User talk:Raul654

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

• Archive 1: August 2003 - November 2003
• Archive 2: December 2003 - March 2004
• Archive 3: April 2004 - July 2004
• Archive 4: August 2004 - November 2004
• Archive 5: December 2004 - March 2005
• Archive 6: April 2005 - July 2005
• Archive 7: August 2005 - November 2005
• Archive 8: December 2005 - March 2006
• Archive 9: April 2006 - July 2006
• Archive 10: August 2006 - November 2006
• Archive 11: December 2006 - February 2006

Grief

I don't know if anyone said this to you, but sorry about all the grief you went through with Ryulong's RfA a bit ago. Regardless of who agrees with who, dealing with Wikidrama is never fun, and you stuck through it, which is nice to see. -- Natalya 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Time between FA and MP

is their a certain amount of time an article should be a FA before appearing on the Main Page? The Placebo Effect 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No - some go up quickly, and some take a while. Article on subjects which are underrepresented on the main page tend to go up more quickly. Raul654 19:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Meetup 3

FYI ... Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --evrik ^(talk) 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

TFA

That would be quite a mess. Then again, I'd probably be able to participate more. Hmm... isn't the three year anniversary of FAs coming up, or at least, TFAs? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The three year anniversary of main page FAs was last month; the three year anniversary of the 4 pane look on the main page is very soon. Raul654 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Feb 22 was the first day. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles were put on the main page in January 2004, back when it was text-based. When the main page switched to the 4 pane look, suddenly they became very high profile (and system shock ensued). Raul654 05:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing this recently here. Before the 4-pane look, I believe that "putting a FA on the main page" meant adding its title to a short list, so the impact was pretty low. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a start :) Raul654 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reality

Hi, is there a particular reason why you decided to unprotect Reality just now? Have a look at the page history for the last few hours following up to your unprotection... if anything I'd suggest upping it to full protection. Thanks – Qxz 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. I'd just re-protected the article against anon and new user vandalism. Was there a valid reason for your unprotection? -- Longhair\^talk 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize it was still such a hot potato after almost two weeks. Yes, protection is warranted. Raul654 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (I have a feeling this is going to be a problem article for quite a while, sadly) – Qxz 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?

Just wondering why you reverted and then unreverted my comment on Talk:Rush Limbaugh? Just a misplaced mouse click? —Doug Bell ^talk 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, misplaced mouse click when viewing my watchlist. I immediately reverted myself. Raul654 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Thanks for the fix. I got edit conflicted with you on the same changes --BozMo talk 19:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Good article. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Noclip 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2

Thank you, i'm glad i'm not alone in thinking that user's comment wasn't acceptable. Just H 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use madness (now more than ever)

Hi. Remember how a few months ago you were giving me advise about fair use for Israeli public figures. Well, now we are at the point that the Knesset image I used for Haim Ramon (the same one used on the Hebrew wiki) was challenged. So I got another one from the MFA, with a fair use permission link. But that was challenged, too (I deleted it in dismay). Apperently, we are now at the point that we are prohibited from displaying images of a living person that merely shows what they look like — whether that person is a (former) Justice Minister or borderline-notable person. But does the policy really have to be so rigid? I don't think it make sense, and so I, ineptly, attempted to callenge it. Am I wasting my time, though? Regards, El_C 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fair use problems are, at their basic level, a conflict between two of our fundamental goals - the goal to produce a Free encyclopedia (Free, with a capital F, in the copyleft sense), and to the goal to produce a comprehensive encyclopedia (that is, one which is maximally informative - including pictures even on topics where no copyleft pictures are available.)

Neither of these goals supersedes the other. This is not a happy situation, and there will be no magic bullet here. That is to say, we are going to have to compromise, to a degree, on both of those goals (if for no other reason than to keep the people in the two camps from killing each other or quitting Wikipedia). To this end, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The reason living people are targeted in particular - as opposed to dead people - is that new pictures of them can be made, and those new pictures could (at least in theory) be put under a creative commons license. I'm not thrilled with it, but at least this strikes me as reasonable (if not slightly austere).

I'm not 100% sure how this policy came about - I think it came from Jimbo, or Jimbo + the board. Either way, it's something a lot of people care deeply about both ways, so I don't think it's going to be particularly easy to change. Raul654 03:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive response. One user established (I believe) that there is no fairuse exception for public figures. We were operating under the assumption that because the sites allowed fair usage, the images could be uploaded as such (i.e. simply to show what the person looks like — it is unlikely to find other grounds to add an image otherwise!), but apperently this is no longer the case (although the Hebrew wiki still has fairuse pictures of MKs, etc.). Yes, I take your points, and also share your frustrations. Best, El_C 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"One user established (I believe) that there is no fairuse exception for public figures" - actually, I think Sandra Day O'Connor said that in a copyright-related US Supreme Court decision. Raul654 00:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And a very bad, anti-people decision it was. Still, I wasn't looking for such an exception so much as hitherto fair usage. El_C 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam filter problem

That same ole spam filter problem is popping up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2005. Thanks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All fixed. Raul654 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ack - was going along fine, and suddenly got a spamblock on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2005 to April 2005. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably saw that already...

But since I can't find it on your talk page, I put it anyway. I came across this page: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/raul654.html ... I won't even lose the time commenting this rant. I don't know if you can do anything against that :/ -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I had seen it. When looking for Hivemind pictures, I don't know if Daniel intentionally seeks out the worst (least flattering) pictures he can find, but if he doesn't then he sure has a knack for picking them accidentally. And for someone who professes so desperately that he wants to be off of Wikipedia, he seems quite intent on making sure that at least his websites can be linked from here. Raul654 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re

[1] Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hyprocrisy

If anyone's a hypocrite it's you. But please, for all rational itents and purposes, refrain from attacking me on someone else's user page. ~ UBeR 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" defense, that old gem. I thought that one had gone out of style with the third grade, but apparently I was wrong.

As far as attacking other users, perhaps those who live in glass houses should not throw stones? Physician, heal thyself Raul654 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth contains merit; spurious attacks do not. ~ UBeR 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Movie conversion to OGG

Question on my talk page under "Street Light Interference movie". Thanks! --Doug ^talk 12:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Additional remarks on my Talk. --Doug ^talk 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy?

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 12, 2007 is Make Way for Ducklings. I like the article and learned a lot about a book I have always enjoyed. However, am I the only one that thinks two mentions of the Boston statue in the lead is a bit redundant? Can this be tightened up before it appears on the Main Page? Instead of the current last two sentences: "The book is extremely popular worldwide. The city of Boston, where the story is set, as well as Novodevichy Park, Moscow, have both built small statues based on the story." how about "The book is extremely popular worldwide. Novodevichy Park, Moscow, also has a small statue based on the story, which was presented by the United States as a gift to the children of the Soviet Union." or something similar? Just a thought and congrats on a nice article! Ruhrfisch 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I originally put this on the article's talk page day before yesterday but got no reply in 24 hours, so I posted it at the talk for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 12, 2007 12 hours or so ago, with still no reply, so I posted it here.

Fixed. Raul654 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Ruhrfisch 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock of JDLChicago (talk · contribs)

FYI, JDLChicago (talk · contribs) has requested to have his autoblock lifted. His unblock request indicates that you blocked his IP range as one used by cplot. I have left him a message indicating that I would inform you of his request. Please review it and take whatever action you deem appropriate. Thank you. --BigDT 17:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have unblocked 24.148.87.78 (talk · contribs) for JDLChicago (talk · contribs) and 67.184.120.208 (talk · contribs) for Curthicks (talk · contribs). Please feel free to review, modify, or reverse either of these actions. --BigDT 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Those ranges are used by Cplot. Account registration and anon editing should be disabled; logged-in users should be able to edit. Raul654 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... should I reblock those two IP addresses with anon only? --BigDT 00:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I tried but I'm not sure I got them both. Raul654 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I have individually blocked both of the two IP addresses that I had unblocked using anon only, account creation blocked, no autoblock. [2]. Please let me know if there is anything else that I should do. --BigDT 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The IPs aren't the problem, the *ranges* are. Raul654 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... would my unblocking of an IP undo the rest of the block on the range? If so, that block doesn't show up in the block log for the IP, so is there a way to know what range was actually blocked? Thanks. --BigDT 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed it now. See [3] and [4] Raul654 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin article at FAC

Hello! Could I earn my barnstar today? A consensus to Support has been reached and there remains no more opposers. All have been dealt with appropriately.-BiancaOfHell 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Houston, Texas

I noticed you archived the Houston FAC. I would like it not to be failed, yet, though, as I think it is one of the better city articles, with good background research and article development, although a lot of picky details left before I support it for FAC (although I think I've only supported one or two FACs, but lots have gone on). I don't follow the technical maneuverings at FAC. Thanks. KP Botany 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see much point keeping it on the FAC, when it's almost unanimously opposed. Raul654 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's 6 oppose, including mine, and 4 supports, including one strong, that's not unanimous or even close. KP Botany 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there are 4 supports (it was a bit difficult to find them given that very large mass of text). Hrm - do you think a reset is in order? Raul654 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a reset is. The city articles are boring to me, but I read this one through while looking for some information on Houston and found it was a FAC--and I voted it down as I always do. But the main editor is working through details, it's generally comprehensive, neutral, well-written (style), readable, attempts to give a world view, but needs some work in this, and could be a top-notch FA--meaning the editors didn't forget to research the subject, it just needs lots of picky details attended to. I'd like to see it given a bit more time, because the city articles aren't particularly well read on FAC (or anywhere, what could be drier than reading about a city), and I think it would make a respectable FA.

Yes, it's impossible to figure out the supports/opposes due to the massive amount of text, usually I make suggestions on the talk page for this reason--Sei Whale got about 55k from me, even though it was well-written and researched to begin with, but it's a beautiful article now.KP Botany 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reset the nom Raul654 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks KP Botany 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBotification

Raul, I noticed you added the promoted to the featured log, but you also have to add the failed to the failed archive for the bot to operate on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops - fixed. Raul654 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship of Facts

I had added a clarification on the Global warming page, clarifying that the planet did not experience constant Global warming throughout the 20th century but that there were periods of decades during which there was Global cooling. The original sentence led the reader to believe that Global warming was a steady and constant effect. You have reverted this clarification - why are you deleting clarifying facts? -- Rameses 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it's redundant with the graph placed next to the text.

For another, it gives both undo weight to the cooling (which really was quite minor) and it is misplaced putting it in the introduction (where such equivocations are out of place). Raul654 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a 0.2 C drop for a 30 year period is minor. In fact, there was Global cooling for 40 years during the 20th century and Global warming for 60 years. Please tell me where in the article you believe this fact should be placed. -- Rameses 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of per-decade fluctionations go in the 'History of warming' section, which summarizes the Temperature record of the past 1000 years article.

As to it being minor - you are exaggerating the significance and duration. In point of fact, there was no drop of 0.2 C that lasted for 30 years or more in the 20th century, and this graph makes that pretty clear. The were a decrease of about 0.1 C for 20 years during the 40s and 50s, but this is only "low" relative to the anomalous spike of 1938-1941. Raul654

If you go to the Wikipedia article on Global cooling, you will find that there was alarm in the 60's and 70's that the Earth would enter an ice age. The article states: "In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945." This is long after your referenced period of the 40s and 50s. The article also states: "At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." I will put the information on the 40 years of cooling where you suggest in the "History of Warming" section. I would appreciate no further censorship of simple facts on your part. -- Rameses 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that predictions of a new global ice-age were generally insubstantive - that is to say, they never made it into peer reviewed literature. A few people made un-reviewed predictions and turned out ot be wrong. This does not mean it was a prevailing scientific prediction. Nor, for that matter, does inaccuractly saying the temperature dropped, when in fact it was only a hiccup a few particularly hot years. Raul654 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to ignore a decade of hot temperatures, I suppose you could just as easily ignore the current one... The world Press during the 60s and 70s were very vocal with the alarm over a new ice age just as they are today... -- Rameses 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

8 consecutive years (1937-1945) of unusually hot temperatures can be written off as an anomaly. 60 consecutive years (1945-present) cannot. And if you take out that 8 year anomaly, it becomes 90 years of rising temperatures. Raul654 22:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about there being 90 years of rising temperatures - there are in fact 44 years in which temperatures fell since 1900(I counted them on this graph). However, I will agree that there has been a generally rising temperature trend since the end of the Little Ice Age as would be expected. -- Rameses 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing individual years as increasing or decreasing relative to the previous year is utterly meaningless - the nature of global warming is increasing temperatures over a period. The longer the period, the less likely it is a fluke, and is instead a serious phenomenon. The 5 year moving average has increased almost monotonically, except for the blip in the late 30s/early 40s, for almost 100 straight years. That is not a fluke. As to the original purpose of this thread, the people who are genuine experts in the field [Talk:Global_warming#Censorship_of_facts_in_the_lead have replied to your comments] exactly what I have said - that it's too much information for the lead, and it belongs in the history of warming section. Raul654 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is so much emphasis, then, put on the fact that 10 of warmest years of the 20th century were were in the past 15 years, or that 2000 was the warmest year on record? ~ UBeR 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Because with a recorded temperature history that goes back 160+ years, and measurable temperatures going back thousands if not millions, the chances of having all of the hottest years within a small period is astoundingly small, unless there is a general warming trend. Raul654 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Full protect on Global Warming?

Isn't this a bit excessive? I don't want to wheel war here, so I will leave it alone. What's going on?--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was excessive. This admin does not quite understand how to resolve edit conflicts. Rather than discussing with the article's editors, he preemptively reverts the edits and locks the article. It's rather amateurish. ~ UBeR 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your actions, abominable

Raul654, your performance as an administrator, arbitrator, and bureaucrat, has shown you to be an incompetent user of Wikipedia. Your overall handling of the conflict between you and I was abhorrent. Your childness and and immaturity has been inappropriate. To go so low as name calling has shown you to be just as fallible as those you shun. You are not an elite. Wikipedia does not endorse elitism. Your education in one area has shown you lack that in other areas; you lack ethics, kindness, civility, and morality. You have failed. You have failed yourself and you have failed Wikipedia.

Your inadequacy in failing to understand how Wikipedia operates and should operate is troubling. Your actions as an elected and selected person to complete special tasks has shone light on how these powers have diluted your sense of rationality, fairness, and understanding. This is something Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about in his inaugural address,

“ A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. ”

And, indeed, his message will show to be true. Despite the apparent biases toward you by your appointed peers, your actions have spoken volumes. Your continued gracelessness will not be tolerated. Lest there be arbitrament, I can only suggest this foolishness cease.

"We have, I fear, confused power with greatness." ~ UBeR 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a troll. You complain to others that they do not know policy when when it is clear you do not know it yourself. Your edits to articles are detrimental, and half are reverted for good cause. You harass others on subjects they are clearly experts in, when you know little or nothing about the subject. In short, you are a troll. If you do not change your behavior, you will no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Raul654 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a troll. All of my edits have been in adherence with Wikipedia's policies. In fact, I enforce them more so than a lot of administrators. All of my edits are in good faith, something you do not assume. You often violate the three revert rule and simply do not take the correct approaches to resolve conflicts. Your actions as administrator are bothersome and incommodious for what Wikipedia strives for. It is time now you got off your high horse. ~ UBeR 09:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Neglected Categories on the main page

Just wondering if there was a particular reason why less than half of the current FA from the following categories have been on the main page.

• Media
• Music
• Royalty, nobility, and heraldry
• Geology, geophysics, and meteorology

Buc 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the composition (by subject) of the FAs that make the main page do not match the composition of those being promoted [per unit time]. We tend to promote pop-culture and hurricane-related FAs at a proportionally higher rate than I am comfortable running on the main page.

The excess in royalty articles is a consequence of the fact that Lord Emsworth wrote so many royalty-related FAs back in 2004-2005, and I simply haven't had time to run them all. Raul654 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A Polite Request

Hello Raul... I know we haven't seen eye to eye in the past, but in light of the fact you said your friends with Geogre, I'm asking could you have a polite word with him? I've apologised to Bishonen for my actions and regret that the situation got out of hand, and don't wish for it to go any further. Everyone seems to have accepted what I said except him, and he keeps leaving messages on my page. I feel like he's hounding me - this isn't a complaint, and I don't want any action taken against him. Bishonen and Giano are good friends of his, and I can see why he would wish to come to their defence. I just want him to leave me alone, have some time off, and continue on Wikipedia with a clear head. In my request, I'm kindly asking if you're able to alleviate the situation and bring it to a conclusion, which given the volatile nature of these events I'm sure we both agree should be brought to just that. Much thanks for anything you may be able to do. LuciferMorgan 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Replied by email). Raul654 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask another favour from Raul, but if you could do it for me I'd be really appreciative. Here, here and here shows Giano is continuing to pursue SandyGeorgia as regards to her comments on my page. All her comments were her kindly asking me to change my approach as regards Wikipedia and giving me some friendly advice. I'll admit I've been a pain in the past, but I don't appreciate such a real good editor like Sandy getting grief as a result of one of my Wikipedia disagreements. I'd like for Giano to immediately stop personally attacking Sandy, and to leave her alone. I don't mind if I have to face some kind of punishment for my prior actions, but Sandy has nothing to do with all this which I feel Giano should realise. Since you seem to be (upon closer thought, and me not being so cloud minded) objective, if you could resolve this matter to a welcome conclusion I'd be happy about that also. All the best. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up on my behalf, Lucifer, but I really encourage you not to worry about it. The best way to make something stop is just to stop engaging it. The more attention it is given, the more we are all drug back into drama which should have ended yesterday. And I am so busy trying to complete updating the FAC archives—very tedious work that requires full focus—that I really do wish it would just wind down. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I echo your sentiment Sandy. LuciferMorgan 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to let the matter drop now. Sandy was not only unwise, but wrong to criticise several respected admins including Raul, Paul August ect ect ect for pointing out to Lucifer that his personal attack on Bishonen was unjustified. Sandy was even more unwise to accuse other editors of moving her post, when in fact she was the one who moved it. More unwise still was repeatedly reverting me with the edit summery "baiting" for merely trying drawing her attention to her erroneous edits. Never mind we all make mistakes, even me sometimes. So storm in a tea cup over. I'm sure she will check her facts and page histories before ranting at other editors again. All's well that ends well. Giano 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Giano continues to go on about Sandy, and hasn't dropped the matter as he puts it. I suggest he stops ranting and looks at his own civilities for a change - I'm fed up of all this, I want it brought to an end, and in short, I want Giano to shut up for once and move on. LuciferMorgan 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Lucifer as long as Sandy keeps portraying herself as little "Miss Perfect" you and she are living in cloud cukoo land. I am quite happy to let the matter drop, when and if I cease reading further remarks from you and Miss S Georgia. Perhaps you both should consider the consequences before launching into attacks in future. Giano 23:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Raul... I wish for the matter to drop, but Giano keeps sending these messages all over other people's talk pages as concerns Sandy and me. Now I know I'm not exactly the most wonderful editor in the world, but you've dealt with Sandy so should know she is nice enough. She doesn't even respond to his baiting, and really shouldn't have to deal with these messages. I want to know what is being done to stop this Raul? Can you please message me on my talk page as to what is being done? Thanks, I appreciate your help in this. LuciferMorgan 09:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[5] also has further abuse of my name too, and Sandy's in parts. I was warned by Geogre to be blocked, but he can make derogatory comments about me as an admin, and this is since you had a word with him to move on. I can understand he may be still upset about me due to his disagreement with me as concerns FA criteria, but can we all move on once and for all? I keep calling for everyone to move on, but it doesn't happen. LuciferMorgan 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan - firstly, if Geogre's talk page distresses you, may I suggest that you stop reading it? Secondly, please don't use the word "abuse" blithely like that. We are all being civil and polite. Thirdly, "moving on" does not mean that we are unable to discuss what happened. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When I was incivil, I was given a warning for blocking. Now others are also being incivil, it's allowed to continue for no apparent reason. I wish to draw a line under all this, but some seem unwilling to do so. They're not being "polite and civil" towards me at all, and if they have something against me I welcome them to report me to the relevant people on Wikipedia. Discussing is fine, but running down mine and Sandy's Wikipedia contributions isn't - it constitutes a personal attack, of which I was warned against not long ago. If this was me I would've been blocked by now. LuciferMorgan 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 - I am sorry this is spilling out on your talk page.

LuciferMorgan - If you think I, Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Yomangani or Marskell have been impolite or uncivil there, please let us precisely which comments you think are impolite or uncivil. As far as I am aware, no one have been bothering you about this - we are simply discussing what happened. As I said, feel free to avert your eyes.

As for "running down" your contributions, Yomangani, KillerChihuahua and Kirill Lokshin each complained about the tone of your remarks on the FAR. You have apologised to Marskell and Bishonen, but you have not apologised for suggesting that Giano would go running to Bishonen to ask her to block someone he disagreed with, nor have you edited the FAR to withdraw the allegations that you levelled at Bishonen which you have now withdrawn, as Paul August cordially requested some time ago (and, indeed, if you have been reading Geogre's talk page, like it seems you have, I suggested over a day ago that it was the only substantial piece of unfinished business).

I appreciate that it is not nice being discussed by third parties. It is also not nice being abused and falsely accused in a public forum. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to politely ask Raul to intervene and bring an end to the fiasco - please don't try stopping this ALoan. I don't wish to discuss the issue further, as your account of events differ to mine. All I wish is for Raul to politely ask all other parties involved to stop escalating the situation, so please don't try to make this out to be a discussion between me and you ALoan. This is me making a request to Raul, and anything you may be able to do Raul is greatly appreciated - thanks for taking the time to help as well. LuciferMorgan 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, well, if our accounts, surely it makes sense to discuss those points of divergence to reach an understanding - but I won't force you to if you don't want to. I'm not entirely sure what kind of "intervention" you are expecting from Raul654 - I'm not sure I would want to get involved, if I were him, but I welcome his thoughts anyway. I don't see how the "situation", such as it is, is "escalating". Shrug. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation is escalating as Giano keeps being incivil, and frankly, an utter hypocrite. Now, everyone was keen to jump on my back about WP:CIVIL, so how about they practice what they preach and start knocking his door in light of his incivilities eh? No, I thought not. One law for one, and different for someone else. LuciferMorgan 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Lucifer, how can I put this to you gently?....The situation is not escalating, most people have lost interest! If I were being uncivil it would be noted (there are literally hundreds - well tens anyway ) just waiting to jump on me, Cyde will confirm this. I am not being uncivil. It does look like Raul is not going to comment, and I don't blame him. For the record, I am not being an "utter hypocrite", or anything else for that matter. I will overlook these attacks from you and Ms Georgia, because I'm sick of controversy - but please stop trying to jump on the I hate "Giano bandwagon" and assuming a multitude will support you. - when a cause is worth it I fight - frankly this cause is not worth fighting for, as I said somewhere else you and Ms Georgia are welcome to FARC - I wish you joy together. Like many others I also wish you would just turn your attentions to something more productive than chirping like a budgerigar her. Giano 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Have no fear Giano - I have no intention of falling for yours or Geogre's bait in any way, shape or form. LuciferMorgan 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

<phew!> Giano 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb 16 featured article

Hi Raul, could you please change the featured article for Feb 16 from Scooby to Flag of Lithuania? February 16 is an independence day in Lithuania (the day when in 1918 the Act of Independence of Lithuania was signed) and it would be a nice tribute to have it featured on this day. User M.K. asked you that on your talk and you seemed to agree. The prepared text can be found here. Thank you! Renata 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought he requested the 26th, not the 16th (at least that's what I have written down here in my notes). Raul654 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

scratch that Raul654 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Thank you very much. Renata 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Was it a deliberate decision not to run Avatar: The Last Airbender as Today’s Featured Article on the requested date of February 21? I only ask because there was a fairly large discussion about what date to request, and if that one (the anniversary of the show’s first airing) isn’t available we may what to consider requesting a different date.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It might have been because it doesn't seem to have a free use image. Buc 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I considered that, but Feb 1,20,and 22 all have fair use images, so it doesn't seem to be a problem.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam filter again

Re-posting this here so it won't get lost in the shuffle—my work is stalled by spam filter at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2005 to April 2005. Must be time for a break :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By doing a few at a time, I narrowed it down to this one that won't go through:

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/archive 2}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also spamblocked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2005. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Same problem here:

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/archive 1}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Raul654 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Street Light Interference

Check out the article Street Light Interference and see if the videos work properly for you. Let me know. Thanks for help. --Doug ^talk 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Take a look at the article since my videos have been taken out (within 30 minutes) as that being of original research. Would you consider that original research? Take a look at my version, tell me what you think. --Doug ^talk 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, tough one - definitely a borderline case. My gut feeling is that Rspeer is right, that it's original research. Raul654 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussion I have now put on the Street Light Interference article Talk Page under "Videos" through "Electronics". You being an electrical engineer will understand the technical aspects of my reasoning. Based on this I do not believe I am doing orignal research, but basing everything on the book The SLI Effect (1993). Do you think it would be resonable to be able to put these items I speak of back into the article (based on my arguments), since I have good references and am not basing this off my original ideas or concepts. It is all referenced to this scientific study, including the videos. --Doug ^talk 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellis Paul FAC

Raul, I nominated Ellis Paul for FA 4 days ago, but there has been no feedback (although almost every nomination that has come after has received feedback.) Is that typical? This is making me crazy. Kmzundel 03:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unuall edit"

WP:MH redirects there and also, logically to Military history, which is referred to often enough. Same thing with WP:AR. 68.39.174.238 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your "Second meta-template a success" message at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

I wondered whether you misplaced your message (diff). There's no need to reply; if you put it there on purpose, it's fine with me. By the way, the articlehistory template is great and I assume the same goes for the new template. Thanks! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to put it on the tipline. Thanks for pointing that out. Raul654 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Hi Raul, I figured, given the statement "The FA Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination" on WP:FA I should bring this issue to you. I've been working heavily on an FAC for Wesley Clark, which seems likely to fail. I've gotten some of the opposers to withdraw, but one is unresponsive and there are few if any actual support votes (new voters likely shying away from the bulky FAC that's been built up). I was wondering what the time period is I'd have to wait before nominating the article again. I think with the rewrites and maybe a touch more work it really is ready (but, as I said, I think the bulky, long, FAC is scaring away new voters as there've been almost none, even oppose votes). Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

re:dien bien phu

Sorry, I will add page number to the citations now. Regarding capitalisation, the title of the book is literally 'the last valley' as printed on the cover, so I was not sure how true to the cover to be. You can change it if you like. SGGH 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true of the paperback [6], but not of the hardback [7]. In the absence of consistency on their part, I think we can assume it's supposed to be capitalized in the usual way. Raul654 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, have capitalised it now and added page number, will go through and capitalise it on other articles that I've used it on. Cheers SGGH 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and another quick question, when citing the ref, do we state the date of publication for the version of the book from which you are quoting, or the date of first publication, even if it may be by a different publisher and/or edition? SGGH 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in most cases, they won't all that different. I suppose strictly speaking, it should be the version you are using. Raul654 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Scooby Doo

I fully understand why it was removed from the main page list. Two T.V shows in as many days would not have been right.

Just wondering if you have plans to reinstate any time soon. Buc 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

clerking

Hi, I noticed you were archive WP:CHU. Thanks for helping out, but we have an archival bot and clerks for that. We make life very easy for the crats, all you have to do is do the actual rename and place {{done}} or {{notdone}}, then the clerks and the bots do the rest :). Cheers, — Deon555talkdesksign here! 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm about to do a great many renames, and I needed the done/rejected ones out of the way. Raul654 07:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the requests are archived into separate archives depending on whether they are accepted or rejected - your archiving has dumped them all in one XD Any chance you could rollback, or else do you want me to move all the rejected requests to the rejected archive? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A rollback should be fine. Raul654 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, rolledback archives, thanks. And thanks for all your CHU work (impending and past!) :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All of them are now done except the usurpations:

• Redguard101 → The_Talking_Mac
• Mapkid13 → DGS43825
• Adanadhel → Adanedhel
• Jennn → Jennica
• duanesm → eddybear

The rest can be archived. Raul654 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you want the clerks to go through and annotate the results? Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)