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

Sock?

I imagine you've already noticed User:Vextron. Familiar pattern. N p holmes (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caught a new one today Raul654 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another Raul654 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raul654/Featured Articles

I accidentally found this page while looking through some old deleted contributions. According to the deletion log, you deleted it in early November 2004 but didn't give a reason. Would you mind undeleting it and tagging it with {{historical}} or something? I'd do it myself but this isn't my userspace. It's linked to from an old talk archive, so people who go insanely deep into the bowels of Wikipedia like me might be curious about where this "further discussion" went. Graham87 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I link it somewhere in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've put the discussion back in the village pump archives as well. Graham87 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton

This is by banned user Moulton. He has done this same thing at Wikiversity after he was blocked. We also had to block many of his IPs. I'm not great with knowing how to process check user information for Wikipedia, but we do have a list of IPs that Moulton has used after his block from Wikiversity in order to get around the block based on his posting style. What all will the CU system need to process this? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the sig line goes back to Wikiversity. I'm mostly just talking about the list of IPs in general, and if they need to be watched to see if Moulton will try his rotating addition of text. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On ANI by SB Johnny. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you need the RFCU for, in this case, is to tell you about the level of collateral damage a range block would cause. I can tell you that there's at least one regular editor besides moulton in the 68.162.213.45/18 range, so if someone does decide to range block it, it should be anon-only/no account registration.

Also, there appears to be some sockpuppeting going on in the 141.154.81.122/18 range. user:Martha_H_Hagaman_MD and several others were blocked by Alison for being socks. You might want to ask her for a better explanation of why she blocked them - it could be Moulton. Raul654 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Raul and Sandy, after spending three months since the close of the last FAC improving this article with the help of several experienced editors, I have been encourged to bring this once again to FAC. Two new sections were added to the article as a result of comments from very experienced editors who offered their advice in that FAC and soon afterward. The article was trimmed twice, improved once again through another peer review, new scholarly sources were added and I have recently asked randomly selected peer reviewers as well as all those who voted or commented in the last FAC to come offer comments. Sandy offered this [1] comment yesterday. Because of her post, I would like to know up front if it is going to fail because of its size. I will not support the article for FA if it is not going to be allowed to be one of the largest articles on Wikipedia. I think the subject matter justifies a larger size per instructions at Wikipedia:Article size. The consensus of editors over the past 9 months with whom I have worked have only asked for more, not less content. The only people who have asked for less content are user:SandyGeorgia, User:Karanacs, User:Carlaude and User:Ling.Nut. Out of respect for them and because Sandy is the FA director's assistant, I have made every effort to keep the article as small as possible, even though they represent a minority of the page's editors. Please understand that it has been quite impossible to make the article a size that makes all people happy all of the time and I think that its present size is our best offer. Please let me know if it does not have a chance at FA because of this issue so we can all save each other the wasted time at FA. I would also like to leave you with a comment left on my talk page by an experienced peer reviewer I chose at random to come give me comments on this last peer review [2] Thanks in advance for you help in this matter. NancyHeise ^talk 18:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article size is a consensus issue; it's up to reviewers. (I haven't asked for less content.) My role is only to present the data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make clear that in the last FAC, including the restart and not counting anyone twice, there were 54 different voters or commentators, 12 of those opposed the page and only one of those opposes was for article size [3]. Based on this and the comments I have fielded from the vast majority of editors over the last 9 months, the consensus of editors is fine with article size and unless someone brings that issue up, I don't think it helps me by having Sandy post such a comment on the page unless perhaps she is trying to help me because she already knows Raul will fail it because of size. I need to know if that is the case. NancyHeise ^talk 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 30, 2008

Hello Raul. I'm just letting you know that there's still a place holder in position for Tuesday's featured article. When you've got time could you get one sorted? Tulip mania seems to have a good amount of support.[4] Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Ryan check with you on scheduling this date ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Raul, I was bold and put one in because we were getting awfully close to 0:00 UTC. I simply took the one from the requests page that had a lot of support. I've popped a message on AN/I (here) just for a review of the situation because it's not my idea to start usurping the job that you do so well. I suspect you were going to get it ready, but I was just being cautious. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to sit down now and schedule some. I appreciate your caution, but the situation was well in hand. Raul654 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I wouldn't even start being concerned until it was 23:00 and Raul had nothing scheduled for the next day. Gimmetrow 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Gimmetrow, I think 90 minutes before is pushing it a little bit to get it sorted. Perhaps it would be best to try and work to an unofficial one week deadline? It might stop us nervous admins from worrying! I respect that a date has never been missed, but this is the main page we're talking about. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, there's really no need to worry. If Raul hadn't shown up (which would mean a serious emergency, which is why y'all scared me, I was thinking IRC knew something I didn't) anyone would have done just what you did, Ryan. And even if the mainpage was an hour late in shifting, the world will still turn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone else says something - the date-related TFA subpage is used in various templates, so it needs something. In the worst case, if it came to it, any admin would copy the blurb from the previous day at 23:59. But it also doesn't take 90 minutes to select and form a new TFA blurb. Gimmetrow 23:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, actually, because of various uses of Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Tomorrow and Next DYK), it actually is semi-problematic when the TFA thing is not updated with less than 24 hours to go. It becomes impossible for T:DYK/N when it's not updated with less than 6 hours. (DYK is the one that adjusts to balance the Main Page). To help the people at DYK is there any reason that we can't have this updated at least 24 hours in advance? Obviously it's not a huge deal for DYK to adjust when you're running behind, but I can't think of any reason not to just select the TFA a day ahead of time, out of consideration for the other Main Page projects. --JayHenry (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phaert Kut

Another Scibaby sock? I'm not sure if you're still retired from dealing with him, if so let me know and I'll open up a WP:RFCU on him. Oren0 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's scibaby, via 70.0.145.14 and 130.94.121.201 Raul654 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your eye on user:Peakoil01 - there's something strange going on with the CU log. I'm sending an email to checkuser-l to get some other input. For the time being, I am not going to tag his page, but he could very well be another scibaby sock. Raul654 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you put up a link for the basis for this change? I tried to find it but couldn't. This group of socks (Global0133, Peakoil10, 20, 30, 40, etc) is one I've been watching, and I just want to make sure everything is tidy and easy to find when we need it. Gb's been blocking them per DUCK each time they reappear. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the deal. Phaert Kut (the Scibaby sock) was registered from 130.94.121.201. Environmentcrisis and Peakoil01 were registered (at the same minute) from 130.94.121.86 (although there's some weird stuff surrounding Peakoil01's log entry that I'd rather not get into here). Phaert Kut is undoubtedly a scibaby sockpuppet. I concluded, based on the IP addresses, that the other two were his sockpuppets as well, but I could well be wrong about that. Raul654 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, is there a quick way to check Global10133 (talk · contribs) and socks, as they are behaviorally identical to Environmentalcrisis? NJGW (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagoras (talk · contribs) just made an edit just like the Global10133 group makes to Pickens Plan, and has had runins with WMC in the past. Thought you might be interested. NJGW (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's a sock. The account is 4 years old, and I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry in the checkuser data. But if he's acting like global10133 - that is to say, proxying for him - that's bannable all the same. Raul654 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may be the puppeteer of the Global10133 gang, including of Environmentalcrisis: Peakoil60 Peakoil50 Peakoil40 Peakoil30 68.209.177.178 68.209.177.178 Just The Facts Pythagoras Environmentcrisis... Do you mind looking into this (and doing what you feel is needed to Pythagoras) NJGW (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an SSP report, just to organize all this Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pythagoras. Please have a look at it if you get a chance. NJGW (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna and Barbera - dual TFA's

Hey Raul. I have a proposal. I worked on both William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, nom'd them, and with lots of help from others, both are nor FA's. They are the animators of Tom and Jerry and Hanna-Barbera fame as you probably know. How about a dual TFA linking to both of them? I think this has not been done before and would be really cool. Thoughts? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Re: Google Twin

Thanks for the heads up. I will do what I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianna Goldberg (talk • contribs)

Good luck :) Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (terminology) FAR

Macedonia (terminology) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind closing Samuel Johnson?

Would you mind closing Samuel Johnson? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I came here to ask exactly the same thing. Raul, it's been there for an embarrassingly long time and is sending a bad signal to nominators about duration on the list. I'll email you as well. Tony (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, the issue there is that Mattisse (talk · contribs) is using the Johnson FAC to say I'm getting preferential treatment with an extra long running FAC, and has sidetracked other discussions at WT:FAC with this issue. Which brings me to why I'm here: Marskell has introduced what I consider to be an excellent idea, to resurrect Wikipedia:Excellent short articles, to deal with some recent issues at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me, I'm going to ahve to take this page off my watchlist, if you're going to have this kind of subjectheader. How do you "close" a dead author, btw? Might you not want to say "close Samuel Johnson's FAC"? But I digress. Sandy, lemme know if I can do anything to help with ESA, that sounds like a fabulous idea. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Johnson's weight, I would suggest a forklift :-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Matisse must be a right idiot if he thinks having to deal with a FAC for an extra-long time is somehow something to be desired - has anyone pointed out to him the nonsensical nature of his concern? Perhaps if he looked at it properly, he'd be reassured. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KC, thanks for cracking me up after a busy, hectic morning :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Glad someone appreciates my (sometimes odd and slightly macabre) wit. Delighted to have been of service to you! KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, but I have always appreciated your wit (albeit from afar, since we don't often frequent the same talk pages :-) Oops, sorry for taking over Raul's page; I wonder if he loves that orange bar as much as I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now you have me blushing! In the spirit of mutual admiration, allow me to say that I have always stood in awe of you and Raul and all your work with FAs - people ask me how I can handle refereeing the contentious articles I tend to ride herd on, and I think, hey, they're calm backwaters compared to a normal FA discussion. What you do is so very important to the high regard in which Wikipedia is now held, and its increasing status as a well written and admired, not merely huge and all-encompassing, source. Kudos, in spades. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! (But I'm still trying to grow up and be like Raul, which roughly translates to, Learn To Shut My Big Mouth More Often ... old dog, new tricks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, if you figure that one out, will you email me and tell me how? I could use a tip or two every now and then. I try to be humble and sweet... it keeps coming out sarcastic and pointed. *innocent look* I have a pure heart, honest! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Agree all round, especially with the well deserved eulogy to Sandy and Raul. Trust Sam will be closed in due course – serves him right for dissing Scotland :-/ dave souza, talk 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni3 would like to point out how often she shuts her fat mouth, but the pointing that out pretty much makes the pointing null. Now Moni wishes she had the last 45 seconds back... --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Me, figure out how to keep my mouth shut? Well, the options are spa for the day, theatre for the evening, or get on a plane. Oh, but even they have internet access these days ! Heck, I don't much care what Raul does with Sam. He's now got a fine article, the TS isn't misrepresented or attached to some awful wording like "suffered from", and Ottava has shown his capabilities and churned out oodles and gobs of new content. All is well in the world (well, except for that silly $700 billion business ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"attached to some awful wording like 'suffered from'" Are you still upset about that? I said I was sorry. You keep grudges forever. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grudge holding requires committing short-term incidents to long-term memory; I don't have that particular problem. Did you really do that? Well, everyone else did, so you blend in with the pack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user has decided to edit war on the page, to make claims about misattributed sources, plagarism, and POV problems, and now demands mediation. I assume this falls under "unstable". Raul, I have started an ANI section here and I would like you to look it over or respond whenever if you happen to have the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, I have checked two of the assertions of the article, and found neither of them correctly or completely represents the source. I have tried to amend this, and been greeted with an array of novel claims on citation practice, duly listed at ANI.

One of them is an assertion by one of Johnson's biographers on the effect of his condition on his career. This passage was originally cited for something the biographer did not say; I have filed an RfC on the question of whether we should summarize what he did say; but you can find it more directly on Talk:Samuel Johnson#Request for comment.

The other issue is at Talk:Samuel Johnson#Johnson at Oxford. Another biographer, W. Jackson Bate, repeats three stories Johnson told about his laziness at Oxford; I would like to include any one of them, instead of a garbled version of two.

Do by all means close; the article could use a break. I checked two references, and found both wrong; I would not recommend promotion, although the article has clearly improved while at FAC. Bring it back sometime, and it can be improved further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Raul! You're allowing a lot of ill will to fester for reasons that no one at FA can fathom. The article has more than two dozen supports. PMA's concerns are of the exceedingly minor variety he likes to use to waste people's time. Marskell (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are evidence of bad writing and bad research. Two footnotes worth of text, chosen largely at random, differed quite seriously from their sources; how many others of the over a hundred footnotes are in the same case? I don't know, and neither does Marskell. There are too many FAs already that would make Wikipedia a laughing-stock if anybody knowledgeable read them; if FA is intended to mean "not glaringly incompetent, but with pretty punctuation", I should prefer to take it off the Main Page, and let Marskell play his meaningless game where it needn't embarrass the rest of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time yet to deal with your inaccurate, spurious and disruptive tagging of the article, PMA, and considering the number of months (years?) that you've been grinding an axe at FAC (and MOS), I haven't decided if it's even worth my time. (Marskell, what are you suggesting that Raul should do with an article on which PMA has placed an NPOV tag against consensus, research and based on his misread of one old source that cites a fringe theory from Oliver Sacks#Literary work, who is a Committee of One when it comes to Tourette syndrome research?) If you want to advance the disruption you've caused on the article, PMA, please do find one reputable recent peer review that agrees with Sacks. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Samuel Johnson, and, for that matter, the FAC. When I arrived, the article stated Sacks' position as universal fact, much more strongly than the cited source, Robert DeMaria, does; that is actually one of the ways the article misrepresented DeMaria's position. (I kept a mention of it in intermediate edits because I assumed somebody wanted it.) Nor does the sentence I should like to add depend, in any way, on Sacks' theory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, the article said, Although TS caused problems in his private and public life, it lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy". DeMaria doubts that the condition can be meaningfully called TS, although it is probably similar, and does not think it proved (although he sees some evidence) that Johnson is one of the victims with "great verbal and vocal energy"; Sandy's objection to Sacks, IIUC, is that there are no such people. If so, I have at least removed a badly sourced claim Sandy thinks false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please

take a look at this, where your name also appears, please: User_talk:Jennavecia#blanked_-_why.3F

Cesar Tort 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was so long ago, I don't remember deleting that redirect, but it's not hard to figure out why I did it -- non-english redirects do not belong anywhere on english wikipedia except in the main namespace as alternative names for articles. Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Administative abuse of process of FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:FA#Baby_Gender_Mentor

Hi, could you please give your opinion at the above thread? Sandy said she wanted your input before re-categorizing the FA in question. --Itub (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Two-Skydiving.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Two-Skydiving.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Returned IP sockpuppet

Details here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/92.234.25.142. I mention it because ~~it's one of yours.~~ Edit: I meant that it's one of your blocks. Sorry about the ambiguity. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War

Excuse me, I am performing an edit war? I have cited my references for my edits, if only you had cared to read them at the bottom of the article. This article as it is right now is very biased; out of 60 notes in the article, 40 are cited to Rabinovich. I, along with other users am trying to add to the article several Egyptian sources, which as I say again are available at the end of the page, in the External Links extension. I have added another reference consisting of US documents on the war, mostly conversation between Henry Kissinger and Sichma Dinitz. Please discuss your opinions on the talk page. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to adding more information to the article, and using other sources. However, you need to include inline citations, and those citations need to support the claims you are adding. Adding a link at the bottom of your edits is not sufficient. And yes, you are edit warring - you've already violated the 3 revert rule. I am not going to block you, but I have protected the article in question. Raul654 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? Fine I'll add those "inline" citations, even though these are not books, these are research papers, and the third one is a conversation involving Sichma Dinitz, Mordechai Gur, Henry Kissinger, and Brent Scowcroft. If you will decrease the protection level of the article, I will add these citations. By the way, it would be better if you and others would state your opinions and/or requests on the talk page; it would actually get things going, as you can see. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right - I've lowered the protection level back to semi. Raul654 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more citations. By the way, it was the initial 8,000 soldiers who had captured Bar Lev forts, so that had to be mentioned. In the campaign box, I have changed Israeli tank numbers from 1,500 to 2,300, as corresponds to the conversation between Dinitz, Gur and Kissinger on Oct 9. Also, that conversation was not on the phone; the document states it took place at the map room in the white house. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can I add pictures to the article from a blog? Sherif9282 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see some the pictures I was hoping to add are so popular (can be found all over blogs, newspapers, magazines, etc...) and it is hard almost impossible to find their source. Sherif9282 (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then can I use pictures from books, or papers published in academies? Sherif9282 (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU records

Pls see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/92.234.25.142 as it's a matter you previously worked on. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by email. Raul654 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP range

Must you block my ISP? I changed ISPs at the end of April and have had nothing but trouble, being unable to edit without being logged in because of Scibaby's sockpuppetry. dreddnott (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone comes up with a more effective solution for dealing with him, no, you cannot edit from one of Scibaby's ranges while logged out. Raul654 (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson revisited

Raul, can I please add my plea here that something be done with the Samuel Johnson FAC? This is causing all kinds of grief and making the entire FAC process look bad. 33 different editors have provided comments (31 have declared support or oppose) on the FAC. If that is not enough to determine consensus, then we might need to just scrap the whole process. It doesn't really matter anymore if it is promoted or archived, it just need to be closed somehow. Karanacs (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my voice to the crowd. Leaving the FAC open is just inviting more people to comment - I'm not sure why this particular article deserves so much more attention than all of the others. If there is something specific you are still waiting for in a review, perhaps you could let us know? I would be happy to help out, since the eighteenth century is a special interest of mine. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are worse solutions than an interim withdrawal, clean-up, and renomination; let's have something intended as a proposed final text. I would have a look, and if the result then seems sound, I would be happy to support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Karanacs wanted to point to you to the Samuel Johnson talk page which has an impressive list of reviewers supporting the article. I have not voted as I have little time to review it, but I am concerned about the impact of the non-action on the reputation of FA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least say what you intend to do; if you want to wait, what are you waiting for? We could then act accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for promotion (at 97%) is so absolutely overwhelming I am surprised nobody has invoked SNOW and done it themselves; I suspect that is out of deference to you, Raul. Marskell (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've promoted the article. Raul654 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good man. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing that, Raul; just another reminder that Sam has a 300th birthday next year (Sept 2009). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check user question

Hello, Raul654. Can you please explain to me how this person popped up as this person? My email is on if that helps. Maybe the former hacked into the latter. Sorry to worry. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Appraiser edited from the same IP range(s) as Kdbuffalo, but I concluded they weren't sock puppets, so I terminated the socks while letting him edit. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One of my barnstars came from a Kdbuffalo account so I wondered if some of the others had an origin in common. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]