User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:57, 4 November 2008

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

GimmeBot

Since Marskell is the one most affected (botifying a FARC into articlehistory is very time consuming), I've posted at User talk:Marskell#GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next chapter at User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holloway blurb

Raul: Someone edited the Holloway blurb. Don't mind them adding a picture, but I'm concerned that they altered the first sentence which we carefully wrote to avoid the question of whether she's alive or dead. Would you consider changing it back to the version you wrote? Obviously there are only minutes left before it goes off main page, but it will be shown that way in the queue forever.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd also be great if you could close Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway when you get a chance. Truly ridiculous and against the guidelines that state reviews shouldn't be started within three days of the article being on the Main Page. Thanks, Raul. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that FAR was removed from the listing and from the talkpage almost immediately, but I'm hesitant to archive it while y'all are still going at it there. Maralia (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Physchim62 (talk · contribs) reverted the removal of the listing[1] and the template.[2] Don't hesitate on my account, as I'm about to sign off for the night anyway. - auburnpilot talk 02:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our old friend?

Please take a look at YAG490 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could maybe add User:Strayson. Seems similar at least. N p holmes (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to ask the same. Seems like the exact same pattern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strayson and Itriel were both Scibaby socks. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revision trial in FAs

I've suggested a trial run of flagged revisions with featured articles here if you'd like to comment on the idea. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I have asked WP:AE to overturn my topic ban [3].--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Please see here for a discussion of the unprotection of an article that you had fully protected. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul, unless you have any great objections I am going to unprotect the article. I am not exactly sure what the original reason for the protection was, and as such I do not want to unprotect until I know. Tiptoety ^talk 03:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I protected it because of Reenem's editing - he kept changing the casualty figures in the battlebox to say something other than what the cited source says. Raul654 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, in that case I have

Unprotected the article. Tiptoety ^talk 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request of advice

Can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_40_Alternate_(Keyser%27s_Ridge_%E2%80%93_Cumberland,_Maryland) - its getting to be a bit of a heated debate - if you could look over the situation, and give some advice, it would help. (I'm posting because people are complaining Off-Wiki).Mitch32^(UP) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons vs. Doctor Who

Hi, Raul. I see from Awadewit's talk page that you're thinking of running Treehouse of Horror (series) on Hallowe'en. Of course, you have the right to choose what you like, but when "Treehouse" was proposed earlier in the month, there were several objections, mostly based on the potential conflict with Doctor Who missing episodes, which has been proposed for November 23 (the 45th anniversary of Doctor Who). According to the points system at TFAR, if "Treehouse" goes up on Hallowe'en, then "Doctor Who missing episodes" goes from 4 points to 1 point, making it likely to be removed.

Of course, "Treehouse" would be a fun entry, and I readily admit that setting one fandom against another is a poor basis for an argument; but The Simpsons has had three articles on TFA in the past year and a half. And I do think that the 45th anniversary of a culturally iconic programme like Doctor Who is worth noting if we can. I know that the presence of two TV-related TFAs within a month betrays our systemic bias towards popular culture, but if you don't want to go back on your word to Scorpion, is 23 days distant enough to bend the rule? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. I see that you've scheduled "Treehouse". I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't reply to my earlier comment, but of course you're the boss when it comes to TFA and you don't have to justify your decisions. Could I ask what your feelings now are towards the Doctor Who article on Nov. 23? Can I request it informally even if it gets dropped from the list at TFAR? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to respond to a whole lot of talk page comments later today after I schedule all the FAs through (but not including) the election. Short answer - no, I don't object to putting Dr. Who on later in November. Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Raul. Sorry if I got a bit testy earlier. (Between the election and David Tennant announcing that he's leaving Doctor Who, I'm rather over-stimulated at the moment.) :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it looks like I won't get to it until tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 08:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look what Gimme's done now

You probably already have something like this, but I'm impressed; see User talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page .E2.80.8E. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different Main page proposal

Raul, we have been discussing doing something different for Nov. 4 by putting both Obama and McCain on the main page as the FAs of the day. You can find the discussion here (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#November 4 and here Wikipedia_talk:Today's featured article/requests#Alternative suggestion - both Obama and McCain as FA on Nov. 4. Since this is something entirely different. I was hoping you could weigh in about how this should be proposed and how you would like to see voting of support/opposition to this idea since you will have to make the final determination. Remember (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul already indicated above [4] that he is watching the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive? Rationale?

I have no experience opining on proposals to put particular featured articles on the main page except for the thread that ended with this edit. Until I was directed there from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics I had no idea who makes these decisions. I had thought these threads might get archived like AfD discussions: a notice at the top says "The decision was...." etc. and people are told not to edit it further. As it is, the only way people who participate in these discussions or who edit the page have of knowing what decision was made is to search the edit history for links like the one above and to draw inferences from that and the queue. It seems to me that the lack of any proper notice of decisions is a disincentive to participation in the discussions. Also, one has no way of knowing what to say in possible future discussion: whether or when might it be appropriate to propose an article again, and how to address any concerns that might have caused the article not to be chosen. For example, it was suggested (strangely, in my view) that an alleged "similarity" to the article about Emmy Noether that appeared in September might be a reason not to put group theory on the main page in November. Whether that played a role is something about which we can only guess. If it's true, then it might make sense to propose the same article at some suitable later date, but if the actual reason is some fundamental objection you have that no one knows about, then such a proposal would be a wasted effort. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to the article -- I was in a hurry scheduling it that night and overlooked the requests page. I've added it to my short list, so don't worry about picking a new date. Raul654 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlink Request

Err.. could you please provide the hyperlink on where you can upload audio and videos? Please answer on my talkpage. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Marshall Williams2 Raul654 (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An invite for you

The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! Mitch32^(UP) 12:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todays Featured Article

Hi,

The current image of Delhi is foggy and unclear and does not show much. Can you please change the image of Delhi on the main page to one of the following:

. These are icons of Delhi and a symbol of the city. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I feature a city, I like city pictures - pictures showing buildings, roads, people, etc. Individual buildings are not great. I've switched the image to Image:Barakhambaroad.jpg Raul654 (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby?

Hi there. I just declined an unblock request on User_talk:Gnowxilef and in checking it, found Gnowynnad (talk · contribs) and Gnowe (talk · contribs), two accounts that were created within two minutes of each other on 3 November 2008. Combined with the actions of Gnowydnaxilef (talk · contribs), I can hear quacks. :P Anyway, thought you'd be interested in it. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hint hint?

Raul, hope all's well... My second class of nascent Wikipedians, North of the Río Grande, is now gearing up towards its final few weeks. It would be a marvellous encouragement if the students could see an article their predecessors had written up on the main page sometime soon. I know you don't like being bugged about main page requests, so I'll leave it at that. Oh, but have some chocolate. ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right - give me a few days until the election craziness is over and I'll see what I can do for you. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent. Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlink info

How do I convert to "ogg"? Please remember to reply on my discussion. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN and candidates on TFA

Sandy started a thread here on potential overlap. I don't think it will be an issue. Follow the link for why.--chaser - t 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant Aude, not you. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Ya never know, with my memory. (I thought you told Jbmurray you preferred Snickers to M&M's :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I only have M&Ms to hand! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul's going to need more than chocolate 24 hours from now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I sometimes mix up our most talented and valuable contributors.--chaser - t 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, how nice of you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was reading the discussion about the Obama/Maccain double FA and I was gonna comment there, but unfortunatly as an IP I cant.. So I decided to ask here isntead. You mentioned there that if you do this then this will be a one time deal, but I have to wonder, what is it about this particular election that makes it so extraordinary so as to warrant this special treatment? There have been US elections since the 18th century, and god knows how many theres gona be in the future, not to mention the hundreds of elections held by other countries. There are hundreds of other events in human history that would be more deserving of a speacil TFA than this election.. Now, if double TFA were to become common occurence then this wouldnt be an issue, but if this is trully a one time event, then do we really want to use for an event that after a couple of years when all the hype has worn off will seem quite uninportant and mundane? Now, of course you can argue that this is the first time that we have two directly relevant FAs avaible, but as Wikipedia grows this will become common place and your position that this cant work as a precedent will be very hard to maintain. Once this goes up it will set a precedent, no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise... Anyway, just my two cents.. 189.104.124.43 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of candidate bios

Raul, we have another issue. Discussion here leans to not protecting these articles until necessary on election day and switching to zero tolerance for vandalism and BLP vios wrt blocks. But you made them featured articles w/ the understanding that they'd be protected. If you want to protect them, I'd suggest dropping a note at ANI about it.--chaser - t 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment exactly... The compromise that I put forth was that the pages would be protected as soon as people started waking up- and presumably when the problem would start in earnest. However, I don't believe I will be the ones protecting them myself, simply because I am four hours behind eastern time and I will still be fast asleep when most of the country is, well, not. You should talk to Risker, I talked with him yesterday and he showed interest in being the one to protect, although he said he would prefer to do it at 12:00AM EST. Just my few cents. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just kicked up the protection level to full/cascading for Obama. I'll do the same with McCain. It will save us many, many headaches tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, any reason you removed the fullpro template? ffm 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - because we don't template the main page FA (or FAs, in this case), even on those unusual occasions when protection is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFA Nov 4

		The Tightrope Award
		For being bold. maclean 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What compromise on Barack Obama and John McCain?

I've seen that you put full protection on these two featured articles, but what compromise are you talking about? Why couldn't it just be semi-protected? Techman224^Talk 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the protection log (23:47, 31 October 2008 L'Aquatique (Talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "John McCain" [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (compromise reached. This article will be temporarily reprotected on Nov 4) (hist) (Change)) which itself referenced the ANI discussion. Raul654 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a link to the discussions? Techman224^Talk 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here and here, among others. Raul654 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you feel about barnstars, so...

You have my instant respect, for what it's worth :) IAR was made for this. This, and the reasoning and process behind it, is the Wikipedia I love, the Wikipedia I signed up for, etc. etc. Thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 173: / Line 173: @@
 :: Can I have a link to the discussions? [[User:Techman224|<font color="339933">'''Techman224'''</font>]][[User talk:Techman224|<font color="3300ff">'''<sup>Talk</sup>'''</font>]] 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 :::Discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Should_the_election_bios_stay_full_protected_through_the_election here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests#Raul.27s_thoughts_on_the_election-day_TFA here], among others. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654#top|talk]]) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
+== Don't know how you feel about barnstars, so... ==
+You have my instant respect, for what it's worth :) IAR was made for this. [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008|This]], and the reasoning and process behind it, is the Wikipedia I love, the Wikipedia I signed up for, etc. etc. Thanks. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]]<small>&nbsp;([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]])</small> 01:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)