:::I don't think there's anything wrong with what Netoholic did (did I just say that?). You made a post that was clearly violating a bolded policy stated at the top of the page, and his edit summary was more than explanatory. I don't think that enforcing policies stated clearly on the page requires discussion on the talk page. Now, if you wanted to ''change'' that policy, that would require discussion. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] July 7, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
:::I don't think there's anything wrong with what Netoholic did (did I just say that?). You made a post that was clearly violating a bolded policy stated at the top of the page, and his edit summary was more than explanatory. I don't think that enforcing policies stated clearly on the page requires discussion on the talk page. Now, if you wanted to ''change'' that policy, that would require discussion. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] July 7, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
::::Please get your attributiosn correct -- the new proposal P1 was added by Tony Sideway, not me. I did not post to the proposal page at all -- i simply objected to Netoholic's revision on the talk page, and i supported the new proposl on several pages. If addign a proposal in this way celarly violated the policy, it is unfortunate that this would be the fifth time it happend on this colletion of proposals, and none of the other additions were reverted, adn many people have treated them as legitmate by voting and commenting on them. I expalined, on the talk page, why i didn't think the policy prevented the addition of proposals, as opposed to changign the wording of existing propsals. Maybe I'm wrong about that. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 7 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
::::Please get your attributiosn correct -- the new proposal P1 was added by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]], not me. I did not post to the proposal page at all -- i simply objected to Netoholic's revision on the talk page, and i supported the new proposl on several pages. If addign a proposal in this way celarly violated the policy, it is unfortunate that this would be the fifth time it happend on this colletion of proposals, and none of the other additions were reverted, adn many people have treated them as legitmate by voting and commenting on them. I expalined, on the talk page, why i didn't think the policy prevented the addition of proposals, as opposed to changign the wording of existing propsals. Maybe I'm wrong about that. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 7 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
I concur with DropDeadGorgias here. The page says, in big, bold lettering, not to modify it. Someone did, and Netoholic removed it with a clear edit summary. There's no subtle nuances to discuss (it clearly needed to be removed) so I don't really see the need for him to have used the talk page. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] July 7, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
I concur with DropDeadGorgias here. The page says, in big, bold lettering, not to modify it. Someone did, and Netoholic removed it with a clear edit summary. There's no subtle nuances to discuss (it clearly needed to be removed) so I don't really see the need for him to have used the talk page. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] July 7, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
Line 1,035:
Line 1,035:
::exactly [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 7 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
::exactly [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 7 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
I would not have worried except for Netoholic's history of warring over a series of templates a couple of months back. '''I praise Netoholic's tactful and mature handling of this particular case and apologise for misjudging him here.''' --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 9 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
== Thanks ==
== Thanks ==
Revision as of 12:43, 9 July 2005
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
For wounds suffered in the battles of Wikipedia, I hereby award you this Purple Heart. May you continue to be a valued contributor to Wikipedia for many years to come. Neutrality 05:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
With Wikipedia receiving featured status, how could I not write about it in my signpost article? The nomination mentioned 2 previous FACs and two PR requests. Are there any other nominations and PR requests that aren't documented as well, I should know about? Mgm|(talk) 13:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. →Raul654 03:04, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
"Recently featured"
I don't know if I still tell you these things, or if it's handled by someone else (or on a particular page), but the "recently featured" list for the Main Page is wrong--it doesn't list Samantha Smith, even though she was yesterday's featured article. According to the May archive, it appears that her article was not included in the list for tomorrow or the next day either. I'd fix it myself, but I suspect I'd screw it up, and anyway I'm positive you'll be much faster at it than I am. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't follow - what list are you talking about? The one on goings-on includes it. →Raul654 00:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind - I see it now. I'll fix it. →Raul654 00:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Possible impostor
I've been doing some impostor hunting lately, seeing as how we've had a rash of them lately and all, and you got the following hits: RauI654 (talk·contribs). Of course, this may be nothing, but I thought I would let you know. – ClockworkSoul 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I've gone ahead and blocked. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I just thought...
I just thought suddenly: whom I can always count to do his work on Wiki? Silently, in the background, while we mess around on FAC and related, there is Raul654, withouth whom the FA would be...well, most likely wouldn't be. So...
Good deal. I look forward to it. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
DC meet
I am so sorry I couldn't make Brickskeller! I had a minor pet crisis that I had to deal with and it kept me busy all night. Did y'all have fun? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
There's already talk of doing another one in July. Would that work for you? →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Mentoring re Template:Notpolicy
I don't feel that being a party to a revert war is a very good way to "mentor" me. If anyone have an issue with my edit, and I'm not explaining myself well, it is your responsibility to help me communicate. I think this applies if it is you that has an issue. Why didn't you try to talk to me first? Why didn't you make any use of the Talk page before reverting me? I hope you can see how I'm confused as to how you're going to help me on an on-going basis if you're not following the mentorship process. Neither you nor Firebug (which I reported to you as being a thorn in my side) made any attempt to discuss my edit. I made use of the talk page at the time I made the change in the first place (see Template talk:Notpolicy#Wording and formatting). I'm doing my part already. -- Netoholic@ 16:45, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
By prohibiting you from reverting that page, I am forcing you to use the talk page, and thus I am helping you communicate. Use the talk page, discuss with others, and once I am satisfied that you have made substantial progress, I'll lift the prohibition. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Don't I get any acknowledgment that I've already complied with this? I pointed a link where I documented my reasons for the change. Firebug reverted out of spite against me, and didn't comment on Talk. You reverted probably in good faith, but failed to use the talk. At least Uninvited used the talk page. As I said, I'm doing my part using the hell out of talk pages. I wish you'd give me credit or benefit of the doubt before laying down restrictions. And please lead by better example and use freaking talk pages yourself. -- Netoholic@ 19:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Disrupting Wikipedia vote
Are you going to vote in the new poll (right where they deleted the majority support vote) or are you going to boycott on principle? - Tεxτurε 17:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe I will, although I don't see the point of having a vote on something that is already being treated as policy -- it seems a pointless exercise and a needless waste of time. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
User:Netoholic/Mentoring cleanup
Why were our "defensive" comments "cleaned up", while the original "accusations" ("There are two users who have taken a rather obsessive stance with regards to me.") were left intact? - Omegatron 18:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of the community comments section is to report on-going bad behavior on the part of Netoholic. The comment there did not really meet that requirement. On the other hand, as I see it, Netoholic can use "his" section to make whatever comments he wants. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
So you "cleanup" other people's comments about him but don't cleanup his comments about others? - Omegatron 19:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I should have been more clear - that page is not a discussion page. It's not a place for conversations. It is a place to report problem editing by netoholic. You were not using it for that, and therefore I removed your comments. I will not be wading through 100 kilobytes of back-and-forth bickering to find new reports of problem editing by Netoholic. If you want to have a discussion, take it to the talk page.
As far as Netoholic's comment - in the interest of not stifling him and of giving him the chance to defend himself, I left it. →Raul654 19:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Fair enough. - Omegatron 21:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell
Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment [1], diff [2], please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him.Tkorrovi 12:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith conduct by another editor
I don't know if you've noticed it yet, but User:Levzur has put Bagrationi and Democratic Republic of Georgia both back on the FAC page. In reviewing my own comments on the DRG nomination, I found someone else (I haven't investigated the page history yet) had put strikeouts through four of my objections that, after reviewing the article today, still stand. slambo 15:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the media updates to the whale articles
Much appreciated. Pcb21|Pete 21:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that you have more than a passing interest in military history, can you take a look at the second para on the caption for Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 22, 2005. The fact that nearly all active deployments of paratroopers in combat have been a disaster, is something that I vaguely recall from a documentary I may have seen years ago, so it could do with a second opinion. -- Solipsist 20:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delivering troops by parachute is, according to the late general Phillip Davidson, the absolute worst way to introduce troops onto the battlefield (there's a quote to this effect in his History of Vietnam book but after quickly thumbing through it I could not find it). With the advent of the helicopter, parachute drops have gone the way of the dodo, for good reason. The only advantage a plane has over a helicopter for delivering troops is that a plane can fly farther, faster, with a greater load.
The Germans used paratrooper and gliderborn troops (on a very small scale) with success during their swoop through the lowlands and France in 1940. The only time they used them in force was at the Battle of Crete. The British, through superior intelligence, knew about it in advance and slaughtered them. While the germans won the battle by overwhelming force, their (massive) losses meant they would never try it again.
The Allies used paratroopers and gliderborne troops during the Invasion of Normandy suffered very high losses, but caused tremendous confusion among the germans -- so overall, the operation was a success, albeit a costly one. Later in the War, another airborne operation - Operation Market Garden - was another disaster, mostly due to being overambitious (they tried to capture 7 bridges and were able to capture the first 6 -- the 7th was "one too many" and the troops landing there were clobbered).
Parachute drops were used (on a small scale) by the French with mixed results during the First Indochina War. Hirondelle on July 17, 1953 was a success; later ones trying to turn the tide at Dien Bien Phu were massacres.
Off the top of my head, the only use of paratroopers since Vietnam I can think of was in the Faukland Islands war. The british paratroopers landed unopposed at one end of the island, and marched to the other, meeting only light resistance. :I hope that answers your question. →Raul654 20:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
That great thanks. So to describe the use of paratroopers in combat as 'a disaster' seems about right. Presumably to only point of parachute training with the current military is to 'build character', or more usefully as a survival technique for pilots. -- Solipsist 21:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Falklands War saw no use of parachute troops. The Parachute Regiment is a now elite infantry formation (sometimes heliborne), not a parachute force. However, there were parachute drops in the 1956 Suez War. Gdr 11:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Another request
Like before, would you please look through my DC pics and see if there anything feature worthy there. →Raul654 06:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Well in many ways, it looks like you got a higher hit rate of good photos in this batch and many articles should benefit. But I couldn't really see anything that thought was a likely FP candidate (perhaps I'm too critical - I'm pleasantly suprised that the Aloe seems to be working out).
Serious objection -- punishing a user for attacks made against him
In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ending the metatemplate dispute
An alternative to deletion of Template:Sisterproject. Doing double transclusion, as Jamesday and Tim Starling have both said, is a drain on system resources. On the other hand, having some consistent guide to similar templates (such as the sister projects or the stub templates) is a good idea (you should have seen all the different designs for topic stubs before template:metastub and template:metapicstub were created). Whether this style guide is another template that is "subst:" when the new template is created, or copied-and-pasted (as Netoholic has insisted is the only way to do it) is debatable. My own opinion is that the copy-and-paste method will mean that it will be much less likely to be used and be more likely to result in non-matching templates.
The alternative: Add some explanation text to the design template that will explain how it should be used, and prevent it from being used in double transclusion. For example: for the metastub template, the text might be something like:
This is a design template for the creation or modification of topic stub templates. To create a new stub for "newtopic", add the "subst:" parameter to the template (e.g. {subst:metastub | article=newtopic-related article | id=newtopic-stub | category=newtopic}}. After creating the stub, you will need to reedit the stub to remove this text. There are suggested criteria for the creation of stubs (see Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy), and a Stub-creation WikiProject you should visit if you have never created a topic stub before.
After creation of each design template with the additional text, each one should then be protected from further modification. BlankVerse∅ 10:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Raul, I noticed your comments re "User:Netoholic/Mentoring cleanup" above, could you clear up a little further? Where it says on the page, "This section is only to be used to report ongoing problematic editing by Netoholic", I asked a few days ago if I don't get to list ongoing problematic editing by others (relevant to Netoholic) anywhere. I also mentioned a current instance (current then). You got any comment? Seems to me ongoing stuff apparently designed (for example) to provoke Netoholic can be important to report.--Bishonen | talk 06:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrangea
Hi Raul - any objection to my moving Bigleaf hydrangea to its scientific name at Hydrangea macrophylla? The species has several common names (Bigleaf, French, Hortensia, Lacecap, Mophead), none with any noticeably greater currency than any other, so I think the scientific name is the best/most useful. Also the majority of the 100 Hydrangea species don't have any English name at all, and if/when these get individual pages (inevitably at their scientific name), the one listed at an English name would be out of sync. - MPF 13:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No objection here - just be sure to fix the double-redirects when you move the page. →Raul654 18:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Will do, thanks! - MPF 21:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you uploaded Image:Millie and Barbara Bush.jpg but didn't give source or copyright status--could you update that, pretty please? Thanks. Elf | Talk 20:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Source now supplied. The copyright status isn't certain -- the page itself says it is from the George Bush Presidential Library, but it could be a public domain press photo or it could be copyrighted and fair use. →Raul654 20:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Abdullah Öcalan - still an ongoing revert war on material thats clearly POV.
Kurdistan - Old revert wars calmed by other admins
Kurdish people - Many reverts, I removed obvious POV statements added material, they reverted my edits on this article in less than 10 minutes of my revert.
Armenian Genocide - No active reverts by the users at the time, current reverts exist
Nanjing Massacre - Interfered with mediation attempt. It was an article I was going to try experimenting on NPOVising such disputes. There reverted image size modifications. I had a 3rr block for this disagreement. Stereotek requested this block, was also blocked as he was also violating. Users did not have a single edit prior to mine.
Javier Solana Mediation attempt of a less contraversial article, was REQUESTED to mediate it by another user on IRC. Davenbelle destriyed the attempt.
GAP Project (was declared copy vio material completely removed/stubisiszed)
Ranks and insignia of NATO - No actual reverts as they cannot really question images of ranks. Declared this article as an "Abuse" of templates [3]. Would revert if found an excuse.
Greco-Turkish relations - OK article was locked, so I couldnt edit the article but instead made my cases in talk. These users just declared me a POV pusher and whatever on the talk page and completely destroyed the productivitiy of my edit. Rather hostile. (you may want to check archives of talk page.)
Armenia Some reverts, spelling and grammer correction was declared POV.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - was declared in denial, no serrious revert "war" but reverets do exist from time to time.
I am tired of dealing with this. I am open for suggestions. --Cool CatMy Talk 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dont care anymore on what anyone suggests or tells. Hence withdrawing my request. If you really care what I think see my user page. I dont hate you. I am not happy either. --Cool CatMy Talk 00:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Admins who voluntarily give up their adminship
We don't have any set policy I can point to. IMO if their leaving adminship was truly voluntary--i.e., they left because they were on extended Wikivactaion, or didn't think they could keep up with the task (though that doesn't both a lot of current less active admins) they should have it back for the asking. After all, admins just go inactive, are listed as inactive, then say "I'm back" and resume their active status and noone challenges it.
OTOH, if they left in a storm ("taking my marbles and leaving," etc.) maybe they should stand new.
How about this? Since it is bureaucrat's job to decide on adminship, returning admins could ask any bureaucrat to reinstate them. Then that bureaucrat would need two other bureaucrats to agree, and then just do it. If any bureaucrat disagrees, they stand for seven days.
We could avoid this whole thing if we ask Anthere and Angela not to deadmin voluntarily--just list them inactive. If an admin is removed "for cause" or insists on being de-admined anyway, start them all over again for 7 days. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deadminship - even voluntarily - is rare enough that I don't see the need for all elaborate formal policies. How about if two bureacrats agree that it was voluntary, then they are reinstated without much fuss? →Raul654 00:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
OK by me, unless the de-admin was the result of ArbCom or something. But I really think people should be discouraged from formal voluntary de-admining and just go inactive. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. So to put this idea into practice - Ugen currently has such a request on RFA, and Ta Bu just withdrew his yesterday or so. Both of them simply asked to be stripped of their powers and it was made so. →Raul654 00:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Raul and Cecropia, may I request that, if you're going to change past practice, that you allow the votes that had started to proceed, and introduce this change for any new votes, and after a wider discussion? You wrote on Ugen's page that, if memory serves you right, there's no need for his re-nomination, and yet there seems to be no current policy to that effect. I would like the vote for Ugen to go ahead, as I feel there are some legitimate concerns. I also feel that admins have the choice to simply be inactive for a time, and if they specifically choose to be desysopped for whatever reason (e.g. Evercat felt he'd abused his position), then it's only fair, in my view, to ask them to be re-elected if they change their minds. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, I've thought about this more in response to SlimVirgin's request to do so. I appreciate your desire to avoid making every decision an elaborate formal process, but I think we need to be able to go to the community with some sense of why we are doing something that is arguable. For example, a certain former bureaucrat left when a decision of his was questioned. I think this person should not be restored to bureaucrat status without going through the process again. I will leave a comment on the RfA page as this applies to admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Raui! I will start translating the Hebrew article on Gonen tonight. Danny 09:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grunge in FAC
You recently removed grunge music from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates without any explaination for whether it failed or became a featured article. Please respond on the article's talk page. -- LGagnon 20:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Whoops! I was in the process of promoting it (I removed it from the FAC and added it to the promotion archive) but got distracted and didn't finish the job. →Raul654 21:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and fixed it. →Raul654 21:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Image for tomorrow's Featured Article
I have mprotected Image:Senate chamber.JPG for tomorrow. This file comes from the Wikimedia Commons. Gdr said the file there has to be protected, too. (See this on my talk page.) I am not an Admin at the Commons, so I can't protect the file from that end. Could you protect it, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 00:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
"Blanking, per arbcom clarification decision." I'll accept the arbcom decision, but would be grateful if you could provide a link. — Itai (f&t) 10:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was made in response to Netoholic's request for clarification. After talking with other arbitrators, we agreed that the template needed to go - the only question about it was pro-forma related. [4]→Raul654 18:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Raul - thanks for your help with settling this. Could you unprotect Template:Commonscat? Looks like a casualty.
Also, I still would like to turn Template:sisterproject into something useful, and I've made a mock-up. I'll probably archive all the old "meta-template" discussion on the talk page of that template, and go in this new direction (since it's a handy page name). -- Netoholic@ 13:14, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. →Raul654 18:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
A. You've still to provide some substantiation for your claims. (The link no longer works - a diff would be in order.) B. This sounds like a bad idea. This is been attempted by Netoholic before - hijacking templates being a typical Netoholic way of solving disputes - and now he's merely reviving his old idea, which I oppose. The template namespace is big and flexible enough for a new name to be chosen for Netoholic's new template. If you want to delete Template:Sisterproject, do it (or rather, allow me to move it to my User: namespace); if you want to keep it for reference, much the better. But using this particular name would make the edit histories of all sister project templates meaningless to an outside reader - why would anybody use this template in all these templates - and is something I therefore oppose. — Itai (f&t) 07:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(B) Your concerns about reusing the template are valid. I'm going to ask netoholic to blank the template and refrain from using it/remove it from articles until he comes to some understand with others about reusing the name (or, failing that, to use a different template name). →Raul654 08:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, well. You win some, you lose some. Thanks for the link. (And support as far as reusing the name is concerned.) — Itai (f&t) 08:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.
Thanks for your consideration.
Joan Fragaszy
jfragasz at gmu dot edu
I got this message too. What make you of it? -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess - dollars to donuts this is a grad student working up a thesis (she would not be the first grad student working on a thesis to whom I spoken about Wikipedia). Sounds legit to me. →Raul654 18:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I wanted to reply to your comment. I actually am working with several professors in the history department for their own study on the history of the free and open source software movement. We would like to include peer-produced works of history, with articles on Wikipedia and digital genealogy projects as the most familiar examples. This study is part of a larger project on the history of science, technology, and industry. You can read more about it on our website: http://echo.gmu.edu. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have about our intentions. Best regards, Joan Fragaszy.
Joan - I'd be willing to discuss this. I think I'd prefer to do it by phone. →Raul654 20:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
RFA
Hi. To let you know, I have replied to your concerns at my RFA. ✏ OvenFresh² 18:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably on your watchlist, but I thought you would be interested in the additions I made to the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ about the rights and restrictions affecting photographers, which whilst not strictly anything to do with copyright nevertheless appear to be closely related frequently asked questions.
The link to the UK guide is really helpful and covers a wide range of issues in concise summary. The US link is OK, but seems to be more confrontational and doesn't cover some of the issues relating to photographing artwork. Do you know of a better short guide for US photographers.
Both are quite good about addressing recent issues with subjects which are thought to be of interest to terrorist. I was recently threatened by a couple of police women for taking a photograph in a London underground station, so those sections were of particular interest to me. -- Solipsist 18:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like this was definitely lacking. Good work, and thanks. →Raul654 18:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
PS - I got the same threats from a security guard when I was taking pictures of Greenbelt station. →Raul654 18:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you intended to add a media file to the article Dmitri Shostakovich, but the link there doesn't seem to actually link to a media file... Perhaps a mistake? -- KittySaturn 04:10, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Long story - just wipe out the link. →Raul654 04:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Yom Kipur War
Hi, Raul654, thanks for your comment. Please see my response on my talk page. The short answer, is by accident. Sorry, about that. I would never, nor have I ever, intentionally follow a well thought-out edit summary with an edit summary-less one. El_C 10:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Raul, I found your recent edits in that article to have been good and useful. I'm sorry if I'm slowing down your thrust, I have no intention to revert war over this. As I said on my talk page in greater detail, I'm more than happy for us to refer to Danny on this. El_C 10:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but I submitted the edit with the summary, yet it ins't registering. The edit summary read (I still have the page open) : Raul, you can delete it elsewhere (though perhaps it should be exapnded there). We arrived at consensus on the talk page to note it in the Lead, as an important development. Danny, what do you think?El_C 10:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Link (Legend of Zelda)
I suggested Link (Legend of Zelda) for the Main Page some time ago on Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article, and you told me there were too many unsourced, fair use images, and I pretty much forgot about it. However, with User:Master Thief Garrett, I removed a few superfluous images, properly tagged the other ones and added source information (including the emulator used to take the OoA screenshot). The lead picture was changed to include a promotional picture for the upcoming Twilight Princess, and I've tried to replace pictures found on third party sites with images directly from Nintendo's site. Is there any hope it could be put on the main page now? Phils 16:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Since I already have a 'nerd' oriented article scehduled for the 4th (Windows XP), I'll probably wait at least a week before putting up link. →Raul654 21:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. But don't hesitate to delay it even longer; what's most important about the main page FA is showing the variety of subjects treated on Wikipedia. Besides, there's really no special Zelda-related event on the horizon (E3, where Twilight's Princess was one of the top anticipated games, is over). Phils 22:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yom Kippur
Hi, Raul, I hope you liked the Gonen article. I have to say that regarding the dispute with ElC, I tend to agree with him. The revelations about Kippur really shook up Israeli society, and continue to reverberate today, especially in regard to the people's trust of the political system. It is a very essential aspect of the war and should be reiterated. Just my $0.02. Danny 01:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine by me. →Raul654 01:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Yo. I accidentally overwrote one of your images on Commons. It gave me the "changing filename" warning, and I didn't notice that it was also giving an "already exists" warning. Anyway, I overwrote Image:National Museum of African Art.jpg, so if you want to upload yours again over mine, go ahead. Sorry about this. Isomorphic 07:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I realized it allows you to revert. Commons must have some different software. I assumed the old image was gone. Isomorphic 07:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I feel Ive done everything possible to make this into a featured article candidate. I now have five supports and one object and the object I beleive was handled. I left a message on the Users talk page asking him to confirm, but this was 4 days ago and I have heard nothing.
I also apologize for the nasty debate which occured. The user who started it I feel had no good intentions and was arguing against the very existence of the article. I see it as a society article, speaking of ranks and insignia and how this production franchise has incorporated them over the past forty years. It is a good article and deserves recognition. Can we advance now to FA? Thanks. -Husnock 08:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Husnock - No no, it's perfectly all right. This kind of philsophical debate is good from time to time. I wanted to write you earlier to tell you I think you've done a great job on the article (yes, I'm a trek fan, and yes, I did recognize your name). Just to let you know - I don't promote nominations from the fac until at least 5 days have passed (usually more for controversial noms so as to give people time to express an opinion), and only then if there's a consensus (e.g, most people support it) there aren't any serious objections. (Most serious objections are facutual or copyright related). The insignea nomination is only 3 days old. In the mean time, go fix the things mav is objecting to -- those are definitely actionable and I'd like to see them fixed before I promote.
Now, I admit that Peter (Karmosin) does have a sort of intangible point about avoiding 'crufy' featured articles. On the other hand, I really don't see the harm in citing it as one of our best articles, because (systemic bias concerns aside) it really is one of our top articles. So, the big concern then becomes the main page - e.g., not flaunting our geek bias. As such, I'm *extremely* conservative when I schedule these kinds of uber-nerdy articles for the main page. →Raul654 08:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well, after our talk this user went around and invited some other users to "comment" on the article, knowing full well they would viciously object as they did last time. One particualr user I feel should be sanctioned for rather nasty attacks on the FAC page and calling the article names. But, I'm not an admin. Anyway, there is stuff on tehre now like breaking up the entire article and getting rid of the tables. I also added the inline citations but there are comments the sources are "dubious"? Hmmm. Where this rabid hatred of the article comes from I don't know. I think people just dont want to see it as an FA and will say whatever is needed to block it. Anyway, thanks for your support. As I don't see breaking up the entire article and rewriting it as an option, I'm running out of ideas. -Husnock 20:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have in fact reported the User in question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for borderline personal attacks. I was going to let it go until I saw the part of "Vietnamese sweat shops" and "rounding up my buddies" to get an FAC pushed through. Very inappropriate. -Husnock 20:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read the complaint you filed there. I think you're taking this a bit too personally. As far as I can see, every bit of his criticism was directed at the article, and not you personally. I understand how you could be upset, but editing on Wikipedia means you need to develop a bit of a thick skin and not be hurt by criticism of your writing. My advice to you is to avoid escalating the situation. →Raul654 21:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
request
Hi. Please look at my reply to your request on my talk page. Thank you Almog 10:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minor grammar error in your user page
At one place, you've written "I've starting writing". Please change it to "I've started writing". -- Sundar (talk·contribs) 10:56, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Good call - thanks for the information. :) →Raul654 10:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Steve Dalkowski
Hi Raul... was wondering when this FA will be placed on the front page? His birthday falls on June 3rd so this might be a good date to do it. Cheers... Zerbey 17:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and scheduled it for the 3rd. →Raul654 08:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! Zerbey 12:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops. Never mind. Your edits temporarily disappeared from the Talk:Main Page edit history for some reason. They're back now. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
That's a cache issue, methinks. →Raul654 00:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
No, that's yesterday'sbogeyman. Today's is database replication lag. ☺ --cesarb 01:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: Warning
You've got it wrong, I did not vote oppose because it failed.... I cannot in good faith, based on my experiences, vote support for that nomination. If a RFDa process were in place, I would at least move to Neutral. Surely, you're not really trying to make an argument that my lone vote is disruptive of Wikipedia, even if I was trying to make a point. -- Netoholic@ 03:31, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
If you didn't think Linuxbeak qualified, you should have said so and (respectfully) kept your mouth shut about the rest of it. Saying that you would have voted differently if we had a deadminship policy does *nothing* except make people suspect your motives for voting, as I did. You might want to keep this in mind in the future. →Raul654 03:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Urgent! Help!
Raul, I don't know where to ask. My password for the account of the same name on Tamil wikipedia has been cracked and the e-mail address is also probably changed. Because I haven't received the e-mail giving new password that I requested for. Please do something about it. There are several evidences linking this user id in en wikipedia with that. Also it has been linked to my e-mail id (sundarbecse in yahoo domain), since I've e-mailed User:Ravidreams on both the Tamil wiki and the English wiki. Also, since I'm an admin there (and also here) it needs to be blocked immediately before any damage is done. -- Sundar (talk·contribs) 05:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Raul. Will wait for the e-mail to come. -- Sundar 05:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Glad I could help :) →Raul654 05:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this is related at all, but this morning (CDT) when I tried to log in to Wikipedia, it wouldn't work. I am using my family's computer; there is no one here who would vandalize, but as I'm an administrator, I wouldn't want someone clicking something by accident, so I always log out. I haven't ever changed my password on Wikipedia so I was very surprised that I kept getting an incorrect password error. I checked my contributions (my last one was still the most recent, fortunately), then requested a new password by e-mail and changed it. It works fine now. I just thought that it was a weird glitch or something but something similar happened to Sundar I thought I'd mention it. — Knowledge Seekerদ 05:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Knowledge Seeker - was this on the Tamil wikipedia as well? →Raul654 05:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I think I faced the same glitch as that of Knowledge Seeker in Tamil wiki. Noone seems to have cracked my account, at least, noone else has used it and I got the new password over e-mail. -- Sundar 05:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Raul: Sorry for not being specific; no, it was here on en. It may just be a coincidence but it was very odd. — Knowledge Seekerদ 06:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it is possible that it could be related to the maintence that was going on last night and/or the password salting. Either way, it sounds like you guys are OK now. →Raul654 06:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I appear to have a similar problem on the English Wikipedia which just appeared today. How can I get this fixed? -- JamesTeterenko 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Brion managed to track down the problem. If, prior to the mainteince last week, you (or someone else) requested a new password for you account, then but you ignored the new password and kept using the old one -- that's what broke your account.
To get back to your account, request that a new password be emailed to you. It might take a while because the servers have been innundated with requests, but it should get there "eventually" (figure a day or two max). →Raul654 19:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
To further make my situation difficult, I have more information. I just did a test and my email address as noted in my account is one that was disabled a week ago. So, I am not able to get any emails from the "E-mail this user" feature or the "E-mail new password". I do have an accurate email ID for the Commons at my User page. Please help. -- JamesTeterenko 19:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, in that case, a developer has to manually change the email address. The best place to find one is on IRC (freenode) in #mediawiki. They're (rightfully) suspicious about these kinds of things, but just explain your situation to them like you did to me, and tell them to use the same email address as your commons account uses and it shouldn't be a problem. →Raul654 19:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. My problem seems to have resolved itself. On my home computer, my Wikipedia cookie was still good. I was able to update my email address in my preferences. I then asked for another password and changed it back to what it was. Strange, yes, but it worked. -- JamesTeterenko 00:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words...
on my talk page! I got all obsessed with the Deep Throat revelation and revised almost anything that linked to it. I hate red links! Now I better get back to my day job! Jokestress 08:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To-do template
Hello, is it possible to change the background color of the to-do template to a more neutral color like light blue or light grey?--Witkacy 12:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Certianly. If you look at that template carefully, you'll see a line that says:
style="background:#efefef;
efefef are three hexademical values coding for Red, green, and blue. FFFFFF is white, and 000000 is black. A moderately lighter grey would be (for example) F7F7F7. →Raul654 12:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thx i see it now :), is it also possible to change the khaki/brown frame around it?--Witkacy 12:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, don't touch the khaki brown -- that's part of the template standard. See Wikipedia:Template standardisation. The whole idea is that all the talk page templates are supposed to be the same size and color. →Raul654 12:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
aha, ok thanks a lot :)--Witkacy 12:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand how FAC works. I understood that an article would not be promoted while there were valid objections. I believe that there are sourcing omissions in this article and made that objection. Peter (the "author"/sponsor) said that the sourcing was fine so I indicated where I felt there were some specific omissions. I can see that I updated the FAC subpage just after you had promoted the article but at the time of promotion there was the open question "Anything missing?" from Peter. Have I misunderstood the process? Is it another consensus mechanism? --Theo (Talk) 18:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you overlooked my questions? --Theo (Talk) 23:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry, I meant to get back to you. The FAC, like most pages, works on consensus, and consensus is not unanimity. Basically, when I promote nominations, I look to see that a nomination has a certain minimum number of supports (usually at least 4), and that it has "a lot" of support (e.g., that most people - figure in the neigborhood of three quarters - support it), and that there aren't any "serious" objections. A serious objection is an objection along that lines that an article is heavily biased, or factually inaccurate, or that it is (or contains) a copyright violation. Something like this is enough to veto a nomination. In the case of the swedish language nomination, I saw a lot of support, and a handful of suggestions/objections (almost all of which were struck out), but I didn't see anything that I thought was serious. →Raul654 23:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. My confusion clears: I had misunderstood the process. Theo (Talk) 07:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jguk's container pages
Hey Raul - Jguk is using a bizarre scheme whereby 'articles' (template container pages, really) are built using transclusion (not unlike the FAC page). What's worse is he is using the wikipedia:namespace from WikiProject subpages to hold article prose and then linking directly to that from the headings on the container page. For an example see: 2005 English cricket season (8-30 April) (a page he is putting through peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/2005 English cricket season (8-30 April) with the intent of finishing it up before FAC). Please add your input on this practice at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose. --mav 21:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
File:Habitat for Humanity logo.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Habitat for Humanity logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:Habitat for Humanity logo.jpg|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
Oh man, that's what I get for editing wikipedia too early in the morning. I was looking at Image:Majdalshams.jpg and must have missed the PD tag. Sorry. Please disregard. →Raul654 16:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Password trouble
Hi Raul,
Apologies for bothering you in this way. My password (I'm actually Tempshill) stopped working several days ago, and the "E-mail me the password" button doesn't work. At Wikipedia:Help Desk, someone dropped your name; apparently there have been password problems for a few other people as well recently. Thanks for any help you can offer -- Tempshill2 17:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be happening a lot lately. If you look up (in the Urgent! Help needed!) section, Sundar and Knowledge Seeker both had this problem. It's probably related to the recent passwording salting that the devs instituted. Anyway, the email-this-user button doesn't work because this is happening to *a lot* of people and the mail server is, um, bogged down (it had 2,000 emails in it when Sundar asked for help). My advice is to wait a little while (48 hours) to see if the email with your new password arrives. →Raul654 17:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, when I click the 'mail me a new password' link, I am immediately told that I have no e-mail address on file, which is almost certainly incorrect. Any advice? Tempshill2 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, according to the email-this-user function (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Tempshill) - your account had no associated email address. The developers can manually set one, if you want (at which point, you should be able to request a new password). The best way to do this would be to get on IRC and ask them in #mediawiki on Freenode. I can do it for you, if you want, but that might take longer. →Raul654 18:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I found someone who fixed it; thanks for the pointer. It had to do with an old password from the past not having been converted to a newer format. Thanks! Tempshill 21:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that you have taken my advice and started staying away from controversial topics - have you found your editing here more pleasant and enjoyable? →Raul654 23:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
No I feel myself in a complete void. :) --Cool CatMy Talk 00:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question for you
I don't know enough to even begin talking about this, but you do - I was flipping through some pages when the Gamefaqs article caught my eye. So much of the entry is simply going on about their individual forums and jargon. I know other, less notable, pages have caught crap for this (especially the Kenzerco forums), but is Gamefaqs large enough to be notable?
plz comment thx bye 216.158.31.195 20:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you don't think a page should exist, you can nominate it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion - be warned, however, that that page is a prepetual battleground, and (in my opinion) it is overly inclusive -- manifestly non-notable things get kept, more often than not. →Raul654 06:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
NPOV AIDS
I noted all the suggestions on the talk page and edited the definiton to include them all. Then it is reverted without comment or discussion! Please discuss the article Sci guy 01:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I specifically said that copying a definition and calling it an introduction is inherently bad writing. The version you reverted includes all kinds of useful information necesary to introduce the subject not present in your defintion (the number of people infected, the history of the disease, etc). The version you were removing was most decidedly better for that reason. →Raul654 01:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for fixing the link I was placing on The Star Spangled Banner. I missed the description tag, but I hope a recording like what I made will work for the encyclopedia. Zscout370(Sound Off) 01:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I listened to it - the sound was barely audible. I kicked it up by 9 decibels but it's still pretty low. Also, you're a bit flat, but that's not so much of a big deal ;) →Raul654 06:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Re: Good work!
Thank you :)
Unfortunately, my life has been a bit crazy lately, so I haven't been able to email it within half an hour of 0:00 UTC every day (I'm sometimes a couple hours late :$). Hopefully things will clear up by the end of the month, and I'll be able to be on time more consistently :)
Thanks again for your message, I really appreciate it a lot. Take care! -Frazzydee|✍ 14:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome :) →Raul654 06:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the generated source in the example you've given (libertarianism), you can see the {{{1}}} is being expanded on the link, but not within the id attribute.
This makes me think of a recently fixed security bug, where the expansion of a template could be used to bypass the HTML filters. I saw it first at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What was that?, which gives a date (yesterday) and a bug number (2304).
If the date matches with your experience, that could be that the cause (a side effect of the fix); I have not looked at the code, but I can guess the parts of the code involved in both the security fix and the recent template problems are the same.
Thanks for the match. I was only a bit annoyed by the community pressure. You played a superb game and what kills me the most in hindsight was blocking my queen-side bishop with my queenside knight prematurely. SDSUPinoy 19:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Main Page
Hello, just curious as to how you go about selecting FA's for the main page. Phoenix2 01:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not really rocket science. When I pick articles, I look for interesting ones, and I try to avoid having too many articles from a particular country/subject featured in a short period of time - particularly ones related to pop-culture or "geeky" ones (which we have a distinct bias towards). It used to be a lot harder back in the old days, when featured articles didn't really have the good introductions they do today. I also try to fulfill requests I get on wikipedia talk:tomorrow's featured article whenever possible. →Raul654 06:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Powell
I don't have sources for the questions you raise. Adam 06:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hrmm... that's unfortunate. →Raul654 04:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Karamazov
Good call on that one. It's probably one of my favourite, if not the favourite, works in the Western canon.
Are you ever on AIM anymore? I need to talk to you. 216.158.31.195 18:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Basically, my question was, how do I get my older contribs (as 216.158.31.195) to show up on my new (Jasonglchu) contributions? Is there any way to get the one into the other, or do I just start from scratch? Nothing big. Jasonglchu 13:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In theory, you can make a request on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. On the other hand, the warning at the top of the page says -- Edits have not been reattributed for some months. There are no indications when requests made here will be executed, if ever. Chances are very good that requests there will be ignored forever. →Raul654 16:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
The Bros and The Pope
It is sort of surprising I guess, which is why I thought it would be interesting to include... I must disagree with you about "it's a bit of a stretch to categorize Benedict as an author". As Cardinal Ratzinger he kept up an incredible rate of writing and publishing. I'm not talking about internal Church stuff-- I mean books you can find on Amazon. He's authored or co-authored around 50 commercially sold books. In fact, you can see here that he's even been making some bestseller lists. JDG 20:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
wikistress level
Thanks for noticing. Yes, things are getting better, though I've been less active lately as well. Been dealing with a growingly active Simple: Wikipedia. The stress around that meta-template junk was a major factor and now that it's "gone", I'm better. Thanks for your help with that. -- Netoholic@ 22:54, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
An Image Tag?
About the Damascus by night picture. Being a newbie and given the little time I currently can give to Wikipedia, one that will stay so for a while, I am afraid I cannot respond to your request, unless you help understand what you meant :-). In all cases, feel free to edit my contributions dear Raul654 as you seem vastly more involved in here than i ever will be --Zelidar 21:13, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Everyking IRC request
Yes, I can be there...I have plans in the early/middle part of the day (EST) but other than that I should be free and I'll make a point to go into IRC and see if you're in there. Everyking 06:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Say, Raul, it just occured to me... Does Rabinovich actually writes AMAN? I don't believe I've seen that before. I realize you thought it was an acronym (thus, it would make sense to capitalize – but if it was, it'd be two not three letters), but it's an abbreviation. I've seen Aman used, and a quick search shows it is the prevalent use. I am, in fact, in favour of the jewishvirtuallibrary.org'sA'man as the most correct name for the article/subject in English. So, unless you have any objections, I'm going to rename it accordingly. Regards, El_C 10:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he writes "AMAN" - in all caps - and does so throughout the book. →Raul654 18:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
But no, I have no objection if you want to switch to the more prevalant english usage. →Raul654 18:42, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Roger that. Why did I say three? Four! Yes, I think he errs on this in two interrelated ways: first giving the reader the impression it's a four-word acornym rather than a two-word abbrevation, & thereby also failing to convey that in Israel, it is pronounced A'man (and, in fact, rarely are the two words, Agaf Modiin, used in normal speech), similiarly to the pronounciation of Shabak (Shin Bet), or Shabas (prisons service), Magav (border service), etc. I didn't pick up on it right away since I haven't read much of this sort of material through English language sources. *** Quick question: is my spelling of inteligence for these purposes (as opposed to IQ, etc.) in error, or is that distinction a product of my feverish mind? TIA. El_C 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic
Netoholic has found himself a revert war on WP:POINTSnowspinner 15:08, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
... and Snowspinner has found himself a WP:POINT to make. -- Netoholic@ 15:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
And now he's attacking me on the talk page of WP:RFAR and reopening a settled edit war at WP:TROLL. Snowspinner 17:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
That was fairly well premature and, frankly, a cop-out. This would have been an ideal situation for you to "assist my communication" rather than pander to a tattler. Especially on WP:POINT, my most recent edit was toward compromise, and now you've cut off that process without even discussing with me. -- Netoholic@ 18:20, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Why don't you come on IRC and we can talk about it. →Raul654 18:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
In all fairness, this is the first time I saw this note about IRC. I got distracted with other things and never checked back here for a reply from you. -- Netoholic@ 05:47, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Lir
Hi. I'm breaking for a bit, but I was wondering what your reasoning was for considering this to be Lir? ✏ OvenFresh² 20:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lir's idiotic vandalism tends to follow a particular pattern (especially along the lines of leaving incoherent messages on my talk page) and that one fits the pattern perfectly. →Raul654 18:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC.
I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Former featured articles
Good day. As Featured Articles and things related are generally your gig, I thought I'd let you know that I have created a list, not dissimilar from the Wikipedia:Featured articles page, of Former featured articles.
I did this in part for convenience (as the only way to track down what had been a featured article was to dig through the archive - which is exactly what I had to do to create this page). I believe a list like this is important because it illustrates that a page can evolve both ways, and that wikipedia standards have changed over the years.
I also created a shortcut for it, tweaked the {{featuredtools}} template, and added references to it on the various FA-related pages. I was rather bold with this, so if you see that it needs improvement, (obviously) just change it.
Hello. How to mark Image:Shakespeare.jpg to deletion because it is moved to commons as commons:Image:Shakespeare.jpg ? I am sysop on pl: Wikipedia and I can delete his image only on pl: Wikipedia ? Lzur 09:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know :) {{NowCommons|Image:Shakespeare.jpg}}. Lzur 09:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the en version -- problem solved. →Raul654 18:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Koufax article
Hi, Raul. I think I was the lone "object" vote on this article. This is no big deal, and in the end the article (on one of my top sports heros, along with Jim Ryun) ended up quite good. However, my objection was that the article was pretty much a "book report" on Jane Leavy's fine book. She told Koufax's story in an interesting fashion, interspersing his life history in the midst of describing, inning by inning, the devolution of his perfect game. The wikipedia biography reads in similar fashion, unlike other sports bios. Now that I think of it, I have done similar work ... reading a book on a topic and then later basing a wiki article on that knowledge. "Alfred Lee Loomis" comes to mind. But for that reason, I didn't think those kind of articles were FA status.
Again, this is an observation, not an objection. If I'd felt strongly about it, I would have kept hammering the point on the FAC page. Just one more thing to keep in mind. Sfahey 03:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Template:Disinfopedia
{{Disinfopedia}}, which you created, has been replaced by {{Sourcewatch}}. Because there are no longer any articles that use the old template, the redirect is no longer necessary. Therefore Template:Disinfopedia has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse∅ 11:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congress
Congress has recently enacted a certain law which I think you need to be aware of. --Jondel 05:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Raul654: I saw this was just posted by 62.253.96.42, and I thought you might want to know. Beyond that, it looks like he's back re-vandalizing the pages you reverted. Check out Special:Contributions/62.253.96.40; at least the last two are image removals. Thought you might want to deal with the obvious horsehockey at RfC and maybe give 62.253.96.42 a good thrashing. Happy hunting! Essjay · talk 09:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Was it the image removals you blocked him for? I noticed he's also been warned for nonsense creation. Note: I've moved the RFC he started on you to an appropriate subpage to avoid accusations of bias or anything. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I blocked him for the image removals, combined with the fact that (from his talk page) I saw he had been warned repeatedly before for vandalism and nonsensical editing. →Raul654 14:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Need some help
Hey, Mark: Allareequal has been up to a pretty annoying thing today... pretty much all day, nonstop, he has been making nonsensical, overly generalised, nonencyclopaedic lists, and he refuses to stop. He has way too many to list them individually on VfD. Could you help me out with him? I don't know what to do - it's not really a case of vandalism, just a very stubborn, unintentionally abusive user. Thanks.
jglc | t | c 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've wiped out the most stupid of the pack. Most (if not all) of the rest are redundant with categories and should be deleted after going through the VFD. I've also dropped a stern warning on his talk page. →Raul654 18:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I gave him a little chat on his User_Talk, and we're on roughly the same page now - he knows what's up. I don't anticipate any more problems; probably a few bumps in the road, but he seems to be moving in the right direction. I appreciate the help. jglc | t | c 18:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Hey Raul, thanks for your message. I really appreciate it. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk) 21:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. →Raul654 20:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Chess
If Wikipedia's elite chess tournament isn't accepting new players, where can I sign up for the next one? --WikiFan04ß 00:21, 16 Jun 2005 (CDT)
I'm not quite sure -- I suspect the next one will not start until the current one has finished; at the rate it's progressing, it will probably be at least a few months until that happens. →Raul654 05:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
When I suggested this for featured-article-of-the-day, you posted a note wondering if we could get an illustration other than a map. I checked the web-site of the Middletown, Ohio, public library, and found a general drawing of a canalboat from that era (circa 1840). I've posted that to the article and moved the map down in the article. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Need some admin help on this. User:Shrek32 has been adding links to fictional video games and movies in the fictional "Amber Sparks" and "Brooke Fox" series to various Lists of Movies and Lists of Video Games (i.e. Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution, Nintendo DS, Gameboy Advance, Playstation 3, Playstation 2, Playstation Pocket). He just started adding entries for "The Doodlebops" - which also do not exist. His rate of vandalism is very high (just look at Special:Contributions/Shrek32; could you do a personal favour to me and help me out with shutting him down?
I am also submitting to Vandalism in Progress, just in case.
FYI, I have responded to your comment on WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S. What is our blocking policy in regards to personal attacks? I was not aware that we had one. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RFA; climate ch: motion to close: objecting
You have voted to close this case. I object: the remedy aginst me is still unsupported by FoF, and my questions [5] remain unanswered. - User:William M. Connolley
There are actually two remedies that apply to you -- 2.2 and 2.3. I presume you are referring to the latter. (Remedy 2.2, which I wrote, is a simple warning to avoid sterile edit wars). Your complaint about 2.3 is misdirected here -- Ambi and I voted against that remedy. →Raul654 17:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough, I know you did. Oh... OK, I'll go and talk to Grunt. William M. Connolley 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Tote the Ranks
Raul654 of the Wikipedians, I hearby promote you to the rank of Wiki Administrator, with all the privileges and responsibilities that it entails. :)
i need to upload about 60-70 images in commons, ALL tagged the same way. I am trying to create an article about my city's wireless community network, (Patras Wireless Network), and I asked the users of the network to take pics of their antennas, their surroundings and a pic of their Access Point from their location. So, the upload interface will suck ass, because there's no way in hell i'll upload 70 pics one by one :D *HEAD EXPLODES* as you were the only one i remember with an album, i thought i'd ask if you know any alternatives. I think i have enough material in that article to make it a FAC. it's going slow though :)
i read your rules. so, what do i do to prevent astroturfing? i mean, yeah, well, besides the bullet-in-your-head method... I mean, yeah, it works, but then i couldn't edit any more ^_^
No one has yet devised a silver-bullet against astroturfing. Detecting it would be the hardest thing of all. It's a special-case of the whole POV pushing problem I outlined in the Arbom's RFC. →Raul654 22:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
OK, thank you for telling me. Everyking 05:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the only birthday present I have for you is a note to ask you to change the copyright tag on this image... You uploaded it under {{PD-Germany}}, but this tag did not accurately state German copyright law. The image is not yet PD; however, it may be usable under fair use. Could you consider changing the tag to {{fairuse}}. Cheers, and happy birthday! Physchim62 13:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, actually, I uploaded it long before we had image tagging (someone has subseqently added a tag, the accuracy of which I am not sure). I don't remember where I got it now -- it was some site on the web. →Raul654 04:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Everyking mentorship
I am very distressed at the speed with which you took down the Everyking mentorship discussion from the RfAr page once you got the 4th vote you were jockeying for. How does it hurt to leave it up for more than a few minutes so we could see who placed the votes? And once you've changed the rules of an arbcomm decision and parole, it would be nice if you'd notify the other admins so we know what to do and what not to do when we encounter someone who apprears to be violating their parole. RickK 21:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't leave it up because every member of the arbcom (save 2, one of whom - Mav - is concentrating on CFO duties instead of arbcom stuff) was either inactive or had expressed an opinion. I'll be more mindful in the future to give notification. →Raul654 22:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
jguk case
The preliminary decision is already in, and the majority votes have already been cast. RickK 04:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Suffice it to say, we are actively discussing the matter and the final decision will almost certainly be very different than the current proposed one. →Raul654 05:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
A'man2
Hey, Raul. Since I renamed IDoMI back to A'man, the A'man page looks strange on my watchlist. Would you know how to fix it? Thanks in advance. Oh, and happy belated BDay! :) El_C 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you mean - in what way does it look weird?. →Raul654 04:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded it as PD (which the government pages classify it as but the AP apparently does not); someone later got permission from the AP and changed the tag accordingly. →Raul654 04:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks... =
...for helping me out. And, happy birthday! Looks like I got back just in time...it's your birthday, but I got the present. :^) Have an extra slice of cake for both of us, hear? - Lucky 6.9 20:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My opponent just came out of the hospital. he was in a car accident. i think i'll wait a bit till he recovers and lets me know he's ok :) Project2501a 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a question: I wish to create a category of FA's called "Awards and Decorations." I know there are some decorations stuck under the military and war section (Medal of Honor), chivilary (Order of the Bath) and culture and society (Hero of Belarus). I was wondering if you would have any problems with that? Zscout370(Sound Off) 05:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh, yes - if by "category", you mean a new section on Wikipedia:featured articles - I'd prefer not to add one like that because it overlaps (heavily) with several other existing ones. →Raul654 05:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
That is what I mean. The articles affected, other than the three I mentioned, are: Order of the Garter · Order of St Patrick and Order of the Thistle. Once the Awards and Decorations section is created, it will be removed from the other sections, unless that is a major problem. I also wish to do this since one or two medals are going through FAC (Iron Cross and a Polish decoration) and I am pushing through my second FAC, Order of Canada through the Peer review process. I just wanted to make sure it was ok with everyone before I did anything. Zscout370(Sound Off) 05:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weird bot edits
If you don't like it, feel free to change it. However, the capitalization of the link is not seen by the user (except on the status line), and it doesn't affect the ability to link to the article because the software automatically capitalizes the first letter in all links, so (to me) it's not a big deal. Russ Blau(talk) 16:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Cambini media files problem
I'm pleased that you added media files to the article on Giuseppe Cambini. Unfortunately, there is a glitch that causes each link to send me back to the Wikipedia main page, and the Info link sends me to a page that says something like "Image movement 1 .ogg doesn't exist." Del arte 22:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic, again
Take a look. Didn't you already yell at him for this exact reason? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me?
Do you have a problem with my contribution to RickK's exit? 68.97.208.123 04:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)) up which has gotten comments from only three users in 12 days. I have addressed their concerns to the point where all three voted Support. However, there haven't been any more comments. Are three opinions adequate (it seems a bit thin to me), or should I go out and solicit input from other editors? Thanks. Guettarda 05:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As you can see, I just did some archiving and promoting. 3 supports is a little thin, yes. I'll leave it there a little longer; hopefully, it'll get a few more supports so I'll feel comfortable promoting, but if no one objects after some days, I'll probably just go ahead and promote it. →Raul654 06:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Neto?
Out of curiosity - is Neto's mentoring lifted? I've seen no activity on the mentoring page, and quite some WikiSpace activity by him. I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, but people were recently discussing whether mentoring actually works, so I was wondering if this was resolved, abandoned or still active. Radiant_>|< 08:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Help needed
Raul, I need you on IRC pronto. There's something we need to discuss. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
In regard to the anon. IP vandalism to the proposed decision page for Kainthescion's RfAr...
Traced two of them... one traces back to Amsterdam according to Geobytes (Whois basically says the same thing, tracing it back to an ISP based in the Netherlands), but the second ended up tracing back to an ISP in Italy. Here's the thing... that ISP was classified as a LOCAL service provider. I'm starting to think that we may have a bunch of vandals who are simply attempting to make the situation even worse. Traces I did on alleged sockpuppets of Enviroknot seem to suggest the same thing... Geobytes traced two of the four IPs it could find to Houston, a third to a city in Nevada, and a fourth to Toronto... yes, as in Canada. I've read quite a bit about a group of trolls called the GNAA... perhaps they're behind this? I seriously doubt that these IPs could all be used by the same person. Of course, I could be wrong... but it doesn't seem logical. --Chanting Fox 04:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's probably one person exploiting open proxies. →Raul654 04:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps... but i traced 65.75.150.102 (another anon. IP that vandalized the page)... and Geobytes said it was 90 percent certain that it was located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. As for the open proxies... I'd need to know if they could fool Geobytes. Geographically these IP addresses are going all over the place.--Chanting Fox 04:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand -- I agree that it looks like these are coming all over the place. On the other hand, they could all be controlled by a single user remotely - e.g, they are his proxies. →Raul654 04:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
So how can you tell whether or not that is the case? For that matter, would I be able to... or would that require more priveledges than I have? --Chanting Fox 04:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I scanned several of the IPs with nmap and sure enough some of them were running as proxies.
[~/]> nmap -p 80,8080 65.75.150.102
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on (65.75.150.102):
(The 1 port scanned but not shown below is in state: closed)
Port State Service
8080/tcp filtered http-proxy
[~/]> nmap -p 80,8080 72.9.242.90
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on grcm.net (72.9.242.90):
Port State Service
80/tcp open http
8080/tcp filtered http-proxy
This appears to confirm my theory. →Raul654 04:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
All the ones I've encountered so far, and have blocked indefinitely, have been open proxies, and judging by this, by the language of the posts, and by one other factor, they're being operated by the same person. If either of you wants to know what the one other factor is, feel free to e-mail me. SlimVirgin(talk) 08:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
This just keeps getting odder. The IP used to vandalize the proposed decision (as well as the one that left a message on this here talk page) was 72.9.242.90. http://72.9.242.90 exists (reverse DNS's to grcm.net, according to whois it is registered to Giles Morant and according to that page his email is giles-at-grcm.net). Think we should email him and tell him that he (or someone using his box) was vandalizing wikipedia and that he has been blocked? →Raul654 08:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Raul, I just saw this. That IP address is listed as an open proxy. Giles Morant might, indeed, be keen to know that. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Admin's abuse
Hello, my name is Floweofchivaly, working for science and history fields. I appology in advance to write this page suddenly.
He started revert battles Iris Chang by ignoring discussions. He does not favor anything he does not like, and he no longer accept to talk to me but keep reverting without showing any reasons. From his assersions, it is quite clear that he just want to support China.
He also stated some anon IPs' reverts are mine without showing any proofs at [6].
He also reverted other pages such as The Rape of Nanking (book). I found that there were silent reverts battle, so I encouraged them to talk without joining the battle, but Mark ignored.
I have used Wikipedia several times for my research, and I thought it is very useful. This is the reason why I started contributing, but I don't know why there is a person like him here and disturb our contributions.
I would like to ask you what should I do. Any kind of help will be greatly appreciated.
Speaking to that, this is the response to your comment on my talk page:
Yes, my comments were mostly an exercise for the reader to demonstrate that while having a good system would be great, there probably aren't any that are worth the cost. The one used for Guanaco worked fine, pissed off a few people for sure, but did work. The only issue with that system is that would be very rare to happen which means there is no simple system to de-admin. As I've thought it out though, I do think that is likely the only way that wouldn't be a disaster, as Sam's proposal certainly would. - TaxmanTalk 12:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Pellegrini,
Allow me to be the first to congrat you on successfuly defending your Thesis, Doc. Good going! One PhD down, 10 more to go! :D Project2501a 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, Mark. I thought that qualification exams are different from defending a thesis. -- Sundar (talk·contribs) 09:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
It varies from school to school, but most places (including mine) you have to pass an exam demonstrating knowledge in the area before you can present a thesis. So it's a big roadblock out of the way. Now I can concentrate on doing my thesis (coincidentally, the same day I passed I got (what I think will be) my thesis topic)→Raul654 19:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hi
I saw the note on your user page. Congragulations!!! 172 18:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
HI there, I was wondering if I could ask a favour. Since I am going to be away from a computer for pretty much this entire weekend, and I'm not sure that Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 will pass with Michael Snow's current objections. Is there any way you could hold off for a few days from taking it off the list so that I can address his obejctions? Thank you so much! Páll 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yikes. I just reread the nomination in question, so I should clarify my above statement. There's definitely some very suspicious sockpuppetry going on, as well 2 people voting oppose to make a point (Netoholic and Boothy443) in violation of Wikipedia policy. On reconsideration, I think an extension is in order.
I'm curious how their votes were in violation of Wikipedia policy? Thanks. :) kmccoy(talk) 22:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I consider voting against someone's adminship to protest Wikipedia policy to be a clear case of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. →Raul654 23:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
WP:POINT isn't a policy, it's a guideline. I think that many people have taken to applying this guideline too liberally. Voting against RFAs doesn't disrupt Wikipedia in any real sense. I've seen WP:POINT used against people several times when the harm done to the project is hard to see. I think that the idea of the guideline is that it's not good to do bunch of vandalisation, or to register a bunch of fake accounts to vote against RFAs, etc. Voting against an RFA out of principle doesn't *harm* Wikipedia, I would in fact argue that it helps it, in allowing people with all views to continue to make contributions and to make their views known. People with contrary views being dismissed like that is part of the reason that accusations of "rule-by-clique" can occasionally seem on-target. I think everyone should take a step back when they're going to accuse someone of "disrupting" Wikipedia and decide if it's actually disrupting the project, or if it's just not quite fitting into the mold that is expected.
I hold you in high regard, I hope you understand that this comment is made in the spirit of constructive criticism. Thanks. :) kmccoy(talk) 02:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The distinction between a guideline and a policy is one of degree (and generally is a subjective one at that). Policy says that you shouldn't do something, ever; a guideline means you shouldn't do it unless you have a very good reason not to. Claiming that something "isn't policy, just a guideline" is asinine - it's an attempt to subvert the rules by discrediting them. Yes, it's "only" a guideline -- that doesn't mean it isn't almost always a good idea, and that doesn't mean you can violate it flagarantly just because you disagree with it.
"Voting against RFAs doesn't disrupt Wikipedia in any real sense" - it doesn't disrupt the 'encyclopedic' part (the article namespace). However, being that adminship promotion is a nontrivial part of the project (particularly the behind-the-scenes part), disrupting it (by definition) does constitute disrupting the project.
Now, you argue that voting-against-someone-to-protest-poliy doesn't disrupt Wikipedia, that it helps it by giving them another venue to express their opinoins -- no no no! Absolutely wrong. For the people here with "dissenting views" (e.g., the people who accuse the adminship of cabalism) there are appropriate places to make their views known and there are inappropriate places. The mailing list, talk pages, the arbitration commitee, and any of dozens of others are appropriate places; Requests for adminship is not an appropriate place (neither are the FAC or VFD, just to name a few). The purpose of that page is to judge people, not policy. It's inherently unfair to the nominee to hold him responsible for something over which he has no control. →Raul654 02:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not being asinine or trying to subvert the rules. I'm questioning the fact that you call it a policy when it clearly states on the page that it's NOT a policy. If you think it should be a policy, you're clearly influential enough to cause that to happen, go do it. Until then, I don't think it's at all fair for a bureaucrat to claim that users are "violating policy" by voting no on RFAs. Even if WP:POINT were changed to a policy, I would still argue that a broad application of it, such as the one you seem to advocate, is more harmful than helpful. Voting no on RFAs doesn't even disrupt the process of RFA, since people like you disregard their votes, and if a user disagrees with promoting anyone to admin status, they should have the clear right to express that in every RFA. I just took a look at Boothy443's user page -- it seems that he's been driven away from the project by being demonized, just as we've demonized Eequor, just as we've demonized Netoholic, people who had *good intentions*, and whose personal credibility on the project have been crushed by a subtle effort on the part of a group of people who do a lot of the work on this project. This can't lead to anything good for the project. I urge you to reconsider your accusations and the broad application of WP:POINT. Thanks. :) kmccoy(talk) 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suffice it to say, I'm not going to rebut every point, but:
As far as the difference between guideline and policy -- Wikipedia guidelines are enforcable as-is. Guidelines have been cited numerous times in prior arbitration committee decisions, and of those, don't-disrupt-wikipedia-to-prove-a-point has been cited repeatedly.
The application of the above was extremely lighthanded, in that neither Boothy's nor Netoholic's votes were challeged, nor did they get in any trouble. The only impact was in Weyes' case where the voting was particularly close to the threshold, and there was suffecient other goings on (such as Marmot's sockpuppetry) to nullify the vote.
If you think that Netoholic (and Eequor, to a lesser extent) were demonized because people didn't like them, then you have a very big misunderstanding of the history of those users. Netoholic's credibility was "crushed" because his actions caused huge amounts of trouble, detailed (at length) in his arbcom cases (<--- notice, the plural, "cases"). Saying he was demonzed by people who didn't like him is rewriting history. Also, I'll add that he was fortunate enough to be the recepient of an experimental mentorship, designed specifically to help him interact better with the community.
"If a user disagrees with promoting anyone to admin status, they should have the clear right to express that in every RFA" Let's be clear - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and no one has a "right" to edit here. People have privileges. When someone misbehaves, he may lose some (or all) of his editing privileges. I (as well, I suspect, as most people) consider voting against adminship nominations to protest Wikipedia policies to be misbehavior. It does demonstrable harm to the project, which is why we have a rule ("a guideline") against it. →Raul654 03:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Why bother having a difference in terms, then? It seems to me that it only serves to offer an opportunity for frustration, like mine.
Perhaps the arbitration committee should consider the question of guidelines and policies, then. In addition, since you sit on the committee, and I'm questioning your actions, it stands to reason that I may not take the arbcom's decisions as Gospel, especially within the context of a discussion of policy.
I didn't suggest that you had punished them in some way, I'm simply concerned at the language used against users who express dissent.
I haven't followed Netoholic's case, but judging by the examples you cited against Eequor in her RFA, I'm right on target; you responded to her criticism with a personal attack and have continued to demonize her since.
If you want to start deciding who may and may not edit based on whether they agree on your policy, then I'll take my toys and leave (which probably doesn't matter to you, but hey, I can either try to discuss what I see wrong or I can give up and leave, and for now I'll try the former.) I can certainly understand blocking for vandalism or harassment of other users or edit warring, but your broad application of WP:POINT bothers me a great deal, and I think it's become a cop-out for people to avoid addressing points and to shove "problem" users out of view.
I appreciate your time in responding to my concerns. :) kmccoy(talk) 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As the tags say, as well as my above comments, one difference between a policy and a guideline is how 'negotiable' they are. A policy doesn't allow exceptions, whereas a guideline can (provided you have good reasons). Consider the guideline that is the manual of style -- it's not 'policy' (in that it trumps everything in all circumstances), but you are expected to abide by it unless you have compelling reasons not to.
"In addition, since you sit on the committee, and I'm questioning your actions, it stands to reason that I may not take the arbcom's decisions as Gospel, especially within the context of a discussion of policy." While the arbcom doesn't make policy, it's their/our job to interpret and enforce it. So you don't have to (and shouldn't) take my personal opinions as Gospel, but arbcom final decisions are pretty much the last word on policy interpretation (the as-yet-never-used appeal to jimbo option not withstanding). "Perhaps the arbitration committee should consider the question of guidelines and policies, then." -- Every committee decision cites policies and guidelines we consider relavant to support that particular decision, and are phrased in a way so as to make our emphasis clear, like this one.
As far as the Eequor RFA - I stated my opinion, that I think Eequor has shown bad judgement in the past and I wanted to see counterexamples before I would drop my opposition and/or support her. I'm sorry if you think that's "demonizing" her, but the purpose of requests-for-adminship is to see if someone is suffeciently reliable to be an admin; an unavoidable part of that is being able to say that no, someone is not. On the other hand, I think I made it clear that I was willing to change my vote if I was shown a convincing examples that she is, in fact, reliable. Now, you say I cited 'examples' against Eequor in her RFA, but I think you confusing me with someone else, because I don't believe I pointed to any particular instances (I could have but was not asked to). I simply said she had made some "seriously bad judgement calls", a claim which, since no one bothered to dispute it, I think can be assumed to be true.
"If you want to start deciding who may and may not edit based on whether they agree on your policy" - this is a distortion of my position. I said that there are places where it is acceptable to protest wikipedia policy (quite a few of them at that), and places where it is not. It is my opinion that RFA is not one of them, and I suspect that most people share this opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not a bulletin board for wiki-dissidents. Furthermore, there's a BIG difference between re-running a request for adminship because (among other problems) someone was making protest votes and "deciding who may and may not edit based on whether they agree on [my] policy" -- e.g, banning people. The two aren't in the same league.
Now, as far as the problem users -- your comments are too vague to reply to, other than to say that we (administrators in general and the arbitration committee in particular) try to be as fair with users as possible. Of course, it is absolutely impossible to make everyone happy (see Raul's 9th law). →Raul654 05:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for your time. kmccoy(talk) 05:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Anytime. I don't want any misunderstandings to crop up about my opinions, so I'm happy to answer questions like these. →Raul654 05:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a weird thing. I blocked Enviroknot for 12 hours at 03:46 Jun 25 for ignoring the arbcom temp injunction, but he just carried right on editing with that user name. I re-blocked at 04:28 (see block log), but it still didn't stop him. He's starting to remind me of Robert De Niro in Cape Fear. SlimVirgin(talk) 05:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
That is weird. I don't know why that would happen. I asked Brion Vibber on IRC, and he didn't know either (as I write this, he's still looking). Keep an eye out and see if it happens again. →Raul654 05:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Enviroknot has just e-mailed me to ask why I blocked him, so perhaps Brion has fixed it. SlimVirgin(talk) 05:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Brion didn't do anything to fix it. Honestly, we're not sure why it happened (or what fixed it). →Raul654 05:45, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Yom Kippur War
I have serious problems with this as a featured article. It overrelies on Rabinovich - no book could be that good, most especially in a field like this, in which the density of lies from all sides is off the scale, and everybody and book should be treated with suspicion, which I think I can justify with Rabinowitz. In a very quick glance a couple months ago it seemed to me to be quite POV, leaving out or minimizing crucial information. Judging from some comments you've made, I believe you have received a rather distorted understanding of the causes and outcome of this war from this book. If any war was ever aptly described as the continuation of diplomacy by other means, this one was, and not understanding this deeply enough leads one, and this article, to a nonstandard, ahistorical and overnarrow conclusion of even "who won." I barely missed putting them in the debate when it was a candidate - didn't realize how fast it would be closed - and I sent you an email that day - did you get it?
At the very least, I don't think it should be a "today's featured article" for a while, without some real work. I hope you could bear with me, and allow me to present my objections rather slowly as the weeks pass. I was not feeling well when the debate was ongoing and a great deal of other stuff piled up.--John Z 19:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure - go to the talk page, and propose some changes. I'm not in any hurry to put it on the main page, so you have time. →Raul654 19:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
And yes, I got your email, and I agree that it does rely heavily on the Rabinovich book, but general criticism of the article isn't very helpful, whereas proposing actual things to change is. →Raul654 19:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to email? There are some things I think better to say privately, which is why I emailed you. --John Z 19:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are severe NPOV problems with choosing libertarism as a WP:FA. See the talk, please. SV|t 20:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic
I'm having an issue with Netoholic that perhaps you could review. It's not a major problem, but it is a source of irritation. On Susvolans' RFA, Netoholic voted to oppose with the comment "No Way." I was curious as to why he felt so strongly and asked "Any particular reason?". Netoholic proceeded to move my question to the comments section with the edit summary "do not challenge voters. moving comment"
From my experience, it's quite common to see questions in both the support and oppose section of an RfA. Not only has Netoholic persisted in moving my question, he hasn't made any attempt to answer it. The last I've heard from him was "You'll get a better explanaion when I see fit." Thanks for your time. Carbonite | Talk 13:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is a comments section. That's where comments go. Were it not for the failure to adhere to such a simple guideline, I might have answered. It is disrepectful for anyone to challenge voter on such a page. If inquiry was his only goal, my Talk page is available. I owe Carbonite no courtesy because this is certainly not the first time he's challenged me. -- Netoholic@ 17:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
I've barely been active the past two months, so I guess I'm forgetting the first time I challenged you. In any case, I think it's best to keep voting as transparent and easy to follow as possible. That means that questions follow votes, not stuck down in a separate section or on a talk page. It would have taken you less than a minute to provide a simple answer to my simple question. Instead you've turned this matter into an ordeal. Carbonite | Talk 20:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd hate to bring this up again, but this edit seems like a prime example of WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 19:30, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I recently reveted changes by Netoholic to the spoiner warning page. But in addition to simply reverting, I edited to clarify the use of spoiler-other, and to explicitly state that soem editors oppose its use. I think this makes as much of Netoholic's point as is reasonable on a documentation page. I don't think simply failing to document it is reasonable. As you are mentoring Netoholic, please look into this situation. I am a relative newcomer to wikipedia, but I already have a good number of edits, and i have a long history on usenet and the net generally.
I have also been inserting spoiler-other where i think it makes sense. Netoholic is systmatically editing these pages to repalce spoiler-other with spoiler-about, adn has posted on my talk page askign me not to use spoiler-other. Since when does he get to make poilicy on what templates I may use? DES 28 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)
I think you are confusing a request with an order. Netoholic doesn't think that template should exist (for that matter, neither do I) but the way he is going about it is not right. He'll be using the relavant talk page now. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:01 (UTC)
He will? I'm glad to hear it. I note that early this morning (by EDT) he reverted three articles containing uses of spoiler-other to versions using spoiler-about. I have just reverted them back. None of these cases were discussed on the talk page of the articles involved, nor on the talk page about spoiler warnings (although all of them were included in my earlier listing of examples on that talk page). I now presume that these reverts occured before your discussion with him. DES 29 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)
Neto - this is getting out of hand
Since Neto is accusing me of stalking anyway, I took the liberty of looking over his contribs log. What I saw was not good. About 80% of his edits of the past couple days are part of several edit and revert wars; one to deprecate a spoiler template, one other about layout of a series of templates, and a third about an external link at Magic: The Gathering, for which he broke the 3RR today. Apart from that, his behavior towards others is incivil at best, he's made several WP:POINTs recently, has directly contravened TFD consensus and has been biting a newbie. All in all, if he hadn't been under mentorship, I would have blocked him for these disruptions for at least a day. Please look into this. Yours, Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
Removing spam links is anti-vandalism and not subject to 3RR. Go block the IP, I logged him on WP:VIP, but then you know that. And yes, I suppose I have been successfully trolled just now. -- Netoholic@ June 28, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
Netoholic and I had a long conversation tonight - see this. Now, specifically, he wants you to "cut him some slack". I can tell you that Netoholic means well, but he tends to go about it the wrong way. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 01:11 (UTC)
I've already cut him a lot of slack, and he has cut me none (specifically, he persists in posting personal attacks to me). Regardless of what he thinks, this isn't personal - this is about the majority of his contributions being to edit wars. He won't have any problem with me as soon as he stops revert warring, and I'll even start taking him seriously again if he stops posting personal attacks. In the mean time, it simply strikes me as odd that because of his RFAr injunction he can get away with more than the average Wikipedian. But anyway thanks for trying to get through to him. Yours, Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 07:12 (UTC)
Military history of Puerto Rico
Mark, thank you for arranging the introduction of the article. It looks great! Also, thank you for the good news. It gives me great satisfaction to know that the article will be on Wiki's main page. It's been a pleasure writting to you, take care. Marine 69-71 29 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)
Hey.
Glad someone got it. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)
I saw it because Netoholic added it to his userpage in the 'hilarity ensuess section :) →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
Netoholic -- Further reverts
Please take a look at the recent edit histories of:
And tell me if you think these chnages, and the continued reverts to enforce them without discussion, a poll, or any attempt to reach consensus on the issue are appropriate. DES 29 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)
Since your conversation with him, Netoholic has continued revert warring on eight different pages, and not discussed any of those. For that reason, I've blocked him for twelve hours. As a side point, please note that he has not amended his behavior on RFA; and you're probably aware that Kim is no longer mentoring him [7]? Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 08:52 (UTC)
That Jimbo
I agree entirely with what you said to me in private on IRC, Raul654. We need to get rid of that Jimbo Wales from the project as soon as possible. The uprising should be swift and effective. - Mark 1 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
Lol... thanks for the test edit (I get the you-have-new-message thingy now). →Raul654 July 1, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
Failed why?
Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#History_of_Poland_.281945-1989.29. Note 3 objects with 3 supports make a tie, but there is also my nomination (i.e. fourth support). In addition note a positive comment by 172 and that the objections have been adressed - as far as I can tell, unfortunately none of the peope who objected decided to reply to me on FAC or via talk pages, even through I asked them to list more objectionable materia both on FAC and on their talk pages. I think this should be featured so I'd like to ask you to reconsider your decision on this one - and if you have some time, read through the article and comment yourself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 1 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
Or, as it still has FAC template, we could simply reintroduce it again for voting to see if new votes turn the balance. Could you comment on this? It's your field of expertise, after all... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 2 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)
After re-reading some of the objections, I agree that several are unfair. EK didn't point to any specific problems with the article, and generalities don't help; the same applies to Phoenix2's complaint about grammatical problems, since you aren't really able to fix them; Ruy Lopez comparison to Italy is totally absurd, and Balcer points out. Yes, I think I'll kick it back to the FAC page. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:08 (UTC)
No, I've renominated it. I wanted to earlier, but I have trouble moving the old nom, and then I got distracted. I've fixed the situation now. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 11:16 (UTC)
Protection of featured article templates
Raul - I thought I should tell you that you've protected the last few FA templates from moves only, rather than from edits. The "confirm protection" checkbox has disappeared in MediaWiki 1.5, so one need only fill in the reason and hit the button. (I fixed July 1 through 4 already.) — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Main Page article
Theres been a few claims by people that Vanilla Ninja isn't main page worthy. Personally i'm grateful for your using it. Its a victory, in a way, for tackling systematic bias as its a topic which has relevance to Central and Eastern Europe, and not the US or UK like nearly all topics are. The objections I believe are biased by people never hearing of the group. The article passed its FAC, and I think those judgements still stand. Hedley 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
After reading the responses on talk:Main page, I think that it's only one (or a very small number) of people complaining, while most people have accepted that our featured articles many not all be on household-name topics. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:11 (UTC)
Thats almost the same problem me and others having with the article Starfleet ranks and insignia going through the FAC process. Even if we pass the FAC, we will get yelled at if we ever do select the article to appear on the main page. Zscout370(Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
I fully expect that will happen; I also fully expect that if/when I promote it, within a few hours someone will request on wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article that it be put on the main page. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:11 (UTC)
There were several very reasonable objections, even if not extremely major, at the nomination of Vanilla Ninja that were simply ignored without explanation, Raul. These did not relate to the fact that the band is obscure, but of the actual quality of the article. No one objected to the article on the actual grounds that the band was too obscure. I am not at all happy that these objections were so thoroughly disrespected. I have had contact with Hedley myself, and we managed compromise on this, but I would really like to see some minimum of motivation for disregarding valid objections like that.
I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
WA gubernatorial election
Saying that it "looks good" is more than I'm willing to say for this article, but I agree that an effort has been made on my actionable objections. Since that's the usual standard for promotion, I'm okay if you go ahead. In reality, the article is probably as good as at least a few of our featured articles, but I tend to have pretty high standards for them. And in this case I know enough about the subject to be fairly confident that some flaws remain, but I'd have to do more research to assess them properly. --Michael Snow 3 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I have taken care of all the objections that have been listed. A lot of people have not updated their opinion of the article, and apart from a few details, there's not that much more left to add. Any chance of taking it off the FAC page and adding it to the list of featured articles? :) Thanks! Pall.
I've been meaning to do some promoting but I haven't had time -- give me a day or two. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
Good sir. Your comments would be welcome on some recent attacks made against me on the above FAC. A pretty nasty accusation was made that I had gone through and deleted peoples objections, without consent, on the last FAC. For the record, I stated that was a lie. The user in question (as we know) turned the page into a general debate on the validity of a fiction article as an FAC. The debate itself was moved to the talk page and then to a general project discussion page. The user never objected or said anything on the talk page but now has posted that his comments were deleted without consent. This guy has really come out of the woodwork with open dislike of both me and the article. I have some theories as to why but wouldnt dare post them here! On a side note, the FAC above needs to closed. It was renomated far too soon by a user named Coolcat and the article, itself, is far from being an FAC. Thanks for your time and support. -Husnock 3 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
I talked him into withdrawing the nomination. Take your time, fix what people are complaining about. Before you nominate it again, you might want to ask user:Taxman or user:ALoan to take a look at it -- they are particularly good at identifying problems. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 11:46 (UTC)
I was actually against the renomination this time as there is much work to be done. Another user, Coolcat, renominated it and it unfortunately gave the article a bad image as it did seem people were just renominating it over and over again. Still, the one user who choose to attack both the article, myself, and the whole FAC system in general I cant figure out. I think its something personal with him. In any event, I'm going back to my medals and German WWII articles. There is future in those. -Husnock 5 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
I've been looking in here, and it appears that the article is going to be kept (VFD leans far more inclusionsist than I would prefer myself -- occasionally even in obvious violation of What Wikipedia is not -- so I generally avoid it) →Raul654 July 6, 2005 06:47 (UTC)
Your threat
You just threatened to block me. Am I breaking a rule, or are you just allowed to block people when don't like their edits? Floopy 3 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
You are not the first new user to start a censorship campaign. Your predecessors were all blocked for that reason. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 23:35 (UTC)
I censored nothing, I provided links, just like on the autofellatio page. You didn't answer my question: Am I breaking a rule or do you just not like my edits? Floopy 3 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
Yes - for several of the pictures you removed (most notably the clitoris one) there have been repeated polls about whether-or-not to keep them, all of which ended in the affirmative. Removing them in those circumstances could (and usually is) considered vandalism, particularly now that you have been warned that what you are doing is not acceptable. See also the arbitration committe decision along those lines -- "There has been a consistent consensus to keep the photograph in the article Clitoris... Dr Zen has repeatedly removed the photograph from Clitoris via means of revert warring despite being warned by several individuals not to do so... Dr Zen is prohibited from removing or otherwise altering the manner of appearance of any photographs on the article Clitoris. This prohibition will apply indefinitely."→Raul654 July 3, 2005 23:50 (UTC)
I'm not Mr. Zen. The ruling is very specific and applied only to him. If it applied to the photo, it would have been written very differently, and it would have established a 'protected photo' status. So until there's an Arbitration Committee ruling to tell me otherwise, unless there's a rule that you can point to that says what I'm doing is wrong, I will contribute as I see fit. Floopy 4 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)
You seem to be under the (very mistaken) impression that all problems need to be dealt with by the arbitration committee before administrators can take action. Let me assure you that this is not the case. By doing the same thing that got both Cantus and Dr Zen sactioned, you are only putting yourself on the chopping block. Consider yourself warned that if you keep it up, you will be blocked from editing. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:14 (UTC)
Keep WHAT up? You just threatened to block me for 'being under a mistaken impression.' That's ludicrous. If I have broken a rule, please specify it. Floopy 4 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
No, actually I warned you that you would be blocked for "doing the same thing that got both Cantus and Dr Zen sactioned" - that is, image vandalism. Also bear in mind that "Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion." -- Wikipedia:Blocking policy→Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
You conveniently left out the end of that paragraph: "However, blocks should not be used...against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." And how is linking to a clitoris image considered vandalism? Isn't it done that way on autofellatio? Floopy 4 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
(A) You are referring to the wrong policy. You are referring to the policy for blocking vandals, which allows for blocking accounts that have only committed vandalism; whereas I was talking about the blocking policy for disruption, which makes no consideration about whether-or-not you have made good edits. (B) Autofellatio was a big, nasty ruckus does *not* make a good precedent (in fact, I believe at some point this position was explicetely stated on the talk page). Also, specifically about the clitoris image, linking-to-it was an option that was repeatedly rejected in about a half-dozen polls. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:40 (UTC)
(A) No, I am not quoting from the policy on vandals. I am quoting from the policy on blocking disruptive editors. I quoted from the EXACT same paragraph you did. And what's more, that section says that 'disruptive' must be judged by objective criteria. And my edits DO NOT meet the definition of disruptive. So you are dead wrong, you DO NOT have the authority to block me. Go see for yourself. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:42 (UTC) (B) Are you telling me that it's against the rules to edit in conflict with the consensus on the talk page? Floopy 4 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
If by "edit conflict" you mean to revert-against-consensus ("edit conflict" has a specific meaning that I don't think you intended), yes, that is *very much* against the rules. After a 6 month seige of the article, those of us who participated tend to sensitive to people trying to reverse what we have spent half a year repeatedly and viciferously reaffiriming. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is not bowlderized or censored, you are *not* the first person to start a campaign to remove pictures, and (putting aside the legalistic semantics, which the arbitration committee disdains) all the people who have come before you have been blocked. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:52 (UTC)
I engaged in no revert war. I made an edit to some articles, and you threatened to block me. When I asked you to specify where I broke the rules, you asserted that you needed no justification. Instead, you talked about what other people did in the past, and speculated about what I might do in the future. Floopy 4 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)
(A) I didn't say revert warring; I said reverting against consensus; (B) You can falsely summarize what has happened all you like; that doesn't change the facts of the case. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 01:14 (UTC)
You never addressed the facts of the case. I asked you to, five times. But I broke no rules, and there is no 'case'. You were just being officious. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy is as false as your summary of the facts.
You never addressed the facts of the case. - yes, I did, as anyone reading the above can tell.
You have yet to identify which edits violated which policies. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
I asked you to, five times. But I broke no rules, and there is no 'case'. - Wrong. What you did is clearly both (a) disruption and (b) vandalism, both of which are blockable actions.
Disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies. This is Wikipedia policy. If what I did was "clearly disruption and vandalism", then it should be very easy for you to identify the edits, and to cite the objective criteria by which you determined those edits were disruptive. And to do the same for vandalism. You can't just label someone's behavior like that and use the smear to justify a block; disruption is to be OBJECTIVELY DEFINED BY POLICY. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
Further, I reviewed the policy on blocking and disruptive edits, and you DO NOT have the authority to block me. - quaint, but wrong. Any administrator can enforce our policies.
Right now, you do not have the authority to block me. You simply have the power. And you are a poor admin for not knowing the difference. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
In short, while you have made some legitimate edits, it does not excuse you from following the rest of our policies, your wiki-lawyering not withstanding. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 02:49 (UTC)
You have yet to identify which edits violated which policies. Until you do, your threats will remain petty tyranny. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
Gah! This is still going? Enough wikilawyering already, if you want to inline those images, gain the consensus on the talk page. End of story. El_C 4 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
This thread is not about images. This is about an admin who doesn't think he has to follow policy, who thinks he can label someone 'disruptive' to justify blocking them, who doesn't know the difference between power and authority, and from reading everything above, has regularly abused his position. Floopy 4 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
Negative, this is about your misdirected innunedo and wikilawyering. He just warned you, I would have done the same thing. From reading everything above, I'd say he has been exceedingly patient with you, much more so than I would in his place. El_C 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
Also, please try to remain professional on article talke pages, refraining for example, from calling the model featured on Image:Female masturbation 5.jpg as "that slut," "dirty whore," etc. Some editors may take more offence to those statements than to the images themsleves (if at all). This could be seen as a double standard, so please take note for future comments. El_C 4 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
Do all admins misquote to try to gain advantage? I did not "call a model a dirty whore". I said a completely DIFFERENT illustration, on a DIFFERENT page, was posed spread eagle LIKE a dirty whore. Floopy 4 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
Gain? That is not professional language at any rate. Anyway: Who's the "model" for the vagina picture?[8] And: It doesn't matter if its a line drawing or a photo, that slut had her hand inside her private parts.[9]El_C 4 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)
African American literature
Thanks for moving African American literature to featured article status. Unfortunately, a minor editing issue came up and I wasn't sure if this would mess up the Wiki Featured Article system or not. The article was originally titled African-American literature (with a hyphen) but, after a discussion at Talk:African American literature the consensus view was to change the title to African American literature (with no hyphen). I moved the original page to the non-hyphenated link and I have gone back and changed all of the links I could find (except for a few personal pages). However, I wasn't sure if this change would mess up how Featured articles are programmed. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
No, it's no big deal. I saw you fixed the couple of places where it was used (hyphenated), so that should be about the end of it. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 02:52 (UTC)
Have a look at Intelligent Design now and Daniel Pipes! The site looks bloody awful now! I have listed it on WP:TFD. Please vote for this to be deleted and make a comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
I wanted to object to the changes made to Intelligent Design by User:Ta bu shi da yu, but the AOL dial-up IP I am using today seems to ahve ben blocked from editing that page. DES 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
Yuber as a rookie
I have sat in the background on most of the ongoing disputes involving Yuber, but I think Fred's analysis is correct. While you're certainly right that removing categories is insufficient evidence of experience, what convinced me was Yuber's edit summary for the edit in question. Now you have my 2¢. TomerTALK July 4, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
no connection to jordan, not PART of israel, jewish history is not necessarily israeli history - why does this convince you? It's not as if he was using wikipedia terminology like POV or rv. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:52 (UTC)
Because my experience with rookies is that their edsums are nonexistent or inconcise. That is clearly not the case with Yuber's first edsum. Now you have 4¢ of mine!!! :-p TomerTALK July 5, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and copied it over. Our temp injunctions don't need to be copied to the main page in order to go into effect, though (at least that's how we have operated). →Raul654 July 6, 2005 00:24 (UTC)
Uf. You missed what I was griping about. I've changed it [10]. Hopefully this wasn't out of line. TomerTALK July 6, 2005 09:20 (UTC)
Oh, no, you're fine -- it should be obvious to anyone looking at that diff that we (the committee) made a minor mistake there by not changing it (we're not perfect - we make mistakes just like everyone else, and we're usually happy when people fix 'em) →Raul654 July 6, 2005 09:32 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification (you possibly didn't know you were giving). Slim and I weren't sure how exactly to procede [11]. TomerTALK July 6, 2005 09:50 (UTC)
Re: CAP
NOT AT ALL!!! :-D :-D :-D Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 5, 2005 01:57 (UTC)
Hey, man;
So, I added a VfD notice to Maya & Miguel (game). After getting several red flags from it, I Googled, and notices of its creation are nowhere to be found; additionally, I am pretty well convinced that the account who created the entry (User:Doctor33) is the same person as the two anonymous IP's and also User:Shrek32, the person who was adding all those fictitious entries to List of (insert game console) Games. He has removed my VfD notice from the article three times, and shows no signs of stopping or communicating with me. Does this fall under the 3RR? And whether or not it does, can you help me out with him? His spurious edits are quite annoying. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
Netoholic revert of CSD proposal page
There is a proposal now in place to expand the CSD policy. An additional proposal was added to the proposed policy page. User:Netoholic reverted this addition without discussion on any talk page, although his edit summery did explain his reasons. Please see this diff and
this section where I expalin why i disagree with his actions. I think the way Netoholic appraoched this was unwise and that you as his mentor, might wish to discus this with him. DES 7 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
I stand by my decision. We should not be adding new things to vote on during the open voting, and that proposal is not well-thought out. -- Netoholic@ 7 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
Fine. I didn't say your view on that was the problem (although i disagree). My comment here is purely about the way in which you implemeted that decision, i.e. a revert with no discussion at all. I also could do without your calling my discussion of this matter "trolling" on User talk:Susvolans. DES 7 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with what Netoholic did (did I just say that?). You made a post that was clearly violating a bolded policy stated at the top of the page, and his edit summary was more than explanatory. I don't think that enforcing policies stated clearly on the page requires discussion on the talk page. Now, if you wanted to change that policy, that would require discussion. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) July 7, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
Please get your attributiosn correct -- the new proposal P1 was added by Tony Sidaway, not me. I did not post to the proposal page at all -- i simply objected to Netoholic's revision on the talk page, and i supported the new proposl on several pages. If addign a proposal in this way celarly violated the policy, it is unfortunate that this would be the fifth time it happend on this colletion of proposals, and none of the other additions were reverted, adn many people have treated them as legitmate by voting and commenting on them. I expalined, on the talk page, why i didn't think the policy prevented the addition of proposals, as opposed to changign the wording of existing propsals. Maybe I'm wrong about that. DES 7 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
I concur with DropDeadGorgias here. The page says, in big, bold lettering, not to modify it. Someone did, and Netoholic removed it with a clear edit summary. There's no subtle nuances to discuss (it clearly needed to be removed) so I don't really see the need for him to have used the talk page. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
I'm not blaming Netoholic for this one. However, this being a wiki and not a bureaucracy, and given that we're all working towards progress here, I think it is good if people create new proposals to address the flaws of faulty ones, if in good faith and not done in excess. Tony and I are two people that rarely agree with one another but nevertheless have been effective at cooperating in the past; the new proposal reflects a compromise between my concerns of VFD overload, and his concerns about 'false positives' being deleted too hastily. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 18:52 (UTC)
I'm curious, Raul, do you think Netoholic's recent unilateral "closure" of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal and the various moves of other people's proposals related to this jsut before are also OK?
I've replied on the talk page. Long story short -- the whole procedure has become a mess. Netholic has a valid complaint that people shouldn't be changing proposals in the middle of voting, but I don't think shutting down the vote was the best idea. I have protected it until you guys can come to some kind of agreement. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 21:34 (UTC)
I note that you have not, or not yet, protected the sub pages on which actual votes are tallied, and some users are continuing to vote. If you think that voting on existing proposals must be suspended, then those pages all need protection, or at least a note about the suspension, IMO. DES 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
Holy moses - there's like 20 subpages, each of which has many votes... hrmm.... →Raul654 July 7, 2005 21:40 (UTC)
I would not have worried except for Netoholic's history of warring over a series of templates a couple of months back. I praise Netoholic's tactful and mature handling of this particular case and apologise for misjudging him here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 9 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate your help getting involved. If you need to talk more about all this, I'll try and get on IRC in an hour or two. -- Netoholic@ 7 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
All right - I should be on around 8 or 9 PM EDT. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
...I waited up for you but got stood up. →Raul654 July 8, 2005 01:28 (UTC)
That "real life" thing creeps in every once and a while. Sorry, talk to ya soon, I'm sure. -- Netoholic@ 8 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
Changes to current CSD
Am I incorrect or out of line in thinking that the recent cahnges to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion without a formal proposal, are a bit dubious? Please let me know if I am overreacting here, as I may be upset by recent events. Please look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion for more detail. DES 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
Am I incorrect or out of line in thinking that DES just has some axe to grind? -- Netoholic@ 7 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
Vandalism
I don't know where/how to report vandalism; but you seem knowledgeable, so I thought I'd call your attention to a recent edit to Rusty Foster by Trollaxor. FYI, no reply necessary.
