User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:42, 21 April 2008

For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

FAR closing

I am seriously troubled by the improper closing of the History of erotic depictions FAR. First, midway through the process the closer admitted that FAR was not the place to solve the issues complained about. At that point, the FAR should have been thrown out, but was left to continue. In the second part, the closer ended it early, giving me no chance to respond to his allegation on unverifiablity of the main source and stated that he had de-featured the article because the main source wasn't verifiable. Throughout the FAR, neither of the complaintants mentioned that that source wasn't reliable, merely complained that they did not like the format of the citation. Hence, the myriad of evidence that this source is indeed allowable, (including where the same source was used as a source in an article for a *peer reviewed journal*) was not entered into the FAR.

There was no consensus to de-feature the article, and the closer stated that his decision was based mainly on the un-verifiablity of the source. In an attempt to get a third party opinion, I posted the source and all the evidence for it on the Verifiability noticeboard and all the comment there has agreed, that the source is allowable. Thus the closer's closing the FAR early and main reason for de-featuring are seriously in error, and I'm asking that the FAR be restarted or voided. His only other reason for de-featuring mentioned, lead too short, was not brought up until the final part, and again, due to his early closing it down, I was not able to address it in time.

Now, I realize that everyone in FAR and FAC does lots of hard work and I understand that its a hard job with little support. However this does not make them infallible. The basic premise that the decision was made on (the main source is not verifiable) is in error, has been proved to be in error, and has third party confirmation of that error. I am seriously disturbed by the closer's refusal to admit to this error, and the response I've gotten so far, which is basically, too bad, what I say goes. I don't think that the closers make many errors, but this one was blatant and obvious and needs to be fixed. FAR closers are not the ultimate authority or whether a source is verifiable or not, and by taking on that role, a serious error was committed.

"This is so massive and disputatious, I'm not sure what to do with it. This may not be something FAR can handle. Marskell (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"

"Closing: This is a difficult, split review. While there are a number of arguments, the clearest is in favour of remove: This does not meet policy. It's not even debatable. Adult film directors do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If it were two cites, maybe we could overlook it—but there are twenty-two cites to this DVD. It's a foundational source for the article and it is clearly not reliable.

Normally, I would leave this open longer to allow citation debates to run through (and this has been open quite a while) but there has been resistance and reverting, which doesn't seem to be productive in terms of meeting citation policy. There has been no effort to get rid of this obviously unsuitable source, for instance. Basic things, such as a LEAD that properly describes the article, are not met. I'm removing. Some form of WP:DR may be the best place to take this article. Marskell (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "[reply]

As you can see, he clearly states *twice* that FAR may not be the best place for the issues raised, and erroneously states that the documentary was made by adult film directors. (It was not, it was made by a group with a reputation for producing high quality documentaries) You can see that he has made up his mind so fiercely against the source that he isn't even willing to consider the possibility he is wrong. This was later proved in discussion with him on his talk page. The evidence and discussion of the documentary's reliability can be found here. If a peer reviewed journal accepted this as a source, and other peer reviewed journals have praised its worthiness, and indeed one can see the entire list of academics and authors interviewed here, to say that the source isn't good enough for Wikipedia is ludicrous.

I'm guessing that your instinct is going to be to support your deputies no matter what decision they make but please consider this seriously. I've now been told that I need to meet the closer's concerns to have a chance in re-submitting this to FAC. However, the closer's concerns are fundamentally flawed, so that requirement is tantamount to making ever getting this featured again through FAC impossible. The early closing, erroneous basic assumptions, and notation of that fact that this may not even be suited to FAR in the first place made the closing improper and unfair. Please consider fixing this. pschemp | talk 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(As above) It's very late and I'm about to go to bed - will deal with this tomorrow or the day after. Raul654 (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Marskell's talk page and mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's four threads open on this and I don't know where to reply. (I actually don't want to because I'm finding pschemp so aggressive.) I'm not fiercely opposed to admitting that the documentary is a serious one. I said as much on pschemp's talk page. But the attendant issues are not flawed: even if a quality documentary, there is not sufficient publisher information provided to the reader and the article over relies on it; the lead needs work; the other source discussed, Libido magazine, is clearly dubious. So I don't think it unfair to ask that some work be done and it go back to FAC. Marskell (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that the FAR should be restarted or voided because the basic premise it was closed on was incorrect, and it was closed early, not giving me a chance to address the issues Marskell introduced. (including the lead, which i was working on at the time it was closed early.) And I brought it here because the attitude I've reciecieved from Marskell has been nothing but complete ignoring of this basic fact. In this paragraph above is the *first* time he's ever admitted that the main source is verifiable. This is a direct contradiction to what he said in the closing. All I'm asking is chance to let the FAR process finish as it should have. pschemp | talk 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby rangeblock problem

Hey, could you investigate this: User talk:Jsheinz1234. He claims to be caught innocently by the rangeblock, but he's hardly a regular user (check his contribs history). Maybe a Scibaby sleeper account? I am not familiar enough with the Scibaby case to know how to deal with it. Perhaps you could? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit pattern looks innocent to me (especially when he started these other topic edits). --BozMo talk 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that he uses the same /18 as Scibaby, I don't see anything in checkuser to suggest he's a scibaby sock. His range is anon blocked, but given that he has an account, this should not affect him. Tell him to log in if he wants to edit and he should be unaffected. Raul654 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single User Login

Heard your comments on NTWW. Just an FYI, you need to unify your accounts via Special:Preferences, before logging into other accounts :) Check out WP:SUL for more information. On a related note, do you have any idea at which time, and on which date, the next podcast will fall? I'm not sure if you're contributing to this episode, but I figured you might no :) Cheers, Anthøny 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a few hours after the talk. I've unified my accounts (vandals apparently used this nick to vandalize on 3 wikis I don't use. I'm still waiting to usurp those). I'll be ready to talk about it for next time :) Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested Monday for the next discussion, and we're trying to make it earlier in the evening so you can participate. Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your reply, and for accommodating me ;) Anthøny 07:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I asked a few weeks ago whether I could have December to Dismember (2006) as the TFA on this date. My reasoning is that it is a WWE wrestling event, and the biggest wrestling event of the year, WrestleMania takes place this Sunday, and I therefore feel it would be appropriate to have it on the front page on Sunday. However, I am very dismayed to notice that Celine Dion is instead expected to be on the Main Page on Sunday. Could you please explain your decision? Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight on my part. I'll rejigger the queue once we figure out what we're doing for April 1 (god help us all). Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banners

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 26 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account renamed

Hello, you just rename my account. I just would like to say thanks. Maybe for you its a tired work, you do it often, but, its very plesant for me to be allowed to log me with this name. Few year ago no body do it for me, maybe another policy. Thanks another time :) bayo 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil

This is uncalled for. My bot works within community consensus, and claiming it spams is uncivil. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turf war

Just letting you know that I intervened in an edit war at your Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests page. User:Mesplay was adding some votes and a new nomination when there were already five noms up, and Users Cirt and RelHistBuff reverted both the vote and the nom. Mesplay reinserted the vote and the nomination, with the nomination commented out. Cirt reverted (again removing Mesplay's vote), and then reported Mesplay for a 3RR infringement.

I declined the 3RR report under the unclean hands doctrine, but am dropping you this note as a courtesy given that it's your turf. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has since accepted the decision so it probably won't be a big deal. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "final warning" to NCdave

Raul, on my user Talk page you accused me of "unhelpful and counterproductive" editing and "disruption" of the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. You also asserted that that you can block me because "The rules prohibit me from blocking someone I am currently in a dispute with. You do not qualify." You also announced on the article talk page that you had issued a "final warning" to me.

It appears that you didn't notice my response, so I'm repeating it here.

You and I most certainly are in dispute at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. You are actively involved with editing this article and talk page, and you have sided against me repeatedly. For example, you have reinserted material that I explicitly objected to, regarding the Establishment Clause. Perhaps you were unaware of my objection to that material, since Hrafn deleted the discussion from the Talk page, but you can read it in the diff.

However, you also reverted edits which were in agreement with my stated view that ID is not a form of creationism.

Additionally, you've made no secret of your disdain for the film, even to the point of expressing glee that it is playing in few theaters, and reverting other edits which were intended to make the article less unbalanced, and even defending incivility on the Talk page.

You are not a neutral admin, Raul, so please recuse yourself.

Also, please do me the courtesy of <s>striking</s> your "warning" on my Talk page, and noting that it was a mistake, since it is embarrassing to have that sort of thing on my Talk page.

Nevertheless, if you are aware of any comments that I've made which are impolite or violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, I would be grateful if you would point them out to me. I do my best to apply the Golden Rule to my Wikipedia editing, but that doesn't mean that I never slip up, and I'd like to know about it when I do.

Thanks in advance, NCdave (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I hadn't edited the article. I edit there to make sure that idiocy doesn't seep in (articles like that seem to attract it). You've collected more-or-less every edit I've ever made there, and tried to claim bias against you. This is false. Your tenditious editing there led to your final warning, and if you persist in the behavior I and others have made you aware of, I'm going to follow through on my warning. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's Day Featured Article

There is currently a debate about which FA should be put on the main page on April 1. One of things brought up during the discussion was that, "An aburd date-appropriate blurp needs to be written for the "winner"."

Thanks, ISD (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration

I was significantly involved, so leaving Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ima Hogg to you. (By the way, Kirill solved the banners thing, will explain later.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm a Hogg"... are you sure this is a real name not 1 April?

I agree, if Uncyclopedia cant get to FA by April 1, use Ima Hogg. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks and collateral damage

Hi. Please be careful when range-blocking, like you did with the 90.204.64.0/18 range. That range block caused some collateral damage, as it also disabled my IP, which I'm not particularly fond of. Also, you blocked the range for nearly a year, whilst most range blocks should be blocked for about a day or two at most (at least according to my knowledge). Please take this into consideration for next time. Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. My IP (90.204.42.76)has been blocked till 2009, with a message saying this ip range has been used by tilejoin. This is very bad form - both the range (resulting in collateral damage) and the extreme length of the block are completely over the top. Please either undo this block or refer it higher up the chain for dispute resolution. Little Professor (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

File:City hall and clothespin.JPG

You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
April 5, 2008
Time: 5:00 PM
Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Another Sprint PCS Scibaby casualty

See unblock request here. They look OK to me ... should we tell them to register an account via email. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, but why?

Hi Raul, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for some months now but suddenly find I am blocked (although no problem when I am logged in). I've done nothing to deserve this BUT I have recently changed ISP from BT to Sky. The block message states:

Editing from 90.204.64.0/18 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Raul654 for the following reason(s): Range used by Eirwitt/TileJoin. The block is set to expire: 05:47, 27 February 2009.

Please help! Thanks, Weydonian (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can edit while logged in, you are not blocked. Your IP address falls into the rage used by a persistent vandal, so that anonymous editing from it has been disabled. Just log in - or do I misunderstand your problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be blocked till 2009, and you shouldn't block a range used by a high number of different users (I'm on Sky too, like Weydonian, and have been blocked for no reason just because my ip falls into the range Little Professor (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find policy

Where is the policy (but that's prob not the right word) on why we protect the main page? I can't find it but I've seen it before. I know someone that wants to read it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008

Hi Raul, your logs say it's unprotected, but we can't seem to edit the page. Also, is there a target character limit for the front page blurb?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely unprotected (I protected it, then very shortly thereafter decided I wanted others to edit it and unprotected it). The target character limit is 1,400 characters (with spaces). Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get this when I try to edit:

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following page, which is protected with the "cascading" option:

Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow For my taste, it has too many not quite true things right now (from the FerryLodge version, as listed on talk), and I want to get closer to the Outriggr/The Fat Man version, but can't edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cascading protection. Well, rather than undoing the cascading protection, I've created a sandbox copy at User:Raul654/test. Tweak that, and I'll update the main page blurb before tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better idea :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Man finished working his magic at User:Raul654/test, but we can't move it over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus version (among Texas editors) is all done at User:Raul654/test (within the character limit), User:DragonflySixtyseven moved most of it into the blurb page, but he disliked and removed the sentences referencing her name (see Talk:Ima Hogg/Archive 1#Note), so you may want to compare the two versions to see if you want to use any more of that content. Do you need to reprotect the blurb page? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the critics have been too harsh on my favorite Fat Man, but this one makes up for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: Range used by Scibaby

Dunno who this Scibaby is but my entire ISP is blocked by this ban which is set by you. Could you please look into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenport (talk • contribs) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making a comment, but I was on this talk page, and I notice you say your entire ISP was blocked. There must have been a LOT of people vandalising or something, because if everyone that uses an ISP gets blocked? "Yeah, im with Charter, and my entire ISP just got blocked. Did Charter do something wrong?" Just seems a little odd if you ask me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must have been a LOT of people vandalising or something - No, just one really, really, really persistent sockpuppeteer / POV pusher. Raul654 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada literature FAC

I've made a comment here. You may wish to respond to it to clarify the doubts that exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional proposal to deal with Evolution vandalism

Hi there, I've become a little tired of this constant protect/unprotect, checkuser/block cycle. I've made a proposal for an interesting experiment here. You and Alison's comments as the people dealing with most of the checkuser requests would be most valuable in the discussion, so I'd be grateful if you could comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Plague is up for deletion

Thought you might be interested since you added the pic and his birthdate to the article, and are thus the only person besides myself to have contributed content to it recently. The AfD is here. Yilloslime (t) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentiously?

Are you really being serious, or is this some April Fool's Day prank? Thats truly insulting, because I dont believe I added any kind of bias to that article. If you believe thats being tendentious, then please, review yourself carefully, because if I get blocked, Im taking a whole bunch of people with me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we supposed to understand this cryptic threat?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it what you want, Nazis. Your propoganda doesnt intimidate me. Your bias just sickens me. Dislocatedthumb (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You lose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for FA for April 5: Bette Davis (her 100th birthday)

I apologize for going over the head of WP:TFA/R, but this opportunity might be too good to pass up: I was just reading some news articles on the 100th birthday of actress Bette Davis this coming Saturday April 5, both here in the U.S. and internationally as well, and it just so happens that it currently is an FA that has not been on the main page yet. I realize that another article for this day has been suggested on WP:TFA/R, and it might screw up your scheduling. But it might be worthwhile to think about actually putting that on the main page as the FA for April 5. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through it; for such an old article, it's in very good shape. A couple of non-reliable sources, but looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20 year anniversary - Main page request

Hi Raul. Just a quick note to mention that as indicated by the infobox, 7th May is the 20th anniversary of the start of the summer of 4 captains. Resorting to cricket commentator-speak: A main page appearance would be perfectly splendid! --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa

Raul654, hi. Thanks for choosing Lisa del Giocondo for the main page on 13 April, or to whoever did the deed. The advance notice is plenty of time for me to get in gear to add another excellent source. I am traveling that weekend but am sure other people will be around (I will keep adding TFAs to my watchlist to return the favor). Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Raul654 (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate sock

I'm not too familiar with what goes on with sockpuppets involving climate articles, but I know you're usually hot on their cases. It looks like User:Victim of Changes is the latest one. I'm still new to how administrative tasks get handled, so if could point me in the right direction of what to do next time I spot a blatant sock like this to get it taken care of more quickly, that would be much appreciated. Jason Patton (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's him. And he's just used a tactic I've never seen before - it took me a while to figure out how he pulled it off. Raul654 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Typewriter Company

Mainpage has been protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent warning

I have responded on my talk page. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rv to Greenhouse Gas

I have restored the contribution on methane by Victim of Changes which you reverted. It has its faults, in particular it is not in the most encyclopaedic form, so modification may indeed be required, but please don't simply rub it out again without justification. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by a banned user (and an extremely prolific sockpuppeteer), and as WMC accurately noted when he re-removed it, the source ("Bovine Belching Called Udderly Serious Gas Problem") is laughably weak. Raul654 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free right now?

I am talking to Durova right now on Skype if you want to join us.--Filll (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer, but I was just getting ready to go offline. Maybe some other time, though. Raul654 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP range block

While I was at a different house I couldn't edit wikipedia because of some giant year-long block from you. How many people would this block affect? It seems you're probably going to lose a lot of constructive edits and possible new users who don't sign up, so isn't it a bit excessive? It doesn't affect me anymore but it was in London so I'd assume quite a few computers would be cut off by that. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch preview

If you have time, WP:FCDW/April 7, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new guideline consensus

Hi - user:Mufka has been working on a guideline at WP:DOY for what to include and not to include in the day of the year articles. It's been tagged as a proposed guideline for a while, he's solicited input from all the usual spots, the feedback on the talk page is unanimously in favor of it being an official guideline. Sound like time to change "proposed" to "guideline"? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was unanimous until this edit. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stumped on Prague Spring

Raul, I'm unsure what to do with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring. I won't summarize the problem to you so that you can read it fresh and not be predisposed by what I say, but I'm not sure which way to go with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Señor Presidente

Raul, I'm sorry to hit you with two at once, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Señor Presidente has a tricky image issue, and that's a weak area for me. The article has extremely solid, unanimous support, ready for promotion, sans the image problem. A University class has worked with the FA-Team and they may be bringing several other FACs soon that may have the same or similar issues (two book cover images, one Spanish, one English, unclear if policy allows both), so I don't want to set a bad precedent. I hope you can look in, since some tension seems to be building around this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can i has catz?

can i has catz?

TOFA date request

I want to add a date request for a prospective TOFA, and, although the directions say to replace the one with the lowest point value, I'm tempted to replace the first one (for April 16: Virginia Tech massacre). It already has a large amount of feedback -- all in support -- and it's for the next slot that has not been assigned yet. Further, none of the other requests are failing catastrophically (or at all, really), so should I go ahead and replace the April 16 request or take down one of the one-point requests (and, if so, which one)? -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove anything from the requests queue until I've actually scheduled that date. I most certainly do not want to have to memorize dates for nominations which have been removed. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation

I can't help but be curious about this usurpation. Was there a particular reason you performed the request sooner than two hours after the request was made, instead of waiting the full seven days to perform this request? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cometstyles requested it in IRC. Raul654 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what was the justification for waiving the week waiting time? The week wait has been key point in the usurpation process for its entire existence. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem. The purpose of the week-long wait is to allow notification on the talk page of the person to be usurped. I thought that had been done last week, before the request was made; I see now that it was done 24 hours ago. I'll be more careful in the future. Raul654 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR

Thanks. I had my mind on Coeliac disease, which was featured a little over a year ago; May is celiac awareness month in the U.S., and I thought it would be a good time. Rotavirus was featured the day before yesterday, so if nothing bio/med is put in the queue soon, it would be a reasonable gap between two health-related articles. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem

Raul654, first of all thanks so much for your early interest in our project. It's very shortly coming to an end, and I should say it's been a remarkable success. It could soon be even more of a success, as we have an article right on the verge of becoming a featured article. There is quite a debate there on images, and I understand that User:SandyGeorgia is going to consult you about that very shortly. I'll leave that in her and your hands, though I can tell you that the article's principle editor (who's worked incredibly hard over the semester) is hoping for resolution soon. I know, however, how busy you are.

But I wanted to ask you about something else. I asked SandyGeorgia about whether it would be possible to get this article, which when passed would be the first FA ever produced by a class project, put on the main page. It would certainly make the students inordinately (and deservedly) proud and happy. She directed me to WP:TFA/R, but looking at that, we'd be very low priority and quickly bumped off. Do you have any thoughts or advice? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If and when it passes the featured article candidacy process, I'd be happy to put it on the main page. This is just the kind of thing that should be encouraged in the strongest way. Raul654 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, marvellous! And thanks so much for your speedy reply. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: El Señor Presidente promoted

Thanks so much! The students will be thrilled. And they thoroughly deserve it. :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Raul (and the MMM contributors as well, of course), on FA #2000. It's exciting that this special project also happens to be a numerical milestone.--ragesoss (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very exciting. I had no idea! I have suggested to User:Mfreud that she get in touch with you with a date for the mainpage. :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say: El Señor Presidente is FA #2000, right? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted 5 simultaneously, so really there's no true 2000th FA. But if people want to say El Señor Presidente was, I won't nitpick. Raul654 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are choosing ESP because it was the last article you promoted in your contrib log. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<- don't forget the Red-billed Chough! - p'raps 5 joint 2000th is the fairest way...! Privatemusings (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Thanks; you fixed it just as I was halfway through leaving you a note dealing with the bigger issue of respect for archiving decisions at FAC and asking for your help. Is an admin supposed to use the tools that way, to delete his own archived FAC? Doesn't feel right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, Gimmetrow beat me to it, but I would have fixed it had he not. Second, as my proxy, your decisions on FAC need to be respected just as I had made them. If they aren't, there's something going wrong with the FAC. Raul654 (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Senor Presidente

That looks great! Thank-you very much. This is extremly exciting for me!--Mfreud (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not worry about changing the date, Cinco de Mayo is perfect!! Thanks again, I cannot actually contain my excitement!!! :D --Mfreud (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If editors are disrupting WP, why are they not sanctioned?

In a recent discussion, you described an editor as: "a reprobate POV pusher who does, in fact, push an anti-science agenda in one article after another". Now that may be true - I don't know, and I'm not really here to discuss that specific editor. I do know that there are many, many editors pushing all sorts of agendas on many contentious topics. Admittedly, I've only been editing for about 6 months so I'm no expert in how WP operates, but what I don't understand is why sanctions never seem to be brought against these editors. There are policies against disruption, that mandate colloborative editing.... why are these policies not enforced? Why aren't people regularly topic banned from subjects about which they are too passionate to be effective editors? I look forward to your respectful reply. Dlabtot (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question you are asking - why do people who systematically undermine our science articles stay around, and even proliferate in Wikipedia's environment? - has no simple or short answer. It might well take an entire PhD thesis to answer it completely and satisfactorily. (Any budding english or journalism grad students out there feel up to the task?)

Anti-science POV pushers use a variety of tactics to confuse the issue and wear down other editors who are knowledgable of and competent to write about science. Often times, figuring out who is a crank requires an understanding of the subject, which - frankly - most administrators do not have. That's why anti-science POV pushers can do what they do.

Sometimes they are sanctioned. Sometimes t h e y are not. If sanctioned, Often they appeal.

The arbitration committee itself has a mixed record on the matter. Sometimes it makes good decisions. Sometimes it makes bad ones. Occasionally it corrects a bad one, but that's a rarity. (Personally, I am proud of my record on this matter as an arbitrator.) Unfortunately, the systemic failure of the dispute resolution process to deal with the problem means that individual administrators (myself included) have to deal with these things on an individual basis. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I worded my question so poorly that you got the impression it was about "science articles", or that I had the impression that no one is ever sanctioned for anything. I'm asking a much broader question that applies as much to nationalist, political, or simply lame disputes as it does to science articles. This project is supposedly about writing an encyclopedia, yet an enormous amount of energy is spent on dispute resolution that, imho, amounts to mollycoddling. It's not hard in most cases when examining a contentious article and its talkpage, to identify the problematic editors. I guess my asking 'why' these editors are not simply topic banned is slightly rhetorical; what I'm trying to do is advance the ideas that editing an encyclopedia should be a dispassionate endeavor, no editor is indispensable in any one topic, and that enforcement of many policies should be must stricter. Pretty much the only way to be sanctioned right now is by engaging in incivility or violating the three revert rule. But a multitude of reprobate POV pushers who do, in fact, push an agenda in one article after another seem to be a much bigger problem for the encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes on articles with deep technical or historical background are not quite as easy for admins to sort out as you make them out to be. This project is supposedly about writing an encyclopedia, yet an enormous amount of energy is spent on dispute resolution that, imho, amounts to mollycoddling. It's not hard in most cases when examining a contentious article and its talkpage, to identify the problematic editors. - to respond to the latter sentence - it's easy to identify uncivil editors. It's not easy to identify civil editors who are cranks if you aren't well versed in the subject of their crankery. As to your former point, why we spend so much time on dispute resolution - well, as I said on the arbcom mailing list earlier today, the dispute resolution fails spectacularly at resolving certain kind of disputes (the scientific fringe, national/ethnic issues, etc). Raul654 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I say 'problematic editors' and you say 'cranks', I'm pretty sure we are talking about two different sets of editors - sets which do have many elements in common. But it seems clear that we are talking about two different things and I have not been able to effectively communicate my point to you. Oh, well, I tried. It does seem however, that we are in substantial agreement about the failure of the dispute resolution process in many cases. Dlabtot (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of pro-science editors sanctioned. Look at ScienceApologist's block log. However, there is something that people do not quite seem to absorb.

NPOV does not mean neutral or positive. It means that if you have two views, A and B that disagree with each other about a topic, A and B will be presented, and A's criticisms of B will be presented and B's criticism's of A will be presented. If A is much more prominent than B, then more of A's criticism's of B will be presented.

What I have seen, over and over, by people who complain as you do, is that if there is a topic with disagreement, they want only one side presented and no criticism of that side. That is when there are problems.

There are also problems when A is much more prominent than B, but editors want to present A and B as being on equal footing. That also causes problems.

So if someone is a proponent of a minority position B, they often feel things are unfair. Well they are sort of unfair, but the unfairness is built into the rules of Wikipedia. If people do not like this unfairness, they are free to go to other Wikis with different sets of rules which they might find more fair.--Filll (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA milestones/Dispatch

Hi Raul, Sandy and I were discussing whether the April 14 Dispatch should discuss the 2000th FA as well as the first FA from an educational project. Do you think this should be a stand-alone article or should it be a Dispatch? We'll bow to your wisdom (and the prose of anyone who might have already volunteered to write it). Karanacs (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

crossposted at Newsroom Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, are you interested in watching this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it when Tony posted to the FAC and saw nothing wrong with it (which is why I didn't comment). Obviously as a signpost article, it should not be tagged as an essay. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCDave

Hi Raul, I have to admit I was a bit surprised to see NCDave blocked for reinstating my edit. There were a couple of reasons I added "reportedly", just so you know, the first being as said that the movie isn't out yet. Since the contents aren't publicly available, I think some readers will be unsure how Wikipedia can know what's in the movie. The second reason was simply because the claims are obviously a bit bizarre; in that context I think it may be better to be clear we're saying what's reported and not that we decided ourselves this was the point. I think NCDave should have brought it up on the talk page rather than reverting, but I wonder if a week block is a bit much, unless there's more to it I'm missing? Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raul. I encourage you to undo your recent block of NCdave. As your are engaged in disputes with him, according to Wikipedia policy, it does not seem that you should block him. That page specifically states:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

Please undo your block. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_block (which you filed and then somehow neglected to tell me about) Raul654 (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have told you. I'm sorry. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your AN/I comment, I'm a bit surprised at the snap judgment; I also don't think it should be relevant, but if you looked you'd see much of my work here has been fixing up articles like Secularism, Secularization, Separation of church and state, Separation of church and state in the United States, the Establishment Clause, etc. I think you were simply mistaken about what I added, but the perspective of what my POV would be is a bit (ok, wildly) off. That said, I think there are certain superficial aspects of some of these ID articles which suggest a bias, and which more open discussion with other perspectives could improve (not taking this or that view, but finding the third way). I also don't think the read of what NCdave did in this instance was quite correct. That's not to say I disagree with you entirely, but mostly that making a number of people feel like someone was mistreated isn't the best if it can be avoided, possibly just by a clearer explanation. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

Would you consider Orion (mythology) for this date? The point system gives it one point, for underrepresented area (all of religion, mysticism and mythology has 36 FA's), but I'm not sure I'd want to elbow aside one of the existing TFA's even if I could. May 11 is the only really significant date, the date Ovid gave to it in the Fasti. (I might be able to make a case for a 2000th, or maybe 2010th, anniversary; the date of the Fasti is arguable.)

If there is some other procedure I should use here, please let me know. The existing blurb would do, but could be improved by making the first sentence follow a recent tweak to the article; and Zeus placed him among the stars, instead of the passive. If you want the anniversary in the blurb, The entry for Ovid's Fasti on May 11 is a poem on the birth of Orion. can be added.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this while editing below; I assume you are talking about it being on the main page, but it's already been TFA. You didn't forget its appearance, surely? (Ignore me if I have the wrong end of the stick). Yomangani ^talk 09:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has; thanks for the reminder to link — that's the blurb I mean. Does that disqualify? Raul was kind enough to make it TFA without asking the talk page, but I had always intended it for May 11, as the only significant date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get to have two main page appearances. I'd imagine there'd be uproar from those who haven't yet had their article on main page. You'll have to wait for the number of yearly promotions to fall below 365 (or 366). Yomangani ^talk 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul? This is news to me; many articles have been repeated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example of an article that has been repeated on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not off-hand; but I know I've seen several, often quite good, long-established FAs, and concluded that Raul (having no suggestion for the date) picked one to fill. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've scanned the TFAs and found no duplicates. No TFA page title redirects to another TFA page title, either. If an FA was promoted long ago, it doesn't mean it was TFA long ago. Gimmetrow 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA page division

Raul, last week, someone separated Flora and fauna from our biggest category (Biology and medicine) at WP:FA; I reverted as I wasn't convinced it was time to divide that cat yet. Both Casliber and Yomangani had a look at the proposal from the editor who wanted to split, and they suggested instead separating Health and medicine. (Cas is a physician who has written FAs in medicine, dinosaurs, mushrooms, and other animals, so knows the full category.) Their proposed split would move 35 articles out of the current 169 at Biology and medicine. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Flora and fauna section and a mockup is at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Mockup to split WP:FA Biology and medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrating (whether or not this is their intention) that the point system can be gamed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if Cas wanted to game the system, he'd go for flora and fauna for his mushrooms and birds. The medical articles he has worked on have already been on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Casliber would; but the potential for someone sneaky is obvious. (I hope this is obscure enough not to be WP:BEANS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern and the BEANS have both already been raised at the talk page of WP:TFA/R; none of the participants in the current division proposal are part of that, nor is there any reason to think they would be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMA, I think I already dropped out of the point system a while ago as four (maybe five if I include Banksia brownii at a stretch) I've been heavily involved with have been mainpaged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to discontinue the point system. It's proving to be more of a headache and less effective than I had hoped. About the proposal split - I'm strongly opposed to splitting flora/fauna from biology - that would clearly create two overlapping article categories. Health/medicine from biology is a more natural split, so I'm willing to consider it. Raul654 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also dislike the idea of overlapping or sub-categories, as that heads us towards a cluttered page full of sub-categories like the GA page. If no one objects to the Medicine split, maybe I'll do it in a few days, since I've got the work done in sandbox, but I don't feel strongly about it either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented back on the FA talk page. I think you can avoid the need for subcategories with a rename of the original category. 10 points to me for meddling - I shall soon have enough to exchange for a free child ticket to WikiWorld. (Restrictions apply. Child must be accompanied by a paying adult.) Yomangani ^talk 09:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 20; can I be the paying adult? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's proposal, at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Alternative proposed I think by Yomangan and sandboxed by Outriggr. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFA request

Hi Raul654. Can you possibly remove Lisa del Giocondo as TFA for 13 April? Apologies but I bet someone else would love the spot and there is no way I can both reconcile the article with a new source and make my own schedule by then. I am almost certain the article has factual errors. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trip canceled, so we'll be fine, whatever you decide to do. Sorry for the noise. Is there any way to ask for Minnesota or Minneapolis, Minnesota for the week of July 18–27, 2008? Both are celebrating their 150th birthday (1, 2). -Susanlesch (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota has already been on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good to clarify that. But Minneapolis has not been on the main page and we can mention Minnesota there. I requested Minneapolis for 18 July quite a while ago but that page is blanked nowadays. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray, answered here. No problem, it came up elsewhere and I didn't even want to ask this question in the first place. :-) -Susanlesch (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby's latest

What say you?[1] Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly. Raul654 (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can handle these better than I do... User:Sloe Bloe Jason Patton (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of your blockee's

You may want to comment here. He claims you have a COI because you blocked him and have edited the article in the recent past. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of five on TFAR

Hi Raul654, sorry to bother you. I placed a nomination on WP:TFAR for coeliac disease to be featured in May (which is coeliac disease awareness month). The nomination was removed on the grounds that there cannot be more than five nominations at any one time. This number 5 strikes me as rather arbitrary, and others seem to be of the same opinion. What do I do? JFW | T@lk 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

Raul, Tony and I have been trying to hash out an idea for days (mostly his original plan, but I've beaten back his grandiose ideas into what works practically for me in terms of time constraints and reviewer constraints :-) The gist is to kill two birds with one stone: 1) recognize and acknowledge top FAC/FAR reviewers while 2) bringing in new people/prestige to the FA process by elevating an article to FA of the month. The broad idea would be to have a panel that votes to choose the FA of the month. The changing panel would be made up of top FAC/FAR reviewers (methodology a derivative of this, but in a way that I don't have to do the time-consuming tally work) complemented by non-FA regulars appointed, some by you, some by me, to involve new or other people to the process. The panel would choose the FA of the month from the monthly featured log, which would be announced in the Signpost. By tallying their FAC/FAR participation with a methodology similar to the linked archive (above), we'd generate a side benefit of being able to reward, acknowledge and barnstar all active reviewers. Tony and I have hashed out (actually, fought out with a lot of gnashing of teeth and bandwidth :-) a greater level of detail, but don't want to move forward with the idea unless you approve in principle. If you like it generally, we'd like to move quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. We don't need a privileged caste of reviewers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what is wrong with this proposal. Although I am not a huge FA producer and I only find value in FAs in so far as they give us a reason to generally try to improve our articles, I think an FA of the month is a great idea. And if it can be done in a way that recognizes those that put in the work of reviewing (in general a thankless task) a little bit, what is wrong with that?--Filll (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a way to thank people; it's called a barnstar. (As for a FA of the month, it presumes that FA's are in fact chosen for quality; all too often, this is not the case.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without having examined the methodology, I think this is an alright idea. We need a better way to recognize core articles brought to status, for one thing. Marskell (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is to the methodology. The award itself is largely harmless, and will probably peter out the way most things of the month do. If it doesn't, it will probably induce incivility from the advocates of different articles. (If they are banned from the decision process, as Sandy would do, they will infest the talk page, and be less civil, in order to draw attention from the high and mightly electors.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" ... as Sandy would do ... " Pardon? And you're objecting to the methodology when you don't know yet what it is? The methodology involves reviewers tracking their own participation so that I only have to verify in the end, because going through almost 200 monthly FACs so I can award barnstars is prohibitive timewise. Barnstars are nice; figuring out who I can award them to took me a full day last month. Also, after I finished discussing this with Tony, I realized we hadn't allowed for how Marskell might reward FAR reviewers by adding them to the panel, so that would need to be accounted for. Further, PMA, the point is to broaden the panel to include non-FA regulars, specifically to address quality concerns and to allow outsiders to judge quality. I'm surprised you reject that notion, since your concerns were such a big part in building it in to the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see I have had some effect. But the most effective way to broaden the panel is not to have a barrier; the usual problem with any of these things is to get editors to participate at all.

Pre-emptively: the only reason I can see to limit participation is to avoid editors attempting to bandwagon the process by one-time special-purpose !votes. This is a problem all over Wikipedia, on AFD no less than here, and we can deal with it by discouraging and disregarding WP:CANVASS violations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll explain the reasoning for limiting participation. How many editors are willing or able to read through 60 to 80 monthly feature-length articles to enter an educated vote? What does the "vote" mean if the editors haven't read all the articles, don't know the criterion, and are perhaps only voting on popularity or other factors? The editors who already know the articles, won't be burdened with having to read 60 to 80 at once, and can put forward the short list are the top reviewers who have already worked on most of those articles. They are in the best position to put forward a short list for a broader vote by the panel, which includes non-FA regulars, so the panel only has to read a few articles. Otherwise, you have a possibly meaningless vote based on popularity from editors who haven't likely read all the articles. It's intended to make it practical, feasible, and not a burden on everyone involved, while encouraging more and better reviews and rewarding a top-notch article along with good reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors are willing or able to read through 60 to 80 featured articles every month, discuss the relative merits of each and then justify their decision on the selection of the FA of the month to the baying mob of editors whose article have been passed over? Hmmm....I don't think I'm going to need all these fingers. Yomangani ^talk 01:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right :-) Accounted for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me. *I* get enough flack on the source stuff. I don't need to look further for more work. (But I was good and reviewed a non history FAC!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Tony: This is why my proposal is for a (rotating) short-lister—one person to select about five promotions each month, which would then be read by a small number of panelists. Anderson, I favoured asking you to participate in the trial, so are you seeing yourself as belonging to some "privileged caste of reviewers"? Whatever other squabbles there are, I don't doubt that you'd do a good job as panellist or short-lister. In any case, there would be a continual rotation of personel, a month at a time during the trial, and thereafter, if the trial continued, perhaps less often (every several months): all good reviewers would get a go, but naturally, not all at once, because that would be a recipe for chaos and the scheme would collapse. And before you recoil and return to accuse, I have already ruled myself out as serving, at least for quite a while, lest there be a perceived conflict of interest.

But Sandy wanted a more objective way of choosing the personnel, and was still considering her line on the short-lister idea (which to my mind is the only way to make the task of the panellists reasonable, to give them the chance to read five articles properly and rank them in just an hour or two; anything more would be an impost, and it's idle to think we can ask our hard-pressed reviewers and prominent WPs to participate in a gargantuan task that requires close coordination. I'm keen for it to be a clean, quick, efficient process that requires minimal coordination between people (that's the automaticity that will make it run smoothly and with satisfaction for all: who wants a monthly committee process to choose five articles from 80? That will not work.). TONY (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :-) Tony and I squabbled for hours over who chooses the shortlist and how. For three nights I've been on Australian time :-) I say the top ten reviewers, who've been in there and have already read most of them at FAC, since it won't be such a burden for them. The top ten reviewers (I've got that figured out, see sample linked above, but modified) each put forward a list of five FAs for the month, and Raul or I tally their votes, if the top five isn't clear or we disagree, as in all things FA, Raul's the boss, he chooses from their lists, make it easy, put forward only a short list to the panel. Tony preferred initially that one person puts forward the short list; I'm not sure if I succeeded in beating him into submission. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. So 10 people have to sift through 70 or 80 articles and FAC pages to produce a short-list of five? It's extraordinarily cumbersome; will all 10 do it in time? There'll have to be a fairly tight deadline—unless the operation is streamlined, there's no way the winner will be announced in the following month. By my reckoning, the reading and judging of the five short-listed articles needs to occur in the first two weeks of the following month. What if only six have chosen their short-list by the deadline? What if there's little commonality between them? That's highly likely, given five/80. Too many people at once, I say. Let a smaller number have a go in succession, every few months (better one person, but I can see I've lost that argument). To Keep it small and simple, why not the top three reviewers who agree to the task, instead of the top 10? They should probably each rank what they see as the best 10 of the 80 articles, from 10 points for their first choice, down to one point for their 10th, and the five highest summed scores would comprise the short-list. I'm still unhappy with the complexity, but this would work better, I think. And would the three be different from those who judge the short-list itself? TONY (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... theoretically, the top reviewers don't have a lot to sift through, since most of them have already reviewed all those articles. My proposal is simple; when they put up their tally of articles reviewed, they put up their choices. If they don't want to participate, it doesn't matter. If any top reviewer doesn't care to put forward a list, or doesn't put one forward in time, that's no problem; we work with what we have. The most critical factor in this proposal for me is that it have a way to tally, acknowledge and reward good reviews; otherwise, it's just more work for me, and I don't want to do anything that deprecates the hard work reviewers do to make sure articles are promotable. I don't want a process that makes them secondary; without their good reviews, we don't have quality. I also wouldn't introduce any complex ranking scheme; statistically, those can backfire (for example, if everyone consistently chooses the same article second, it can come out first on a point tally, even though no one chose it first). OK, so here's how we can merge your goals and mine: forget about having Raul or I sort through, tally, and pick the final five. Let your monthly shortlist person be the one who gets to pick the final five from the reviewers' lists, but don't leave out the reviewers, because if we do, the entire Project becomes more work, and gives the hard-working reviewers who help assure articles are the best they can be short shift. The problem with top three instead of top ten: look at the sample data from February. I want to be able to identify, acknowledge and barnstar the top reviewers, and three isn't enough. If you make it only three, you make it too hard to end up in that group (for example, it could mean simply Ealdgyth, Karancas and Elcobbola end up in top three every month, because they review almost every article. Limiting it to three cuts out everyone else). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think our different perspectives arise from your concentration on a single month—trying to involve everyone at once—and my long-term view, that month after month, all of the hard-working and effective reveiwers can participate: a rotational system to acknowledge the best reviewers in the medium term, not the short term. I think people would not like to do it on a long-term basis, and would be comfortable being asked to serve for just once every so often, whether for one round (in the trial) or perhaps three monthly rounds each time thereafter. We'd like to have fresh blood among the short-lister and panellists, yes? "statistically, those can backfire (for example, if everyone consistently chooses the same article second, it can come out first on a point tally, even though no one chose it first)"—Not seeing the problem here; proportional voting. If two panellists put article A first [10 points] (and four put B second [16 points], probably B is more favoured, on average. How else? TONY (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tony, distracted by the phone here. Immediate reward for good work is better than long term chance that "they might pick me some day"; that's why I prefer monthly. People's schedules and availability change. And, my methodology is self-selecting, which is more democratic, more Wiki-like. I don't want to see either Raul or me being asked to choose (people or articles, that's a sticky wicket). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of information, I don't consider the "source" stuff a review. I generally don't read the whole article when I do that, I just spot check the information sourced to questionable sources, and look in depth at the sources (usually websites). A "real review" to me is when I dig into the prose and try to at least make sure they make sense. I couldn't possibly pick out 'brilliant' writing, but i can at least make sure the prose makes sense. As long as we don't go with bot generated thank yous to the reviewers, I think someone will be found. I have to say I found the thought of having a bot dropped thank you on my talk page more offensive than some of the prickliest nominiators! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider it an essential piece of the review; brilliant and compelling prose, based on blog and self-published sources, would not be a good result on the mainpage. And the work you do is extremely time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we acknowledging good reviews, or are we acknowledging good articles? Many reivews are superficial, but some of them have been superficial about excellent articles - because nobody has found anything to say about them except "Hey, wow, excellent; promote". Septentrionalis PMAnderson

We're trying to do both: refer to original post to Raul, kill two birds with one stone. The methodology will deal with superficial reviews. If we're only acknowledging good articles, I don't need more work. I need a way to also reward good reviews, as that leads to good articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC) PS, PMA, I've put a ton of thought into the point you raise, but don't want to divert the conversation yet into that level of detail, when we don't even know yet if the whole idea is workable or has Raul's blessing; trying to stay focused on the basic concept for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On self-appointing selective societies, I stand with Harry Golden: I am no less opposed to those which admit me, and expect any such organization to spend its time deciding whom to blackball as not worthy our exalted company. Compare Esperanza.
- I am nevertheless touched by Tony's considering inviting me; a great change from his remarks of last month. (I would accept, in an effort to see whether such a group can be made useful, or reduced to the list of volunteers that constitute any other Wikiproject.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, if you wish to make a subsection with the irreducible bare bones of your proposal for Raul to comment on, I will not reply here (if I feel compelled to comment at all, I will address Sandy's talk page). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to move further until Raul has had a chance to weigh in; I know he's very busy, and there's no need to move forward until we hear his thoughts. I don't want to invest the time until we have some direction from him. Give the man some time :-) And Congratulations on finishing the work, Raul !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm...a snack

File:Pantingkitten.jpg

I eat unreferenced articles. Keegan^talk 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for coming to our chat yesterday (and for all the times you've made it). It's great to have you, and best wishes with the final haul on that thesis! Cheers, Durova^Charge! 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bit of an echo here.... by my reckoning you've got 20 hours or so to the deadline, so you probably ought to make a start! ......maybe one more hour on IRC though? ;-)

srsly - best wishes in finishing everything off.... Privatemusings (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about 18 hours straight working on the thesis yesterday, but I managed to finish it today at 5:00 AM EDT (103 pages total, of which about 30 are source code in the appendix). I should have downtime until Thursday while my adviser reviews it, then another frantic rush to make any last minute changes he wants, get it printed up and signed by all the necessary parties, and submitted to the graduate office by the April 21 deadline. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tale

Well, you said you'd close it: Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub. I've left it way over time hoping for more comments and work. There has been improvement and keeps but there's also non-trivial removes. Up to you!

And congrats on finishing the thesis. Marskell (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to not be on TFA?

Wikipedia:Today's featured article currently says "Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page." Do you maintain any such a list in any Wikipedia page? If so, please provide a pointer to this list (either here or, better yet, back on WP:TFA), even if it is incomplete.--66.80.2.174 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 14 Dispatch

Tony hasn't ce'd yet: Wikipedia:FCDW/April 14, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky RFCU

I've got a tricky case that you might like to double check: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33. See my note at the bottom of the current iteration. Cheers, Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to talk

Hey mark, its Nancy. You may not remember me, its been a while. Since I did not have your number I had to contact you this way. We need to talk soon. Send me a message if you get this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumba (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...who are you? Raul654 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Nancy Hollister

I'm sorry if you don't remember me, Its been something like six or seven months now but we met at the University during some seminar. I would really like to talk to you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumba (talk • contribs) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiight. And which seminar would that be? Raul654 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should step down as an admin

While you may see it as merely "protecting" good content from "POV warriors" your policy of blocking users with whom you are engaged in disputes is extremely disruptive to wikipedia. It call into question the neutrality of wikipedia processes, and completely undermines the collaborative nature of the project. In reality, you are pushing a POV, just like every other human being. Your consistent abuse of power, in spite of constant reminders to stop, and in violation of numerous policies, leads me to believe you are unfit to have admin tools. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama FAR

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama is probably going to be a recurring stability discussion between now and November. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "delegate" Joelr31 "closed the Obama FAR[2] neither as a keep nor as a remove". [3] This is clearly contrary to the declared procedure for "Featured article review (FAR)" which obligates that either you or one of your delegates "determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage". Either there was or there wasn't such a consensus, and I think it pretty clear that there wasn't. It's time for the community to get its chance to have its say on whether Barack Obama should keep its FA status, and Joelr31's decision to attempt to deny us that promised opportunity is truly shocking. Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no via media for the article milestones box on the talk page, it's either "kept" or "removed", which correspond to the two possible actions Andy mentions. Joel's on-the-fly attempt to finesse a tertium quid out of this debate is an understandable motion, but is unlikely to stand for long. Believe the proper result is "no consensus, default FARC". At a minimum it should be reopened in review phase and we should seek consensus on whether we have consensus to discuss removal consensus, and yes, due to this out-of-process move, that's exactly what I mean. JJB 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an "article milestones box on the talk page" on the WP:FAR talk page -- are you referring to a different talk page? "Article Milestones" is mentioned once at WP:FAR, and it might be helpful to blue link it. Andyvphil (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found the "Article Milestone" box on the article's talk page, part of the ArticleHistory template. Says "action4result=pass (under appeal)" but displays as "?". So by "no via media" you meant no corresponding option allowed by the template? Not following you. Andyvphil (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I agree with Stifle's temporary solution of using a uniquely worded message box instead of "pass (under appeal)". :D JJB 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this down so you'd see it. Apologies if that was inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel has posted some of his reasons for his choice, but I do not think he has stated them all yet. JJB 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff.[4] "My initial intention was to re-start the review...[but decided] achieving consensus for either keeping or removing its FA status would be nearly impossible. How can it be decided if there is no consensus for keeping its status or no consensus for losing its status?" So his decision is that Obama gets to keep its star indefinately because you can't review it. Haloooooo! Anybody in? Raul, are you on board with that or not? Andyvphil (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy

Im not sure it was a while ago and I attend them frequently. I remember meeting you there though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumba (talk • contribs) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 19 TFA

Hey Raul, just curious why Emma Goldman was chosen to be the featured article of the day on April 19th. I can't find any connection between her and April 19. Wouldn't it be better to wait and feature her on her birthday, June 27? I was planning on suggesting the article for then once June rolled around. What do you think? Kaldari (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, how are you doing?

I would really like to talk to you Mark, I think we need to get to know each other better (obviously, you hardly know who I am). I would like to talk to you sometime, I'm sure you'll remember me one we get to talking. See ya:)

AfD nomination of Egged bus 36 bombing

I have nominated Egged bus 36 bombing, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egged bus 36 bombing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Marks II

ThomHImself (talk · contribs) is on his 4th or 5th revert. I drop a WP:3RR Warning on him, but it might have been too late. But I think at 5RR, there shouldn't be much patience. Anyways, just thought you should be made aware. It's all as a result of that dumb movie, Expelled. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

Hi Raul654. I've left a request at User talk:Builder w re this indefinite block but still got no response. Could you please answer it there? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being watched...

The Chronic FAC

Hi, I nominated The Chronic article as a FAC and it was recently closed with the result of not being promoted. The thing is that it got afew comments and only got ended with one support and one oppose. Also, most of the comments that were made were only focusing on the reliability of references and the fair-use rationales of some samples, not on the actual prose or things that had to be expanded. I don't really think the article received enough views from regular FA reviewers to have a overall consensus on the page. I was wondering if you could point out the main strengths of the page and the areas which need expansion or which don't follow the MoS or the FA critria. Thanks. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

More to come.--Filll (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in Sandbox

Raul, I know that I was not personally invited to participate in the Civil POV sandbox, but would you mind if I helped out, if I have anything worthy of contributing? If not, thats fine as the people you invited are much, much more experience than I. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind others working on it. In fact I think it's a good thing, provided that they are using that page to further its purpose (to explain the problem and lay out a set of principles the arbcom can adopt to limit civil POV pushing) and not to undermine it. Raul654 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a lesser scale, we have the same issue across all of the autism-related articles. It's a concern because of the overlap of admins (with Evolution, for example) who can deal with it: TimVickers, Mastcell and only a few others. I'm watching as TimVickers' time is increasingly being taken up by these issues, and noticing that he hasn't written an FA in a long time :-( I'm at the end of my rope with the troubles the autism-related articles have caused me, and ready to unwatch all of them, but I feel badly leaving so few other editors to deal with this. There is a walled garden of scores of articles, and because some of the editors perseverate, a lot of time and patience is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC query

Raul, the Murder Madness and Mayhem educational project has two more FACs maturing: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario Vargas Llosa, both nominated on the 14th. Vargas Llosa still has a few loose ends to tie up, and the students may need more time as they're in final exams and User:Jbmurray is traveling. The General has no opposes, unanimous support at nine declarations, five from editors who had no involvement with the project or the FA-team. But, because of my frequent MoS and ref fixes, wikilinking, and Spanish-language input, strangely, I figure in the top five contributors by edit count. While there's nothing controversial in the FAC, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to promote it when I figure in the top five contributors? Please let me know your thoughts, as I've not been in this spot before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inappropriate for you promote it; feel free to promote it if you feel it meets the criteria and there are no oustanding actionable objections. Raul654 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the quick feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFA ideas for April 21st, 25th & 29th

Hello, Raul. I was told to leave you a note here, rather than on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests (max'ed out for a while), so here I am.

I thought April 25th would be a good day to use Redwood National and State Parks (promoted in June 2006) as the TFA, as that will be Arbor Day in the U.S. I also thought April 21st might be a good day for Monarchy of the United Kingdom (promoted in May 2005), as that day will be Queen Elizabeth II's birthday. I see that you've already put in BAE Systems for April 20th. To avoid back to back UK topics, may I suggest moving that from April 20th to April 29th? That will be the anniversary of the founding of British Aerospace, the predecessor of BAE Systems, in 1977.

These are just my ideas and suggestions. I don't need them on those dates that badly. I just thought that they are nice dates for the respective FAs to get on MainPage. I hope you agree with me. But if it's way too much work for you to move things around. Don't worry too much about it. Okay? Thanks.

Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, like you have nothing else to think about: there's a 200th anniversary currently at FAC for May 3. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Third of May 1808 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. BAE Systems. I know a lot about BAE and have contributed more than anybody to the article (with the guidance, support and advice of many others of course) and even I wouldn't identify the April 29th date of British Aerospace's founding with BAE Systems without it being pointed out. But no objections to moving it, whatever works best for all concerned. Mark83 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the TFA templates for April 20th~23rd have been updated. Thank you for taking my suggestion, Raul654. Happy Earth Day & Arbor Day to you. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul's Razor and Homeopathy

Greetings...and thanx for your support at the Arb Comm on homeopathy.[5] I love Your Raul's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." I would love it if the homeopathy article could strive towards that sharpness. DanaUllman^Talk 03:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PCS and Banks

There are some acronymns for security measures that I dare not mention here. I was told by a very reliable source that those particular IDs can be changed. Would it be correct to assume that one of the blocked ranges uses a carrier that does not even bother to see such IDs, or do we have babies on WP so sophisticated that their IDs are changed, sprinting ahead of you? Doug Youvan (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 22 is Earth Day

Jus a heads up for April 22, which is Earth Day - I guess something to bear in mind when choosing an article for that day, in case you haven't done so already. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest Earth, promoted April 21, 2007? Or The World Is Not Enough (song), promoted November 18, 2007. :-P --PFHLai (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to eavesdrop, but I couldn't resist reponding. Earth seems like such a perfect choice! Wrad (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(slaps hand on forehead) d'oh! Had presumed it must have been on main page already...but it hasn't, neat! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Jam on Earth Day? Hmmm... --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible TFA

There are already 5 listed including a nom for April 26, but it occurs to me that you might want to consider Royal Blue (B&O train) for that date, which is exactly the 50th anniversary date of its final run on April 26 1958 (4 pts). Also, Transport only has 47 FA's, so it's an under-represented category (1 pt) JGHowes ^talk - 01:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "Expelled" Protection

Thanks for taking care of that, my erasing arm was getting tired. There are enough new IPs hitting all the other evolution/creation/ID pages for this gnome to deal with. And thanks for the comment to Mr. "Dr." Henley. Well put. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

Thanks for taking an interest in the state of discussion on the 9/11 articles. I understand your concern and will stay away from the articles. I will, however, be appealling your decision in accordance with the discretionary sanctions. However it turns out, it will be good to get this matter settled.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have appealled the ban Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_ofThomas_Basboll.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other bans and rewrites during a lockdown

Hi Raul. I noticed the ban you issued to Thomas Basboll on the 9/11 articles. Do you think things would help there if several other long-term editors of the pages were also banned from the topic, so as to allow new editors or other (less entrenched) editors the room to edit? In other words, should such bans be handed out indiscriminately to allow a return to normal editing without conflicts between long-established and entrenched users, or should bans be applied selectively according to someone (presumably the admins in question) deciding what is and is not POV pushing? Selective banning runs the risk that another POV will be favoured. In some ways, I think a universal ban and page protection is best, followed by selectively allowing "repair groups" in to work on the article - this would have to consist of established editors who the community would approve of editing the article. Get a minimum number (say 5 editors) working on an article (these would have to be really good editors), and cut out all the background noise, but still allow discussion on the talk page. Give the selected group a month or two to get the article to featured status, and then release the page protection. Maybe also allow a month of free editing after the two-month lockdown before submitting to the FAC process? Ultimately, this may be the only way to get controversial articles to an acceptable state. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 589: / Line 589: @@
 ==Ban==
 Thanks for taking an interest in the state of discussion on the 9/11 articles. I understand your concern and will stay away from the articles. I will, however, be appealling your decision in accordance with the discretionary sanctions. However it turns out, it will be good to get this matter settled.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] ([[User talk:Thomas Basboll|talk]]) 05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
+:I have appealled the ban [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_ofThomas_Basboll]].--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] ([[User talk:Thomas Basboll|talk]]) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 == Other bans and rewrites during a lockdown ==