived. Or something like that :-) I was wondering: what is the average time between being promoted to FA status and being featured on the Main Page? The reason I'm asking this is the article Bok de Korver. I'm working to get it up to Featured Article status, to get it displayed on the Main Page on October 22nd, the 50th anniversary of De Korver's death. What deadline should I keep in mind for FA status? Early October? A ecis^Brievenbus 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2007

Should the "recently featured" link to Some Thoughts Concerning Education be in italics? I dunno if it should, and I figure that you'd be the one to ask. Daniel Bryant 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv bus 5 massacre

On 27 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tel Aviv bus 5 massacre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Thanks for that note! I hope to be an asset to the Wikipedia community using my new buttons. Sam Blacketer 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Royale

Can you actually do that? Just blank a nomination and start over? You would think that it would need to just plain fail, and then go through the process again. I'm unaware of any guidelines that say you can do that, could you point me to them please. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the perks of being in the cabal is that you can do whatever you like.

...I jest. I do that sometimes when a nomination gets to be very long, with lots of stricken objections. It becomes difficult for me to make much sense of the nomination, so it's easier just to start it over clean. That article was complicated by the fact that someone was deleting objections instead of striking them out. Raul654 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember Sandy's concern about that. Mine was that I would make some suggestions, or point out things that I felt were inconsistent, and the moving "consensus" would generally ignore it. If you watch the actual article (which I know you don't, that would take up way too much of you time, since you are the director of the FAC), you'd notice big changes to the article, which no one seemed to notice. That coupled with the simple "support - looks good", when there are citation tags in the article, frankly concerned me a little. I'm think that you were right in having it just start fresh. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homer's Enemy

Hi, I was wondering when a decision was going to be made on the FAC for Homer's Enemy. It has been a candidate for 23 days and I think every concern has been addressed/fixed, but that is up to you. There have been many different FACs that were nominated after Homer's Enemy that have been passed/failed and I was wondering if there was a reason why it is still a candidate. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewLevine, Sandy, and Monocrat all have unstruck objections. Give Andrew a poke (it looks like his objection has been dealt with but he has since gone MIA from that nom) I don't agree with Sandy's claim that tv.com is not a reliable source for fan response. As long as it's used only for that, I don't see a problem there. I'm not really sure about Monocrat's objections. Raul654 05:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for AndrewLevines objection was made before the major copyediting. I feel that all concerns have been addressed, even if they are unstruck. Either way, I'll leave a message on his talk page. -- Scorpion 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article's prose has improved tenfold after getting looks by at least a half dozen people. And I agree that Sandy's RS oppose was a little too far for this one. — Deckill er 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for AndrewLevine, and he hasn't stated that he still opposes it. Like I said, the article has undergone a major overhaul since his object. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, I left a message a couple of days ago and he still hasn't responded, so I think that menas he doesn't oppose the article becoming an FA. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kkrouni (talk · contribs)

I've started a discussion about this user at AN, because I couldn't see evidence of sockpuppetry. Could you come and explain the reasons behind the block? -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser evidence. See this Raul654 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... how did you get checkuser evidence? There doesn't appear to be any record of that. -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... because I can run them myself? Raul654 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Your userpage doesn't mention that, so I (stupidly) forgot that I knew that already. Sorry to waste your time. -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note related to this user, I recommend you goto his talk page. It does actually seem strange that this guy would want Khrouni so badly. And Khrouni doesn't seem like a vandal. Perhaps you should consider shortening the block so it ends around the same time Cowboy Rocco's ends and then indef block if the user vandalises. Funpika 20:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gillingham F.C.

This article seems to have been promoted to FA but doesn't seem to have its star in the top right hand corner, could you advise? Cheers!!!! ChrisTheDude 07:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it on ChrisTheDude's behalf... The Rambling Man 10:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian football champions

Hey Raul, there seems to be little further interest in commenting on this article which is up for WP:FLC, could you consider it for promotion? Cheers. The Rambling Man 10:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing doing here - happy May, by the way. Any chance of a promotion?! The Rambling Man 07:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong cabal, I am afraid - WP:FLC is not WP:FAC. User:Tompw has been doing most of the WP:FL promotions of late, but I help out there too. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass and the Pit

Many thanks! And I shall try and be more careful over 3RR in future. Angmering 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan, for "Today's featured article"

The Japan article had been requested for May 3rd in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. However, you appear to have selected William Monahan instead (for May 3rd). Was there any reason Japan was not selected? If there is a problem with the Japan article, we'd like to know, so that we can fix it. Thank you very much for your cooperation.--Endroit 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is on my short list of articles to use later in May (tentatively, the 15th, but this is highly likely to change). Raul654 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. Please be sure to let us know, though, if you see any technical issues you'd like to see resolved.--Endroit 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

35mm main page FA

Am I done? Honestly, I haven't really touched it much since then. But on the other hand, my schedule has been so inconstant (and my current project is film stock), that I won't stand in the way again. Do as you see fit! :) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two FAC issues

I just noticed SmthManly (talk · contribs) hasn't been on Wiki for over a week. I entered the mainpage dates on {{ArticleHistory}} through May 8, but if Smth doesn't show up, will need someone to take over that task.

Gimmetrow/GimmeBot and I have encountered several times a situation we're not sure how to handle. When nominators withdraw FACs (with substantial oppose), should we go ahead and move it to archives, so the FAC can be GimmeBotified, or should we just ignore them? See discussion on Gimmetrow's page: [6] In the past, we've just left a trail in a talk page entry, but it would be good to have a policy so that we can be clear on GimmeBot and ArticleHistory.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the FAC nom draws a non-trivial amount of commentary and the nominator withdraws it, treat it like any ordinary failed FAC nom. Raul654 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for SmthManly, he might just be away for a few days (A week isn't all that long). Let's give him some more time. Raul654 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to clarify; in cases of nominator withdraw with non-trivial comments, it's OK for Gimmetrow or me to go ahead and move it to archive, so GimmeBot can botify it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Raul654 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry about that, I was training for my new job in Charlotte, no internet access was available, I'm back now. I was mislead into thinking I would have internet there so i didn't bother to assign anyone to the task while I was gone, good to see things fared well. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your saviour is here

Raul, I see it being said [7] you need a helper, personally I think you do very well as it is, but if you ever need some help, please don't hesitate to call me. I would be happy to help. I do have the experience of recognising what is featurable and what is not. So have no fear I am here and waiting. Giano 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Giano. I appreciate the offer, but for now, I think I can handle it myself. Raul654 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of your blocks, a sock?

One of your blocks, OpenLoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has requested to be unblocked. You blocked them as a sock of Light Current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), although they did not exist at the time of the Light Current RFCU. Looking at their contribs, I feel it is more likely than not they are related. Did you checkuser this one too? They also claim to have previously been using VirtualEarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which also has a similar contrib history, but is not blocked. —dgies^t_c 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Raul654 22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the good guys

Since you are now officially on the crap list of the Discovery Institute, you get a beer (or whatever other libation). Maybe a case!!!! Orangemarlin 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHalo

You have been given a "WikiHalo" by 12 users: Snowolf, U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A., Dev920, Greeves, TimVickers, Ybbor, Aeon1006, Captain panda, Durova, Steptrip, Powerfulmind and Dwaipayanc. And here was I thinking you had a big enough head already. :) - Mark 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like some horns and a tail with that, sir? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not by users but by the Wikipedia community. As nominator, I'm proud to deliver you this award, which will likely be the last one. Actually, your the 5th wikipedian to receive it, if I remember right. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been awarded a Wikihalo by the Wikipedia community for for his impressive contributions and archivements..

Congratualations from me for the Wikihalo and all of your incredible accomplishments on Wikipedia.--U.S.A. cubed 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you Raul, you are a kind person! I am so glad that you unblocked me for that! Warm wishes, --Kk rou ni 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

Thank you for that really, really useful addition to my Virtual Classroom lesson. I didn't even know there was such a way of viewing Flickr images, so that's fantastic. Cheers. --Dweller 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. Raul654 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of an active discussion on WP:CN

Hey, just a heads up, I reverted your removal of an active discussion on WP:CN regarding User:Ancapa. Just seeing if it was an honest mistake, or if there was something going on with regards to that user/issue I don't know anything about... Thanks, and have a nice day! SirFozzie 18:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mediawiki problem. I was not trying to remove the discussion - just change the header size. I should have gotten an edit conflict, but I didn't. Raul654 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Royale FAC

Why on earth did you restart the nomination for Casino Royale? You've wiped out the support of people who have spent the time in reviewing it. THis shows a complete lack of respect for other users ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you contrary to what User:Sandy Georgia suggested all of the comments by people have remained intact. If you want to restart the nomination to make your decision clearer thats ok but why discredit the support and the few oppose comments from before? It is wasting everyone's time. This nomination process has been very tiring indeed. I thought the consensus was pretty clear. There were a few minor problems with references and this was fixed. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restarted it because I felt the nomination was tainted by those accuastions. I would like nothing more than to see that article promoted (this is true for me of all FAC noms), but I consider the integrity of the process to be paramount. Raul654 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. "Remained intact" and "tainted by accusations" aren't quite reflective of what happened here. Comments were removed; I believe someone else (AnonEMouse maybe?) later reinstated them. I didn't have time to track it down. I hope, Blofeld, that you understand that deleting other people's comments from an FAC will result in this alleged "taint", and that's why it's wise not to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock review of Taiwanese aborigines at WP:FAC..

Hello,

User:Calde has raised a "No" vote on the Taiwanese aborigines FAC. Fair enough — usually, anyhow. But User:Maowang is making a case that Calde is a sock with some POV to carry with respect to Taiwan-related issues. Account is less than a week old; very familiar with processes... etc.

What should we do?

Thanks, Ling.Nut 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC request

Hey there, I'm sure I'll be editor #9,452 to ask you something like, "Can you promote my FAC now?" but I have a legitimate reason, I promise. :) I posted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fighting in ice hockey a while back and have been watching it, fixing or rebutting objections, etc. for while now. Most of the items have been fixed. One person objected and never came back to respond to my rebuttal. Another person objected and I have responded. Most editors support currently.

Anyway, I need to take an extended leave of absence from Wikipedia and I'd love to see this pass before I go. I asked at WikiProject Ice Hockey but I'm not sure anyone will be available to "watch" the FAC. Let me know what you think. Thanks --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a round of FAC promotions tonight. Raul654 15:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could a bureaucrat comment on the bot page

The bot approval group was recently sent to MfD, and some people want it reformed. The latest is to eliminate BAG entirely and have the bureaucrats decide bot flaggings and approvals. Perhaps someone could comment at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#BAG_reform_proposal. Gimmetrow 18:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

I'd like to request some additional administrative assistance, supplementing User:Adam Cuerden's present involvement in this article. Presently the article has been locked by this administrator for some two weeks. He has set up a "vote" on various versions of the lead, seemingly as if expecting to enforce the results to prevent future edit battles. The way the vote was set up is questionable to begin with, by my understanding of WP:Consensus as well as by my understanding of modern objective sampling procedures. Additionally, it presently appears the interpretations of this "vote" by this administrator may be colored by his own preferences rather than an accurate reflection of the present discussion. I'm also not sure whether an administrator's proper role is to lock down a controversial article and force a vote prior to unlocking it again, particularly with an article such as this, which has always been contested by many parties along the way. It also seems to me, after seeing this admin's present interpretation of the "vote" he has asked for, that this administrative practice may actually amount to a gambit to substitute this admin's preferred language for other language that was previously achieved by consensus, and which appears to have still emerged with some degree of consensus in the recent discussions involving a different set of editors than were previously involved in the article (with the exception of myself and Dave souza at the moment). I would appreciate it if you have some time to weigh in on how this all is presently being done. Thanks. ... Kenosis 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? Should I unlock the article? Raul654 02:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused

Hi Raul, I'm confused- you seem to have done half of this usurpation request. The logs show you renamed "Drunkenmonkey" to "Drunkenmonkey old" but you don't appear to have renamed Thatguy69. Am I missing something? WjBscribe 05:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do that rename a half-dozen times or more. I kept getting an SQL or time out error, and gave up in disgust. I didn't realize it had actually gone through. Raul654 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...had the same problems again just now when I tried to rename Thatguy69 to finish the request:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Article::insertOn". MySQL returned error "1062: Duplicate entry '2-Thatguy69' for key 2 (10.0.0.237)".

Once again, I give up in disgust. Raul654 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm... it seems that it actually worked, despite the error. Raul654 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Day (May 13) Main page

Ideas from the current list: Girl Scouts of the USA, Celine Dion, Angelina Jolie, Glacier National Park (US), Wonderbra (no! :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me?

I lost my Kkrouni password, Kkrouni usurped has a email address, but can you give it back to me? It was close to the alphabet, but I managed to type it wrong twice.70.186.217.199 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]