From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Blocking, again[edit]

Please reply to this this. Surprisingly fory you, that's what discussion pages are for.

Your being ignorant now[edit]

I have recently added a lot of detail to the armaments section' for the Yom Kippur war article, on the text summery' you first removed it with the messge 'already covered', i again contributed a short summery, that looked well wth the sections data. This time you seemedjust out to insult me personally, as a peronal feud or grudge you have with me for changing it back again. You are acting ignorantly & mean towards other members, who spend alot of time contributing useful information at this great site. What I contributed was useful info to the section, you are being redudant by removing it.

The word is "you're" -- a contraction of "you" and "are" -- not "your," a possessive second-person pronoun. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about deleting that thing on the VJ day page, there was just a huge space and it was bothering me. Haha. I moved that below the external links, now there is no space.(Raisethirty 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC))


Maybe my previous comment was lost in the sea above. Thought I should remind you...:NikoSilver: 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still mulling that FAC nom (Macedonia) over. Raul654 12:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article: Creativity?[edit]

Hi there, I believe I have reached the person who is the Featured Article Director. I wish to propose the article on "Creativity" as a candidate for a "Featured Article" - it seems well-written, to cover a lot of grounud, and is factually accurate, exactly the criteria that are needed to take articles in to the accolade of Featured Article Status. How do I do this, please? I have credentials in psychology (I have a B.Sc., M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Psychology, teach and research psychology and have had articles published in the peer-reviewed journal "The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion") so I feel qualified to comment on psychology-related articles in Wikipedia. These do range from quality, ranging from dated entries on attitudes and cognitive dissonance and a rather second-rate, perhaps third-rate piece on parapsychology, to the much better article on creativity. So, what should I do to put this on the waiting list to consider it for Featured status? You can leave messages for me if you like. ACEO 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Raul. I tried to send you a "thank you" email, but the message was returned to me. Apparently, your server has blocked mine, or something of the sort. I just thought I'd let you know, in case this is something you'd have to look into. In any case, I just wanted to thank you for forwarding my message to the ArbCom mailing list. Cheers, Redux 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 12:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Non third-party use photos[edit]

Hi. You uploaded some photos from the DC meetup for non third-party use. The image usage policy does not allow them anymore and, as such, either the license would have to be changed, or you'd have to moved them to a non-Wikipedia server. Otherwise, eventually, they'd get deleted. Thank you, bogdan 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This warning applies not just to the DC meetup images, but to all images licensed using your User:Raul654/License template. I've marked all your DC images for speedy deletion, and will do the same to the others after one week. —Psychonaut 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Disney's Animal Kingdom[edit]

I'm not at all a fan of menageries, even those that undertake conservation activities but concomitantly move (or the support the moving of) animals from their natural habitats, so I'm not sure what my particular thoughts are apropos of DAK. Irrespective of that, though, your Florida pics, most notably those of the kangaroo pair and okapi are ridiculously awesome; good on ya. Joe 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

*hides under desk in fear of flying genitalia*[edit]

Hi Raul, I guess you heard about the minor... what's the word... disaster that was Friday, I just want to say that I can completely understand if you have any reservations with featuring another Pokémon article on the Main Page. Hopefully you won't get much backlash because of this, any article deserves the right to have its day, and I think quite a few people brushed up on policy. ;) We've had to protect quite a few templates, the vandals (with AOL accounts) have learned they can add huge huge images of reproductive organs to 403 articles in one edit, and we're having to protect most of them, I don't know updated you are on the situation.

Thank you for giving Bulbasaur... a chance. Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


(Moved from your userpage. Essjay (Talk) 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

Hi Mark, I am not vandalizing your article, I am trying to reach you but I don't know how you can message an admin in wikipedia, anyway, I thought if I added this here you will get it or at least if another admin saw it he/she will pas it to you. So, my message is, you reversed my change in the Yom Kippur article, the fact that it was Ramadan was very important both strategically and phsycologically, I edited the article again, please read the Ramadan Choice section. KingTut1982 07:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Sorry to be impatient once again, but when does the Colbert dinner get picked up on the request page? I feel like it's an orphan waiting sadly in an orphanage waiting to be picked up by parents. --kizzle 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba[edit]

Thank you, Raul. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested front page article[edit]

I'm not sure if you get informed of these things anyway, but just in case you don't, can I draw your attention to this? Just in case you were thinking of using the article before that. Thanks :) Soo 13:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Transfer of power[edit]

So, you're now in-charge, eh ? Wink.png -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My Arbitration case[edit]

I noticed you were the only arbitrator left. Just like to warn you that I stoppped doing these things about two weeks ago, as proof, please see the messages on my talk page, cheers —Minun SpidermanReview Me 11:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Raul[edit]

I just noticed that here it says...

Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page.

...but the wikilink comes to your user page. Where do you keep said list? (No real reason just being noesy) --Monotonehell 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He keeps it in his head. Some things are not written down. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that he's very busy running Cuba right now...
Cuban president Fidel Castro (pictured), citing health problems, temporarily relinquishes duties
to his brother Raúl.
 ;) --Monotonehell 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think he is responsible for the massive increase in the elephant population recently... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. I've been reading around the Bulbasaur comments about whether it should have been a featured article and whether it should have been on the front page. I just wanted to draw your attention to the comments at the Featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Bulbasaur. In particular my comments comparing this article unfavorably with the Pokemon article, and the need for the uninformed reader of Bulbasaur to read the Pokemon article (which isn't featured). In other words, by featuring Bulbasaur, the Pokemon article (as the overarching article "above" Bulbasaur) is indirectly being featured (ie. the subject of Pokemon is being featured), even though it isn't up to scratch (though actually, IMO, the Pokemon article is _better_ than the Bulbasaur article). In my opinion, those wanting Bulbasaur to be featured should have been encouraged to get Pokemon through FAC, rather than Bulbasaur. I'm also wading through Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bulbasaur to try and figure out why it ever passed FAC in the first place. Hope this all helps in some way. Carcharoth 12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arb case:Kehrli[edit]

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arb request extensively updated, including input by another editor and recent threats and administrator impersonation.--Nick Y. 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Serious npov problem: Lebanon images sought[edit]

Hello. Will you be able to help me find an image which depicts destruction to an urban area in Lebanon? There appears to have been great difficulty in obtaining (or rather, keeping not-deleted) all images pertaining to that theme, but I think it's crucial that the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article will show such an image. Because currently it is only showing damage done to an Israeli urban area, even though the damages to Lebanese urban areas have been more severe, which makes such presentation grossly non-npov, effectively siding with the Israeli side. Best, El_C 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list[edit]

Hello! I hope you are enjoying the conference. A while ago, I remember correctly, Jimbo posted something on the mailing list about unsourced statements...something like that it is better to provide no information rather than misleading information. Do you happen to know the link to this post? Thanks very much! --HappyCamper 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I cannot say that I do. Raul654 19:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe[edit]

Hey, could you respond again to the discussion in the talk section of that article? Although your recent additions to the environment section are all very good, I, and apparently everyone else involved in the discussion, still feel that the graph is inappropriate, as it does not prove that "meaningful global warming has occured" and therefore prove Inhofe wrong, as "meaningfulness" is inherently subjective. Could you explain why you disagree and still support keeping it? Thanks. -Elmer Clark 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think the "meaningful" thing is overblown (because 0.6 degrees C in one century is not just meaningful; it is literally without precedent). However, I have modified the caption accordingly so that it simply says what the graph is and what Inhofe claims, and leave conclusions (obvious though they may be) to the reader. Raul654 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Without precedent? Over what time period are you measuring? How were those measurements conducted? What criteria were used to ensure consistency of measurement? Where were the measurements taken? When were they taken? You statement that a purported rise to mean global temperatures is "without precedent" is presumptuous and precipitous and, indeed, without precedent. --The Outhouse Mouse 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Over the last 1000 years, as measured by the IPCC. But don't take my word for it: The 'all within variation' notion is countered in part when viewing the following IPCC graph, below. There was a slight downward trend in average global temperature until the early 1900's at which point there was a massive upswing. The present level (in red) is higher than the 95% error or uncertainty range depicted in grey. This error is larger prior to the thermometer data in red at which point it becomes much less broad. The rate of average temperature increase in the last century is unprecedented in the past 1000 years. -- Raul654 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You, and these alleged "experts" are missing the point. No one has any way to ensure the accuracy of temperature measurements over the last millenium. Moreover, there is no way to ensure consistency between the various variables (place, method, time, [i]etc.[/i]) --The Outhouse Mouse 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Allo Raul, hope you're enjoying Boston and/or running Cuba:

Your talk page, like mine, gets a lot of use; unlike mine, you're not obsessive about archiving it and it gets very, very long and slow to load (it's 149KB now, and the top section is from early June). I was recently asked to adapt the EssjayBot II code to do user talk pages, and being the sucker I am, I've done so. It occurred to me you might be interested in having the bot do your talk page for you; if you're interested, or know anyone who is, please point them towards my talk. Essjay (Talk) 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Football barnstar[edit]

I am unable to make the coding work properly on my new barnstar template. Can you help? Please? It's at Template:Football (soccer) barnstar Thanks; maybe if you can't help you can suggest someone who can? --Guinnog 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Raul654/test - seems to work fine here. What's the problem? Raul654 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I was entering the wrong code onto recipients pages, see the history of User:Kevin McE. Duh! Thanks very much for your quick reply. --Guinnog 01:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Raul654 01:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, this, as well as your many other contros to the project, thoroughly merit a barnstar. I was tearing my hair out! --Guinnog 12:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia – Open For Business: authors Wikipedia articles for companies and organizations that presently lack exposure on the world’s largest encyclopedia... The firm’s founder, Gregory Kohs ... [says] ... "...Our editors are experienced, know the ins and outs of Wikipedia administration, and get the job done quickly. Not one of our corporate articles has ever been deleted by a Wikipedia admin."

All for less than $100. And I thought "encyclopedia writer" was yesterday's profession! A career opportunity for an impoverished graduate student, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(Btw - surely your talk page is due an archive!)

Oh, and a concrete illustration of Law 6, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And now I see User:MyWikiBiz... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Main page vandalism accusation rebutted[edit]

Thought you might want to see this. It seems that one of your summaries (saved 31st July) became (briefly) outdated and no longer agreed with the article. This was not spotted until it went onto the main page, and someone had a knee jerk reaction of calling it vandalism. Of course it wasn't. In fact, the change in the article appears to have taken place at about the same time (8 August) that your summary appeared on the main page, and it was corrected quickly, so probably not too much to worry about. Carcharoth 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, I part of the blurb did indeed strike me as odd, but it never occurred to me that it might be vandalism. Just one more thing to be aware of, I suppose... Raul654 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


I 'left' wikipedia in early June - needing time for other things, and to get 'out' of the userbox fiasco - I asked for my sysop status to removed at the time. I'm back low-profile editing now (indeed until the other day, I'd been using another account - since openly declared). I now regret having my admin access removed, but I've no stomach for a high-profile RfA. Do I need to file an RfA? Can you advide? Thanks. --Doc 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Done - you have your sysop bit back. Raul654 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Mark, FYI, your comment in the aftermath of the Sean Black RfA has already been mentioned as precedence for the most recent resysopping on request. NoSeptember 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
<grin> Raul654 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Study of problem users[edit]

Raul654, during WM2006 you mentioned a study in which 90% of the banned users permanently leave, 5% are still a problem, 5% are a success story. Could you provide me a pointer? -Reagle 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

user:UninvitedCompany did the study and sent it to the arbcom mailing list. I suggest you ask him (I am reluctant to share the specific results because the arbcom mailing list is considered private). Raul654 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 10, 2006[edit]

Just in case you have forgotten, I would like to remind you that you have not yet selected the FA for 10 August and beyond. After all, 0:00 10 August 2006 (UTC) is less than 24 hours away. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the next three picked out - I just haven't had time to write them up. Thanks for the reminder though. Raul654 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tahirih Justice Center FAC[edit]

Hello Raul, per concerns raised by a reviewer of this article, please DO NOT count the following votes for the article.

  • Support The article is very well written with plenty of linkage and sources, not to mention it's actually interesting.Casper 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Really good article.Faysals 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is nicely written and is more than well sourced.Vi3telit3 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Didn't seem like a tour guide. Could use help with prose in certain spots, but overall a nice article.Levis52 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I really enjoyed this article. Glad to know there are organizations who help out with that stuff. --Hardblock 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.UberCryxic 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey. :-D [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Eww... quizbowl, not Pub quiz - I guess something was lost in the American -> British translation. Oh well - it's a good article, regardless. Raul654 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wondered about the pub quiz. It's a great interview with you. I had to laugh at the bit about him laughing at vandalism that you definitely weren't ever going to find funny. They just don't understand. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, everyone cracks up when I tell them the kind of edits Plautus made ("the hubble space telescope is an orbitting death ray laser"). I don't find it particularly funny because I spent 6 weeks of my life manning the pooper-scooper against him, but everyone else sure does for rather obvious reasons. Raul654 02:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Was very surprised and pleased to find this piece in the newspaper on the bus to work this morning. They seem to have dropped a rather important "not" in one sentence, however — "The key rules include that information should contain original research." Oh dear!
Anyway, I've always wanted to ask someone who's in a position to know — is Gary Younge as incredibly irritating in real life as he always seems in print? Angmering 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(a) Yes, I sent a letter to the editor about the missing not. They replied and agreed it warrants a correct. I have no idea when they will be issuing one. (b) No, he seemed like a nice guy. Raul654 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Their ombisdman, or "Reader's Editor", is usually pretty hot on that sort of stuff. I'd expect a note of correction will appear in their errata on the letters page within the next day or two. Angmering 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC archive?[edit]

I hate to sound like a stupid little troll, and I understand that you probably still have a backlog of work to do, but are you planning on archiving the FAC tonight? If so, I'll start my next FA push; if not, I'll just wait. Thanks. — Deckiller 02:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to do it tonight, but I cannot make any promises. Raul654 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good :) — Deckiller 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Idea for common sense brick[edit]

Take a look at this: [2]. — Deckiller 02:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

facfailed for Salvador Dalí[edit]

Bunchofgrapes just removed this FAC as facfailed, but looking back on it, I thoroughly addressed the objections raised and two of the editors who originally objected changed their votes, with the last saying "everything is ready..". I'm not exactly sure that the choice of certain editors to not continue a dialogue as to why they may not want to change their vote should be held against the nomination. --DanielNuyu 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, perhaps I was a bit too hasty. Raul654 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --DanielNuyu 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger[edit]

The Chrono Trigger FAC has all of its objections crossed out; this has been the status of the FAC since your previous archive last week. — Deckiller 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus[edit]

That's an FA now. Thanks Raul. -- Steel 11:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Added Celestian Power and Banes to the list of the cast... ;) Viva La Vie Boheme


Zero objections to the action here, but just out of curiosity, is there any benefit of the {{User:Karmafist}} tranclusion over a #REDIRECT [[User:Karmafist]]?
brenneman {L} 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A valid point. Raul654 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Something's wrong[edit]

I noticed that there is no brown star in the upper right corner of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the very first featured article on Wikipedia. Please fix this ASAP. --Harrison V 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's no longer a featured article Raul654 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey Mark. Long time listener, first time caller. I thought this was brilliant for a brick: [3]. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 10:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Vishniac for the Main page on August 19th[edit]

Hello. Remember me from Wikimania? The reason that I'm messaging you is that I'd like Roman Vishniac to go up on the main page on August 19 (it's his birthday). The article is currently listed on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests but is only half-way down the list, and I noticed that the spots are filled up all the way to the 18th.

Also, the picture used in the template on the Request page is Fair-use — is this OK? If not, we can use the portrait at the top of the article. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 13:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahmedabad FAC[edit]

Hello Raul. I know you are quite busy. Thought a lot before finally deciding to ask you. Ahmedabad is on FAC for 2 weeks now. You have made 2 rounds of promotions since. I was sort of expecting you to promote the article today as I feel that it has consensus. It has 13 supports and 1 object at the moment. All the points raised by Sandy, Tony and Spangineer were resolved by 7th August. The remaining objection is quite vague and the person did not repond to my comments there or at his talk page. This is my first FAC, so I am a bit anxious. Is there something required to do yet? Thanks for taking the time. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 15:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia[edit]

Hey Mark, thanks for your pointer at Wikimania, Cathy here. I'm reading the archive Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia as an example of strong in-group biases. Do you think there are some pages I missed? Since google search doesn't yield that much, maybe I have missed something...

--Mapocathy 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The page itself (Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia) was deleted, but I can send it to you by email if you want; you might also want to pour through the archives on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard and the mailing list as well. Also, you might inqiure with Tony or some of the others who were closer to the action about where to find more info. Raul654 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Commons FAP[edit]

Hey Raul, we talked about this on 'mania and you told me to drop you a note. I think you are hopefully less busy now (I just finished catching up on stuff), so here it is: Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Nomination.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Mitch as TFA on August 16[edit]

Hey, I'd just like to point out that Hurricane Katrina is currently on the requests page with a request for it to be used on August 29 (1 year since its LA landfall). That would clash with another hurricane article on TFA less than 2 weeks before.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to feature Katrina on that date because it would clash with the selected anniversaries section. Raul654 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that's fair enough, just trying to see the rationale for it, its possible you didn't see the Katrina date request.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's true, with 70+ requests on that page, it's becoming difficult for me to know every possible conflict; however, had I see it, I would have done exactly the same thing. Raul654 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, understandable :) One thing though, the infobox picture for Hurricane Mitch has been changed from Image:TRCmitch299H G8.jpg to Image:TRCmitch300 N5.png - it might be worth changing the image in the TFA summary.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should have *checked* first.. the old image was used on the TC Portal as a featured article - hence my confusion.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Ðiện Biên Phủ[edit]

At least include the diacritics the first time something is mentioned! For example, say Ðiện Biên Phủ the first time and then switch to Dien Bien Phu. The diacritics are more informative. The manual of style allows it. --Ionius Mundus 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The very first line of the article already does: "The Battle of Dien Bien Phu (Vietnamese: Chiến dịch Điện Biên Phủ) was" Raul654 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's only with Ðiện Biên Phủ and Việt Minh. What about Võ Nguyên Giáp, et cetera? --Ionius Mundus 15:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, no - the article should be consistent. It's OK to give the name of the article in other languages; if people are so interested, they can check out the linked articles and get the translation from there. Raul654 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Battle of Dien Bien Phu:[edit]

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 16:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Music/Featured articles[edit]

Portal:Music/Featured articles is, or was, just a list of music-related featured articles, not a process to create featured articles. I've no idea what Portal:Music/Featured articles/Suggest is - I had nothing to do with it. Tuf-Kat 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


That's fine, so long as it's fixed, then there's no need to keep it blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename user[edit]

Hi Raul, perhaps you are able to help me :-)

My name is Tim Bartel and I'm active since 2002 as user 'Avatar' throughout many Wikimedia projects (for more info see my german user page). I'm admin in WP-DE and the commons, but active as user in several more projects. Problem: the only project I'm not registered as 'Avatar' is WP-EN. So (regarding towards the single sign-on coming hopefully soon) I really like my username renamed from 'Avatar-en' to 'Avatar' here in WP-EN. But I can't use the formal procedure at Wikipedia:Changing_username because the user Avatar already exists.

If this would be a "normal" user, I would just keep my username Avatar-en and shut up - but it isn't a normal user. The account seems to be more than 2 years old and has no single edit. So I ask you if it's possible to delete the account or rename it, and then rename my username from Avatar-en to Avatar. That would be very nice. --Avatar-en 05:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, you're faster than Speedy Gonzales. --Avatar 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome :) Raul654 06:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again and apologies[edit]

Thanks again for helping me with my User Name and sorry about posting my original thank you note on the wrong talk page.--Cardinal Newman 06:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's all right. Happy editing. Raul654 06:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Portal:Music/Featured articles/Suggest[edit]

Hello Raul, I'd like to know why Portal:Music/Featured articles/Suggest has been deleted. This page is used for users to suggest possible featured articles for Portal:Music every month. For example, the Portal:Music featured article for this month is 'music of the United States'. I do not know why you have deleted it but it means that people cannot suggest a featured article for Portal:Music this september - or any other month - at the moment, so I would be grateful if you could revert. Madder 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted my reasoning on Portal talk:Music/Featured articles/Suggest. Long story short - that page (at least as it was written) was a second FAC, which I object to strongly. If I'm wrong, and/or if the instructions were clarified so as to make it clear this is not the case, I'd be happy to restore the page. Raul654 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This page is for users to suggest a Music Portal Featured Article. For example, the featured article on Portal:Music at the moment is 'music of the United States'. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the featured article on Wikipedia's Main Page. Madder 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Raul654, can you please restore this page. A lot of hard work has gone into the Music Portal, as well as music-related articles. The Music Portal is there to show-case these articles, but articles cannot be suggested at the moment because of your removal of this page. Please restore it. Madder 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored it, and made some clarifications to alay the problems I had with it. Raul654 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Despite the warning removal and the previous vandalism that I let go unchecked? You're probably right; he's probably just a kid who needed a slap on the wrist. I put it at two weeks, want me to bring it back to one? — Deckiller 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think one week should send the right message without causing him to quit. Raul654 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty. By the way, here's what I was talking about earlier: [5]. — Deckiller 06:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, see; sorry if I seemed harsh with that user. The recent FA pushes has made me a little frank and perhaps rude , and I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak right now, but another FAC got in the way -=XD=-. By the way, do you know the record for references and/or citations in a FA? — Deckiller 06:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename User[edit]

Hi Raul.

I am an admin on fr:Wikipedia. I had my account there renamed in June from "Alex_lbh" to "Bradypus" then to "fr:Utilisateur:Bradipus".

The reason for the double change is that I discovered afterwards that there was a "Bradypus" with a "y" in the german WP (and BTW, he is User:Bradypus here), and in preparation of the future "single user login", I decided to quickly change to "Bradipus" with an "i".

The name change on fr:WP happened on June 23 at 11.30 pm

The problem is that somebody tried then to steal the identity on various projects:

Bottomline: the problem was solved for the french WP, the french Wiktionnaire, french Wikisource, and Commons, i.e. all the projects where I am really contributing except for the english WP.

I do not really care about the italian or spanish WP, the problem will be solved there when the single login comes.

On the english WP, what happened is this: I asked to change the name account to Essjay, then discovered the identity theft and made another message to Ess jay. After a negative reply from Essjay and following her suggestion, I went to Requests to usurp and asked to usurp "Bradipus". As I received no answer, I posted on the Village Pump where I was told about the absence of policy and about this Proposed policy.

So since then I have been waiting for the single login to become applicable, thinking of the troll that stole my identity. But the single login is not coming, and each time I post on WP:en, I can remember about my friend the troll.

Could you do something to help me? I mean, it has now been 2 months since my planned identity was stolen, "Bradipus" has no contributions, in other projects I was helped by I know the en:WP is the oldest and biggest project and must be cautious, but I do not think the situation can be much clearer than in the case of the "Bradipus" identity theft.

In a sentence, could you please do the same as in Commons for instance, i.e. rename Bradipus (careful: Bradipus with an "'i", as Bradypus with an "y" is a genuine user) into some other name (UsurpedBrad for instance), and drop me a line so I can at last recreate the account. Thanks. Alex lbh 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ( ''''' on fr:WP)

[cough cough]. Any reaction? Bradipus 10:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article issue[edit]

Heya Raul, if you could take a look at [6] that'd be great. Thanks. --Improv 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Could Sesame Street be rescheduled for any other day that the 20th? I don't usually access WP on Sundays, and I don't want it turning into a sprawling mass of trivia, as it has become at many points in its existance. -- Zanimum 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have rescheduled it for the 21st. Raul654 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

35 mm film FAC question[edit]

Hey Raul,

I know you're busy so I'll keep it short. I have an FAC up for 35 mm film right now. It seems to have gotten some good comments, most of which I've been able to address, but mainly...editing traffic on the FAC is just slow. I'm not certain enough people have commented or supported to give enough scrutiny to qualify for FA-status - personally, I'd rather have lots of opposes votes with tons of advice of what needs improving. Could I ask if you might have any advice on how to rescue it from this limbo? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a question[edit]

I noticed you promoted 11 FACs today and passed over Padmé Amidala. The article's been there 11 days and has three objections: one for less images, one for more images, and another calling for a monstrous list of references. Which one of these do I need to address for this article to be promoted? Thanks. Dmoon1 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a little confusing; usually Raul is able to sniff out the "rock and hard place" nonsense objections (I.E. oppose more images, oppose less images, oppose needs 3x+1^6 - KB of article/6 references), but I guess he wants to see a bit more time on the FAC for this one, which is completely understandable and I respect his decision. — Deckiller 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

your removal of Bulbasaur[edit]

I'm not in on the specific issues, but perhaps a note on the FAR discussion page explaining why you removed this listing? The edit comment needs elaboration. Tony 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Abbie is Watching You[edit]

Abbie majesty.jpg Teke 04:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Inline audio link pop-ups[edit]

What it would look like to hover over an audio link

As you're one of the people who commented about formatting/clutter on the {{audio}} template, I'm wondering what you think of my proposal for a javascript popup instead. I fixed the "clicking on the icon goes to the image page" problem a while ago, but there is still the "overloaded interface"/"too many click targets" problem, and I'm proposing we use javascript to hide the extra links until you hover over it. You can try out the mock-up yourself by adding this to your User:Raul654/monobook.js:

document.write('<scr' + 'ipt type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + ''
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></scr' 
             + 'ipt>');

This would be a site-wide change, so everyone would see it, and it safely falls back to the current design with several links on browsers without javascript. I would be happy with any kind of support, suggestions, or criticism; right now I feel like I'm talking to a wall. — Omegatron 18:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother - Michael Dale (user:Mdale) is doing a google summer of code project to impliment a java-based player for mediawiki. I saw a demonstration of it at Wikimania - it was *GREAT*. Not perfect, but miles and miles ahead of what we have now. Brion Vibber said it was a "hack, but a good one", which coming from him, is very high praise and means it will very likely be included in mediawiki sooner or later. So leave things as they are now - I'd prefer as much uniformity as possible when we have to make the switchover. Raul654 19:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what that has to do with this proposal. Can you point out a more detailed description of the player? — Omegatron 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if your proposed javascript implimentation doesn't required any changes except to the global monobook.js file, I suppose that's OK by me. Raul654 21:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would need to go into a global .js file, which doesn't exist, or into wikibits.js, which I don't have access to. But yeah, it's just a bit of javascript that goes into a global file. I'm still interested in knowing what this player does to audio links, though. — Omegatron 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the sample. It's not polished or finished yet, but it will probably look something like that. I like it a great deal. Raul654 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That's really awesome. We've been waiting for that for a long time. If the framed inline players are used for every video and audio file, the inline {{audio}} template, {{listen}}, and {{video}} templates would be abandoned. I'm not sure if people will want that, though. — Omegatron 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... We could actually merge these two ideas and put a minimal java player right inside the pop-up. Then we can have inline audio files with instant listening and without any clutter. — Omegatron 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Xanadu House from Today's featured article requests page[edit]

The removal isn't justified, just because its been on the Main Page before doesn't mean it can't again. Only I think TWO days ago, Cynna Kydd was on the Main Page again. That article was already on there before earlier this year. What gives? — Wackymacs 09:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken - Cynna Kydd has never been previously been the main page FA. In fact, we have never repeated a featured article, and I do not intend to start now. Raul654 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello Raul. I notice you removed Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bulbasaur. Your edit summary is "this review is nothing more than an attempt to appeal the FAC". Yes, indeed, that's exactly why I wanted it reviewed. I think it was erroneuously accepted as a Featured Article, and it does not meet the FA standards. What is the proper procedure for appealing this? --Doradus 12:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

None. The FAR is not to be used to appeal FACs. Raul654 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok so what is to be done then? Does the substandard article simply remain a Featured Article indefinitely, until someone cleans it up? --Doradus 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Raul, you're the expert here. What is the difference between an "appeal" and a "review"? What is the proper procedure for a featured article appeal? When can I bring up Bulbasaur for review without fear of having the review removed as an appeal? Thanks. --Doradus 17:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no magical length of time - an appeal is a review which rehashes the same issues covered in the FAC. A review is for addresses issues which have occured since hte FAC took place. Raul654 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense. Well I don't think we were rehashing the FAC because the FAC never mentioned the fact that almost the entirety of the article is "in-universe". Is it ok to have a review for an article if the supporters of the FAC missed a crucial part of the FA criteria? --Doradus 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indochina Wars[edit]

What's your reason for this? --Ionius Mundus 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Raul654 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the diacritics. How's this? I will stop with the diacritics on pages thet do not already use them, though I still believe that they belong in use. Please inspect my new change to Indochina Wars and see if it suits you. --Ionius Mundus 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The new changes are OK with me. Raul654 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. --Ionius Mundus 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben Building[edit]

Thanks for the help in removing the vandalism revisions. How did you do it? I was in the process of ticking 500+ little boxes, when I saw that you had already done a selective undelete. Is there a tool that I don't know about that does this, or are you just increadibly fast at ticking boxes in the conventional UI? -- The Anome 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Click the first box, hold shift, click the last one, and they all get selected. Then, selectively uncheck the ones you want gone. Raul654 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's 500+ clicks I'll never have to do again, then. Thanks!

By the way, I noticed that the IPs you blocked are in space, that is, dynamically assigned, rather than proxy addresses. Were the vandals connecting directly, or is MediaWiki now using XFF headers from the AOL proxies? If AOL are now generating XFF, as promised, and the Wikipedia setup is enabled to trust the XFF records, it's probably time to -- at long last -- indefblock all the AOL proxy ranges, since no users should be appearing to come from them any more. -- The Anome 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of the story in the signpost I wrote, based on what I learned at Wikimania
In short, about 1/3 of AOL users are using the new XFF enabled system. The other 2/3s are not. I do not know which ranges are which. Raul654 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a pity: so close, yet so far. Do you know any more about the progress of this project, or who's driving it? -- The Anome 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Greg Maxwell (user:NullC), for the most part their network infrastructure is "very weird" and they couldn't send us the XFF data if they wanted because they lose it in transit through their network. The newer parts of their network are more sane, which is why some (but not all) of their network does XFF. Beyond that, I know little. Raul654 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
As to who is driving it - I suspect AOL has been getting a lot of angry calls from their customers complaining that when they try to access Wikipedia (the 16th most popular site on the internet) they get all kinds of warnings or blocked messages and are pissed off about it. Raul654 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I can imagine the sort of things that might do that: a lot of AOL/Compuserve's architecture was put together whilst they still used proprietary protocols over dial-up, if I recall correctly. If there are still any legacy-protocol components in the network being gatewayed to/from normal HTTP access, this would cause exactly this sort of problem.
I wonder if there is any way that AOL can change their equivalent of proxy.pac to say "don't use our proxies when accessing domains ending with"? -- The Anome 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

{{featured}}, {{featured article}}[edit]


I noticed that New Carissa achieved feature article status today; I've one procedural question for you. I note you put {{featured}} on the talk page (likewise with five other new FAs), but not {{featured article}} on the article itself. Should the editors of the article do the latter? Or should you, or someone else who is officially part of the process, do that?

Thanks, --EngineerScotty 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If people want to put Template:featured article on the article, they can; however, when promoting articles, I don't, because I firmly believe that template violates policy (which is why I opposed its creation in the first place) and it's one more unnecessary thing for me to do. Raul654 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FA concern[edit]

I realize you are probably unaware of this, but...I have real concerns about Final Fantasy VII's path to FA. Ryu Kaze crossed out other users' objections without their knowledge. See [7]. I never said my objection could be crossed out nor did I say I wouldn't come back. In fact, I said essentially nothing he said I said. As far as I'm concerned this is fraud. You can find other cases where he crossed out people's objections, such as: [8]. This person is not a new user, he should know not to cross out other's comments. IMHO this FAC in this case is seriously tainted. Please advise.Rlevse 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrm.... Raul654 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Rlevse, I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment about disregarding your objection. I asked you to come back and explain where you were coming from, and you did very clearly express that you had no intentions of doing so (nor did you come back, which reinforces that which you'd expressed). That being the case, while I'll apologize for misinterpreting your comment, I don't think your claim that what I said was not at all indicative of our brief discussion is fair.
The "so be it" part of what you said appeared to be directed toward the idea of your objection being disregarded. I apologize for striking it out if that wasn't how you meant it, but given that you weren't making an attempt to explain where you were coming from and had said "so be it", I didn't see any other obvious way to take it at the time. I didn't realize that you meant it in an uncooperative fashion (it was meant like the "Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it" comment from the FAC?).
As for the other comment I struck out, I don't see what's wrong with that one. I linked to the discussion on the article's talk page where the unregistered user said "Ok man whatever you win", said they weren't going to debate the matter any longer, wished us luck, and bid farewell. This was four days ago. This looked to me like they were withdrawing their argument with how it was worded and due to the fact that they left.
Even were I attempting fraud here, it wouldn't have been very sensible for me to link directly to these comments that seemed to be withdrawals, but I did. I apologize if I was incorrect in striking either argument — and I can now see why I might have made a mistake with yours, Rlevse, if it was meant as an uncooperative "so be it" — but this wasn't an attempt at anything dishonest, I assure you. Ryu Kaze 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I said "That's ok. So be it". This does NOT mean "He's expressed that he isn't interested in coming back to explain his reasoning further and that his objection can be dismissed". How on earth did you stretch 5 words into over 20? You NEVER strike out someone's else's objection, that's their repsonsibility, not yours. If they leave it alone, so do you. It is the Raul's job to disregard an objection that may be invalid, not yours. Finally, you did this strike out thing more than once. Rlevse 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
See response to this and the rest below. Ryu Kaze 00:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you look at User:Angr's talk page[9][10] (this user having the most long-standing objection that was actually broken up by more than one visit), you can see that I made every attempt to discuss this matter with them and respectfully let them know that I was willing to accept them not striking their objection. Once they actually told me that they no longer felt that the article violated policy or fell short of FA criteria, I asked them to go back and strike their comment. This is hardly indicative of me being on a mission to poison the FAC process.
With your comments in the FAC, Rlevse, you objected on the basis that the article was too long to be about a video game instead of a real world subject (not that the article didn't stay on the subject; just that the subject was from the wrong category), had expressed prior disregard for cooperating (even acknowledging that your objection wasn't necessarily based on FA criteria with the "Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it" comment), made it clear that you weren't coming back, and worded your response such that it appeared that you didn't care about your objection standing. I didn't think there was much point in asking you to go back to strike the objection when you'd displayed contempt for the process already. With the unregistered user, I've not made a habit of leaving comments on their talk pages, as those IPs are often shared and could belong to a public access terminal, in which case that particular user might not necessarily ever see the comment. With them expressing that they weren't going to continue to object, and the possibility that I'd not be able to contact them at that IP anyway, I didn't see an issue with striking the apparently dropped objection. I apologize to everyone if that was a failure in judgement, but it was not intended in a dishonest manner.
Also, once again, I linked to what I was referring to. That's not a very sensible course of action when trying to warp things. Ryu Kaze 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way once more, neither objection that was ultimately struck out was even based on the FA criteria (spoiler tags aren't in the MOS, and video game articles can be as long as the article for World War I if that's how long they have to be). How is the FAC somehow corrupted on the basis of comments that weren't conducive to constructively reviewing the article? Not that I'm saying it's okay to have struck them if it was inappropriate to have done so, but I don't see how striking those particular comments damaged the process somehow. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ryu Kaze...How you stretched "That's ok. So be it." into your 20-or so word interpretation is beyond me. You NEVER strike out someone's objection, that's their job, not that of you and your interpretations of their intentions. If they leave it alone, so do you. It is Raul's job to disrgard objections, not yours. You did this striking out of objections more than once and the result is a non-objecting slate, which is far from the case--whether you think they're invalid or not. You and your supporters essentially brow beat users with comments like "We refuse to succumb...", put words into their mouths, and changed their objections--and if you don't see the problem in that, I feel sorry for you.Rlevse 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like argumentum ad hominem to me. I'll acknowledge (again) that I made a mistake. I will even apologize once again for it. However, what does this have to do with whether or not the article merits its FA status? And, no, this isn't based on what I personally think is an invalid objection. You can read the featured article criteria and see that there are certain universal characteristics that apply to a featured article. "Length based on category" and "warning people not to learn" are not either of them.
You're not even acknowleding what I pointed out previously, such as the matter with User:Angr (someone whose criteria-based comments I'd have had far more reason to "corrupt" than yours or the spoiler tag-related objection), or the fact that you did express absolutely no interest in coming back to explain your objection. You had eight days after that, during which time you were plenty active, yet you never once came back to say "Wait, I didn't intend that as a withdrawal", nor did you even make an attempt at explaining yourself. In fact, your last comment in the FAC was one that expressed contempt for the entire process:
  • "The featured article criteria makes no mention of the 'recommended length' thing. That's simply a stylistic suggestion, not an actual rule, and one that openly admits that there will be exceptions to how strictly it should be considered. Few, if any, FAs would make it if there was a rule that we couldn't exceed 32kb." Ryu Kaze 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it." Rlevse 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's just a little suspcious that you waited until right after the article was accepted to FA to bring up "concerns" — and with Raul instead of me, no less. Call this assuming bad faith if you want to, but I'm not seeing much reason to assume good faith, nor did what you said here sound much like you were assuming good faith.
By the way, it seems like you're changing the basis of this "FAC review" from "The process was corrupted" to "You and your posse provide powerful, no-nonsense counterarguments". Thus, why I began this response with argumentum ad hominem. Where did I "browbeat" you? Deckiller and I got a little annoyed with a couple of people during the process, yes, but we acknowledged this and apologized, and based on what we said to you, I don't think you were one of them. Where was Deck putting you down by saying "We refuse to succumb to that sort of cutting down on our FACs"? Seriously, I'm curious. Unless the failed FACs you were making reference to were caused by you, that wasn't even a criticism of your practices, mustless your person.
Even Angr, whom I had harsh words with a couple of weeks ago, is now someone whose input I've come to appreciate and respect. But we actually talked. You made no effort to do that. Let me repeat that so that you'll understand why I might be a little annoyed: you made no effort to talk about this issue and then come riding in with very suspicious timing when you could have done so at any time before. I would have unstruck the objection if you had said something as simple as "I hadn't withdrawn" — despite the fact that you had made no effort to participate in a constructive discourse or be present for something you supposedly were concerned about.
I can't say I appreciate the very selective manner in which you've brought forth your "concerns", or the fact that you displayed contempt for the FAC process during that article's nomination, but now are so eager to "protect its integrity". Finally, I don't appreciate the fact that you made zero effort to discuss this issue with me, the article's main editor (not even to explain why you were objecting on grounds not related to FA criteria), but found plenty of time and sufficient motivation (whatever it might be) to bring it up with the FA Director. This reeks of personal agenda, and I'm not happy with it at all. Ryu Kaze 00:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Raul, I'd like to apologize to you as well for acting on bad judgement. I'll make a point not to bother doing that again, even if someone outright tells me to go strike their objection. Also, sorry for carrying on a slugfest here on your talk page, but I was quite pissed off, so... I guess there's nothing more to say than that. Ryu Kaze 02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ryu, it's not your fault; this slugfest should've occured on the FAC talkpage or your talkpage several days ago. — Deckiller 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Ryu here; Raul promotes articles based on a clear consensus, and even if those comments hadn't been struck out, the objection was not actionable enough in relation to the FA criteria (especially to be taken with more weight than the 90 percent+ support). Striking other people's comments out was not being deceitful, it was a misunderstanding, and in reality, it has nothing to do with the outcome of this FA. Also, Ryu apologized for striking people's FAC comments. I did it for my first few nominations, and others do it, as well, until they realize it's not the appropriate way to handle things. Ryu has apologized and now he knows not to do that, so that issue is resolved. And I agree with Ryu that this is an equally questionable move for you, Rlevse, as you should have discussed the matter with Ryu on his talkpage instead of starting a debate on Raul's talkpage, dropping your issues with the way some of us handle FACs now instead of during the FA when it should have been handled, especially if you wished to see this article fail FA nomination. — Deckiller 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not merely a "supporter", since Ryu and myself both usually do plenty work on these types of articles (FF7 is an exception). — Deckiller 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I never noticed this'd occurred until yesterday as I went and looked at the FAC talk after I noticed it'd become FA. It's not like I have time to go check every edit I make every day. Besides, I shouldn't have to worry about people striking out objections and saying I said things I didn't anyway, which is the point here, not that it had more supports than objects. I highly resent the claim of a personal agenda-in no way was that the case. Raul, thank you for looking into this. As for me, I consider this closed.Rlevse 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


I will make sure I get some facts straight and write up the T'ai article soon. --Ionius Mundus 06:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Raul654 06:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Consult on Philly wikimeetup proposal[edit]

Hey Raul, if you have a moment, if you could look over Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2, and see if there are any obvious problems with the proposal or things missing from the page, I'd be much obliged if you could point it out. I'd hate to start advertising a meetup with a glaring error. And yes, I stole the page formatting from your Newark meetup page.

When this happens, you should really come. We'll have a rocking good time. --CComMack (t•c) 06:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask for suggestions for a location - pick it. Decide the time and place, and (only) then advertise it. Raul654 06:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. I was a little gunshy because I've never been to this restaurant, just taking the advice of friends that it's perfect for a meetup. --CComMack (t•c) 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be too much to hope that there's an abundance of nearby parking? Raul654 07:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Abundance? It's the city, not the suburbs. However, the restaurant itself describes parking as "plentiful", and Google satellite shows the parking lot referred to, and it's nothing to sneeze at, especially with available on-street parking, but I'm writing up a page (unlnked in my userspace for now, because I won't finish it until tomorrow or the day after) that gives detailed directions including pubtrans and park and ride options. --CComMack (t•c) 07:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cynna Kydd and Notability for front page Today's featured article[edit]

I'd like to request a formal criterion for featuring an article on the Main Page - that the article be worthy of representing the Wikipedia to the world, not only in the sense that it can't be improved more, but in the sense that it "exemplifies our best work" - an article that, by existing, explains what we are attempting to contribute to the world. In other words, that it also be important.

The Wikipedia:Featured article criteria don't cover that - they merely try to make sure an article is the best that it can be. But the subjects of many articles are, frankly, not among the most important articles in the encyclopedia. By displaying such on the front page, we are perpetuating the image that the Wikipedia is primarily lightweight; for trivial, obscure topics, and any articles on actually important, world-changing, issues that it has, are merely accidental.

Cynna Kydd, unfortunately, epitomized this, as it was nominated for deletion for non-notability even as it was being featured on the main page. The article writer basically admitted as much in the peer review, and in the Featured article candidates/Cynna Kydd led off with: "I think I've done about as much as is possible with this one". He's right. It's a very well written article, no one could do better with the subject matter, it fully deserves the highest "grade" of quality we can give the article on its own merits ... but compared with any number of other, detailed, weighty topics featured the very same month, that were also equally well written -- Sikhism, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Azerbaijani people -- it's just not what we want to be the world's introduction to our encyclopedia.

We want to change the world with our project; the article on the front page should be about something that does. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that we have broader or deeper coverage than other information sources is not something we should be ashamed of or hide from.
The featured article criteria don't mention importance as a requirement. This was not an accident. As I have previously stated, I do not want the featured article candidates becomes another AFD cesspool. So, to that end, we assume that all nominated articles are 'encyclopedic', and if someone disagrees with that assumption, they are welcome to nominate articles on AFD (and let me go on record as saying I oppose using an article's featured status as a reason to keep it). On the other hand, nominating a featured article for deletion in the 24 hours it is on the main page displays a serious lack of good judgement - to the point where I considered temp blocking MatthewFenton for disruption. (I see I'm not the only one) I'll also note that the result of the AFD was a speedy keep.
To address your main point, the 'weightiness' of the articles featured on the main page, I'm going to note four fatal problems with your proposal. (1) There are simply not enough weighty featured articles to have one every day. Go to the FA promotion log for this month. That's a record of all newly promoted featured articles since the beginning of the month, 24 days ago. Although obviously subjective, I count roughly 15 "weighty" articles. 15 articles in 24 days means we are falling far short of the one per day necessary for your proposal. (2) The second problem, as I just said, is that 'notability' is a totally subjective concept, and if AFD has taught us anything, it's virtually imposible to define. (3) The third problem with your proposal is philisophical and pragmatic. The chance to have your article featured on the main page at some point serves as an incentive to people to write featured articles, and a rather large one at that. A requirement that main page FAs be 'weighty' very effectively destroys this incentive, and will result in far fewer total featured articles being written. (4) The fourth fatal problem, and probably the most insurmountable, is the observation that people write about what they want to. They are not going to write weighty articles just because you tell them to. (-Raul's 3rd law) To ignore this is to ignore reality.
Frankly, I think you misinterpret the reactions to those niche featured articles. Go to google blogsearch and search for wikipedia+"featured article" and see what you get. Here's what I saw:
  • But today's "featured article" really grabbed my attention --- and got the biggest WTF? of the week --- it's about Nas' Illmatic album. How cool is that? [11]
  • Yay! Today's Wikipedia Featured Article is Nas's Illmatic! Hell yeah. This album is crazy. Probably one of my favorite albums of all time. It's a pretty good, lengthy article with quotes and all. [12]
  • (Regarding bulbasaur) the Pokemon board has like a hundred threads about it. - [13]
  • I love it—the Wikipedia featured article today is Bulbasaur. [14]
  • (And the list goes on and on)
I think it's safe to say that many (most?) people enjoy those articles. Don't assume people are morons - I think they're smart enough to realize that Wikipedia has both weighty topics and niche ones (especially since we feature both, often on consecutive days). Raul654 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered response. I have to say, though, that every single one of the 42 on the log you cited seems weightier than poor Cynna Kydd. The Illmatic article says "one of the most celebrated and most influential albums in hip hop history." and lists high chart positions from 8 countries on 3 continents. The Bulbasaur article says "the first of the 407 fictional species of Pokémon creatures ... these games and their sequels have sold over 143 million units". Sure, they're not all the Battle of Moscow, but they have influenced the lives of millions of people. Cynna Kidd is noted in a minor sport in one country. Note all the 28 references are from Australian papers, the most prominent one described as "a tabloid". Notice the only image is a small relatively poor quality shot, because, as the author writes, "I could only find one image of the lady": (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cynna Kydd) - and this is while she's currently active in her career. Notice the article doesn't even say she's considered a particular landmark in her minor sport - she is only mentioned as one of 25 others (mostly redlinks) in Netball. She won one award, and note what it says about her getting that award -- "she was a surprise choice" Cynna Kydd#Career peak -- in other words, she was no Tiger Woods, seen as setting a mark on the sport that would last generations. Notice that award says: "While the Commonwealth Bank Trophy is an elite competition, it lacks the attention and sponsorship of the three main football codes". It's debatable whether Netball is even of groundbreaking importance to Australia, and it's debatable whether Cynna Kydd is even of groundbreaking importance to Netball, and the article doesn't mention her notability in any way other than netball. Weighing that against the Wikipedia's goal of being an encyclopedia for the sum of all human knowledge leaves it wanting. And not even when compared to Satyajit Ray ("widely regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of 20th century cinema") - even when compared to Mandy Moore, and yes, the much maligned Bulbasaur. I'm not suggesting restricting the front page to something that would be acceptable to a stuffy academic - I'm just asking for something that influenced a lot of people's lives, and, correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't think Cynna Kydd did. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand what you are saying, and I vehemently opposed Cynna Kydd becoming a FA. However it did become a FA, so consequently has as much right to be on the front page as any other FA. The front page is to showcase what Wikipedia has to offer at its best. The majority if Wikipedians obviously feel Cynna Kydd exemplifies wikipedia's best, so the page's day of glory is probably not the best moment to attempt to bring a page down, there are due processes for that before and after the main page. However I don't like seeing pages FARCd (or whatever it is currently called), it upsets the principal editors (usually good established ones) and in truth benefits no-one. Cynna has had her moment of fame on the main page, it is doubtful she will be there again, forget her, and concentrate on the present FAC page and the continuing raising of standards to ensure the main page always reflect the projects best. Giano | talk 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cruel Choice for Main Page Featured Article[edit]


Call this a semi-serious complaint. Displaying Mercury (the new smallest planet) on the day after Pluto's "demotion" is really "rubbing salt in the wounds" of those of us (astronomical professionals, lay-people, and school-children everywhere) who were Pluto-backers! :( Fresh controversies aren't good main page fodder, are they? Best wishes, Xoloz 02:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (whose brain lives on Pluto)

Once again our article is more up to date than Britannica's [15] - is this something to be ashamed of? Raul654 02:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I also find it amusing, as it displays our rapidfire updating. — Deckiller 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, everybody who reads Wikipedia already knows we whip Britannica... but the Pluto issue is still fresh, simmering and emotionally-charged. [16] I'm sure I wasn't the only Plutonian who was made sad by today's front page. I'm just pointing out that, in this case, being topical could be a double-edged sword in a way one might not realize. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article/requests?[edit]

I don't want to sound like I'm whining or being pushy etc, but may I ask why there is such a huge backlog on the TFA/requests page? I'm not sure how everything works but isn't someone meant to schedule FA's to appear on the main page & remove them from the requests page? It just seems there is a huge pile of unassinged FA's there, including one of mine. The suspense to see when mine is featured is killing me... I'm not asking if you're superman, just asking if there's a problem. Who knows, maybe I could help? Thanks. Spawn Man 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge backlog because people are filing requests far faster than the rate they are removed at. Raul654 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
And some are chosen from the FA list that aren't there. And some need removed, the list probably isn't up to date with the schedule. Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explaination. I guess this shows that our articles are getting better faster! Thanks, 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser backlog[edit]

Hi there,

I'm sending this message out to the 6 active admin with CheckUser priveleges. Just wanted to let you all know that there is a lengthy backlog on the CheckUser page and it has not been checked since August 21, 2006. According to the CheckUser site, it says that user records expire within a week or so, so it would be great if one of you could go through it sometime soon. Thanks, --Palffy 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note....[edit]

You don't have to worry about VoABot giving notices for protecting subpages, any page with a "/" in it is ignored.Voice-of-All 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very nice. Thank you. Raul654 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this has been there for a long while, in response to you regularly protect FA templates per procedure. I suppose I just didn't mention it :-).
By the way, as an RFCU clerk myself, if you have the time, I'd appretiate it if maybe you could check WP:RFCU.Voice-of-All 00:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to John Bruton 100% correct[edit]

Super Jumbo's edits to John Bruton were 100% correct and breached no ardcom ruling. The ruling and the MoS allow changes where the local usage is clearly in one date format (whether American Dating, International dating, etc). Ireland never uses American Dating. His changes to that article were 100% correct. Users are perfectly entitled under the MoS and the arbcom ruling to ensure that American articles are written in American English and American Dating. They are also perfectly entitled to apply International English and International Dating to British, Irish, Commonwealth, UN and European topics, all of whom do not use American English and American Dating. That is the rule on WP. That is the rule laid out in the MoS and in the Arbcom. It has been policy for a number of years. Your threat to block a user for obeying the requirements laid down in the MoS and the arbcom ruling was a breach of procedure. If you make such a threat again yourself risk being blocked. FearÉIREANNIreland-up.png\(caint) 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of that particular Irish article, he happned to be right. [17] - "For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually 17 February 1958... Elsewhere, either format is acceptable." His tendancy not to limit himself to such articles (such as French and Suriname related articles, just to name two that I saw) do, in fact, violate the Sortan ruling, and if he continues to do so, yes, he may find himself blocked. Raul654 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not so. And if he was, many admins would unblock him instantly, I suspect. As one of those involved in the debate that produced WP policy, I can say that the list in the MoS is of examples. It is not a case of "only these coutries' articles must be written in ID". AD is actually used in only a handful of countries. France does not use it and takes offence is American Dating and American English is used. He does not, and never has, violated the Sortan ruling. The ruling required substantive reasons justifying a change. If a country universally uses one format, then that is a substantive reason for ensuring articles relating to it are in the correct format. We all have been doing that for years and will continue to do it. All that is happening is a periodic clean up. While ID users in my experience are more than willing to use AD on American articles, AD users, to a disappointing degree, insist on AD-ing article and AE-ing articles all over the place. So every so often articles are copyedited to match local usage. Super Jumbo's editing in this way has been debated at length on the ANI. The consensus view was that he was doing nothing wrong, merely doing a copyedit clean-up. As I have said, we all do it, whether changing American stuff to AE and AD, or changing European stuff to ID and IE, or changing Irish stuff to HE and ID, etc. Super Jumbo has the full support of a lot of users (I can count those complaining on the fingers of one hand and there are still fingers unused!) and any admin blocking him would be at strong risk of being blocked themselves for abusing their position. The vast majority of users are agreed that Super Jumbo is a decent hardworking individual who is doing sterling work in cleaning up dating messes. He is not on some kind of anti-AE vendetta. (In fact one of his critics complained that he changed an American article to mm/dd/yyyy!) So less of the threats, please, against a user doing a necessary cleanup fully in accordance with the arbcom ruling and the MoS. FearÉIREANNIreland-up.png\(caint) 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
In short, Jumbo has decided that "American" articles must be in "American" format, and all other articles must be in the British format, which he prefers to call "International". Though it has been pointed out to him that this is controversial, certain others, probably also countable on Jtdirl's one hand with fingers left over, have encouraged him to persist. To justify this, they point to arbcom rulings designed to prevent such date diddling as justification for diddling dates. - Nunh-huh 02:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The ruling required substantive reasons justifying a change. If a country universally uses one format, then that is a substantive reason for ensuring articles relating to it are in the correct format. - no, it's not. The Sortan ruling and MOS is quite specific in this regard. For non-US, non-British topics, the MOS explicltly says either format is acceptable, per the above quote. The Sortan ruling is also very specific in this regard. Your decision to simply ignore them (both the manual of style and the arbcom ruling), and claim that SuperJumbo was "merely doing a copyedit clean-up" is hollow. Raul654 02:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the MoS, we see the lead sentence in the relevant section stating, "If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country." I have followed this precisely. I have sought guidance on WP:ANI, the MoS talk page, the talk pages for various articles and on user talk pages. If you could familiarise yourself with the discussion in these places (easily followed by looking back over my contributions), you will see a pattern of support for my actions and only one editor who persistently disagrees.
Looking back over my watchlist, I see that you have reverted some of my careful work. May I ask you to review the discussion on this topic and undo your reverts, please? --Jumbo 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That an editor "may choose" when writing an article to use the date format used in that country does not authorize making mass, focused changes specifically for changing dates. Also, you keep mischaracterizing previous discussions; there is no consensus favoring your actions and, for example, there are at least four administrators who disagree with your actions, not "one editor". —Centrxtalk • 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may make a change to the date format to match the format used in the country, then I may make as many as are needed. Saying that in (say) France "either format is acceptable" is plain wrong. France doesn't use American Dating at all. What we should have is a list of countries showing which formats are used. Canada, for example, uses both major formats, so I leave Canada alone, except for wikifying dates. In the case of Canadian articles, the style chosen by the first major editor would rule and under Jguk I would have no good reason for changing them.
The pattern is plain. Nunh-huh complains to someone, they take a quick look at the diffs he shows them, and they drop me a warning based on Sortan. After discussing the subject, looking at the sources, looking at the pattern of my edits, they fade away and say no more. You're pretty much the first person to re-enter the debate.
I'm not going to stop doing what I do so long as the substantive basis of the complaints is that "SuperJumbo is changing every date in non-American articles to British format". That is patently untrue, as anyone may see after looking at the whole of my contributions. I rationalise the date formats to correct wikidates according to the format used in the relevant country (if there is one), and that is useful work. --Jumbo 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have complained to no one. And Raul knows this, as he knows I did not complain to him. You really need to stop making things up and reconsider your actions. You are the author of your continuing difficulties, not me. - Nunh-huh 21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any difficulties. I have stuck to the Manual of Style, I have consulted with other editors, I have made sure that I am in the right at every point. On the other hand, the changes here and here are clearly not supported by any guidelines. Sortan only goes so far; a look at the ArbCom evidence and decision shows that Sortan must be read in the context of Jguk, otherwise we would be unable to make any edits on style, and I don't think that this was the intent of the Arbcom. --Jumbo 06:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are not changes, they revert your changes, keeping what was before. It is not at all analogous to your changes, which you are initiating. —Centrxtalk • 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So Sortan demands we keep "19 June 1793" in an article about a U.S. railway magnate, and "July 17" in an article about a British noble? --Jumbo 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sortan demands nothing about content or format; it governs behavior. Specifically, it was meant to prevent campaigns of "reform", such as your own, covering date formats. - Nunh-huh 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a reuqest for clarification with the arbitration committee on this matter. Raul654 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Longwood Gardens[edit]

I hate to bring up the issue of copyright, but I'm dealing with the same issue. You took a string of pictures at Longwood Gardens in 2005 and posted them on Wikipedia under the GFDL. Now I've been meaning to do the same thing, but I am concerned with the this page on their website: [18]. They explicitly forbid photography without signing a form and do not permit commercial use, directly contradicting the GFDL. As a result, I'm not sure if the images uploaded are in violation of copyright or not. I thought I'd bring it up here, since I've taken similar pictures as well (however, I have not uploaded any). Perhaps you've already been approached on this issue, perhaps not. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I never signed any such form, nor was I asked to. (Nor, for that matter, do I recall seeing any signs prohibiting photography). And, for that matter, while they can prohibit people from taking the pictures, once taken, they cannot claim copyrihgt on them (unless they can claim that their arrangments thereof are copyrighted) Raul654 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking as well. I just wasn't totally sure, you know? Thanks! — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Raul654,

you should not have reverted me on Template:FA/BeenOnMainPage -- instead, you should have fixed your CSS to work with it. The way it is now, it causes invalid XHTML, which is why I made the change. I am not going to go into an edit war over this, but please explain to me how to properly handle this situation. ("Don't care about XHTML conformance" is not an acceptable answer.)Timwi 10:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The only purpose of that template is to allow people to see the featured articles page with the already-used articles in bold (I need it because it would be inordinantly difficult to schedule main page articles without the bolding). If you can provide CSS that works with any changes you make to that template, then by all means make your changes. (I can't because I don't know CSS) But breaking the template is not an option. Raul654 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe 'class' instead of 'id' should be used if multiple things are to be tagged with the same thing to recieve the same style. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

All that needs to be done is for people to have this on their personal CSS page:

 span.has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }

instead of:

 span.featured_article_metadata#has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }

as is currently suggested. The only issue is finding people who are using this and making sure they update their CSS pages; Google doesn't reveal any of them. Perhaps a note on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles and allow for some transition time? --bainer (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect very, very few people use it. I've updated my sockpuppet's monobook.css (I prefer to use classic skin on my Raul654 account so I use a sockpuppet to view the FA list when doing scheduling) and it seems to be working, so it seems everything is good now. Raul654 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Atomic life filter's Main Page template[edit]

I saw the template you set up for Semptember 2, and I thought I could improve it just a bit.

The new version, at User:Rmrfstar/Workspace, is a bit longer, and I fixed some awkward phrasing in it. Also, it might be best to include the three different types of atomic line filters (bold in the article), if the template is not too long. What do you think? -- Rmrfstar 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the blurb accordingly. Raul654 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Balloons-aj.png (Sorry for the delay) I present you with these balloons to celebrate your third wiki-birthday, which I believe was on August 31. I hope you have had a great day. Daniel.Bryant

Gibraltarian's IP ranges[edit]

Please note that Gibraltarian's ISP is Gibtelecom (formerly Gibraltar Nynex Communications), and this is the most commonly used ISP in Gibraltar. Its IP ranges are ( to and ( to Many of these IPs are dial-up IPs, which explains why they're dynamic. Although G usually edits in the latter range, he did make a few edits in the former range as well. Scobell302 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked five class C's in the latter - 212.120.224.x, 212.120.225.x, 212.120.226.x, 212.120.227.x, 212.120.237.x. After getting an email from user:Gibnews telling me he'd been caught up, I unblocked the range he fell into. Afterwards, I checkusered the ranges, and Gibnews is the only regular who edits from those ranges. Raul654 02:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You might want to block 212.120.236.x as well, since that is also a common class C for G to use. With respect to 212.120.227.x, you could reblock it as anon only while still allowing registered users to edit. Scobell302 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hrm, I should probably do that with all ranges - unblock, and reblock with anonomyous edits and account registration disabled. Raul654 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Halfbeak FAC note[edit]

Hrm, I left a note on the person's talk page about possibly using unpublished research. I'm not sure if it was or not. I was just wondering if you thought I was too harsh or anything... RN 07:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Peculiar FAC problem[edit]

Hi! There is a FAC template in the talk page of the article West Bengal, but the FAC is not listed there in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. The template was added to the talk page on 3 September by W123 (talk · contribs). May be the user forgot to place it in the FAC list. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of this I think. RN 11:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

AMA bad faith[edit]

I was sorry to see your edit on the AMA and your lack of faith in it. As an admitted WP noobie compared to many, including yourself, I have two questions:

  1. Does the same lack of faith extend to most "upper level" Wikipedians? Is it widespread?
  2. It is based on your past experience with the AMA or the AMA's core purpose? (to work one one side of an issue, supporting a user who wants to follow policy, rather than as a strict sole supporter of policy)

(1) I suspect most other members of the arbcom - at least the ones who have had to deal with AMA antics - have the same very low opinion of the AMA that I do. (2) I have no problem with the AMA's core purpose; my disdain for the group has to do with multiple bad experiences - the fact that their past advocacy has done nothing but slow down and complicate every arbitration case in which they have participated. Raul654 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Plautus Satire - Round 3[edit]

Hi! Plautus satire 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So I see you've sat out your second full year ban. The first time I see you make a bad edit, I'm going to block you for a month. Raul654 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't threaten [19] me, I don't respond kindly to threats from overinflated doughboys. Plautus satire 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for a week for personal attacks. Raul654 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raul...thanks for reverting the Sports/Video Games split...[edit]

Hey there. I felt really annoyed with having to clean up the mess that was made when sports and video games were split. It was REALLY poorly done and I felt really angry at the fact I had to make multiple edits to complete the merge correctly only to have second thoughts about doing this in the first place and blah-blah-blah, yakety schmackety. Thanks for undoing all that because I wish I had never had to deal with doing all those damned edits...I feel really embarrassed at the fact I even felt like making them at all. -- transaspie 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome Raul654 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if you could...[edit]

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone appears to have done it already. Raul654 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That Was Easy! --Cyde Weys 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL Raul654 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

SuperJumbo and dates[edit]

Hi Raul. I blocked SuperJumbo (his second block on this issue) for resuming his project of changing date formats in articles to match what he believes are the appropriate 'local' formats. (I have offered to unblock if he is willing to forego further date changes until the matter is formally resolved.)

He has stated that your position on this issue is that these changes are appropriate where the article topics are UK/Commonwealth-related. I'm not sure if that's a correct understanding of your interpretation, and I would appreciate it if you could comment directly at User talk:SuperJumbo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replied there. Raul654 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
See my comment on his talk page. I am somewhat concerned about the way he has been treated. It appears to me that he is a good-faith editor who has genuine reason to be confused about what he should be doing. He has had conflicting strong advice from different admins, and there have been inconsistent reactions on the occasions when the issue was dealt with at AN/I. With all respect, I'd find your latest advice confusing if I were him. It says at one point that the edits for which he is currently blocked for a week were acceptable under a strict reading of the policy (though I actually find this a bit difficult to reconcile with something you say earlier about the need for a good independent reason for editing an article, such as substantially expanding it or removing inconsistencies). Even if the edits are within policy, there might still be a reason for him not to make them, e.g. to preserve the status quo while a contentious issue is being thrashed out by ArbCom or whoever has to do the thrashing, but I don't see anywhere where it has been explained to him that way. In the circumstances, the imposition of a second week-long block seems unfair. In any event, I'm sure that he'd do whatever you think correct if you give him a clear, unequivocal explanation. It's not as if he's responding disrespectfully in the discussion on his talk page. There must be a way of getting this evidently sincere user on the right track other than by hitting him with week-long blocks. Metamagician3000 03:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, looking at ArbCom's ruling from a few days ago, it quite clearly does not deal with edits of the kind that he has made that resulted in his current block. That was not the scenario for which you asked for a ruling. Again, perhaps he should be backing off even from edits of that kind, pending resolution, but I don't see how he can be said in those mre recent edits to be acting against what ArbCom said a few days ago. Perhaps ArbCom needs to expand its ruling to consider the circumstances in which it is allowable to change a date from British format to American format in an article about an American topic (for example). If being allowed to do this is restricted to situations where either (1) the current dating format is inconsistent within the article or (2) the article is short and many new dates are likely to be introduced in the process of expanding it, I think someone should say so authoritatively and unequivocally. If it's allowed in a wider range of circumstances, that should also be stated authoritatively and unequivocally so that Jumbo can work within the limits and people will know no to revert him or take admin actions against him. Would you consider raising this with other ArbCom members if you can't definitely rule on it yourself? Metamagician3000 07:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)[edit]

Thanks for slotting caffeine as TFA for September 16. Knowing how swamped with requests you already are I hadn't intended to request main page placement, so naturally I was quite pleasantly surprised by your decision. If I may ask, what prompted you to place it so soon after its promotion? Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because it's not a pop singer, hurricane, or architectural history topic, for once. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And what may I ask BoG is wrong with architectural history topics? - many people (including myself) find them fascinating! Giano | talk 08:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Starting on Sept 12, I wanted to feature a bunch of articles in a row with 'name recognition' - things most people would recognize. Caffine seemed an obvious choice. Raul654 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
PS - don't forget the the obligatory Australian fauna Raul654 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Very well-known topics? Not wishing to subvert Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, how about: Seabird · ASCII · Enzyme · Cochineal · Krill · Phishing · Quantum computer · Spyware · Iranian peoples · Kitsch · 35 mm film · Phonograph cylinder · Mauna Loa · Mount Rushmore · Nepal · Yosemite National Park · History of Puerto Rico · History of the Netherlands · History of the Philippines · Supreme Court of the United States · The Adventures of Tintin · The Lord of the Rings · J. R. R. Tolkien · Globular cluster · British House of Commons · Olympic Games · AK-47 · Battle of Midway · Invasion? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Did that help? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it did. Raul654 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary of declassified Aman/Research report[edit]

I'll be translating it in the near future. I think you'll find it interesting. Regards, El_C 11:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Enjoy. El_C 04:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work. Very nice job, El C. Raul654 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't think any of the newly declassified material has been translated (not on the web, at least). Only on Wikipedia! :) El_C 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian flag response[edit]

I forgot the image prefix. I fixed this. I have marked the old version with a {{Db-noncom}} tag. Jesse Viviano 04:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I should have noticed that too. After you mentioned it on your talk page, I fixed the Yom Kippur War article accordingly. Raul654 04:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu References[edit]

Hi , just a heads up that I'm planning on editing some of the Davidson references - in particular replacing a few with Fall - (A good 40% of Davidson's own cites are to the Fall book for the Dien Bien Phu section) I've access to several other secondary sources as well so will try to make the reference list less homogenous. --Cj tyche 09:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Raul, thank you for putting it on the front page, and on this date. It's been a good day. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. I hope the flurry of main-page related edits didn't overwhelm you. Raul654 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I found this to be quite amusing. Good on ya... Joe 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Raul654 02:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mass changing on style issues (dating)[edit]

I've archived your request for clarification on this subject, concerning user:SuperJumbo, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sortan.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for informing me. :) ~MK (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome. Raul654 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're on TV[edit]

Dude, just watch Nightline. Titoxd(?!?) 05:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard about it a few hours beforehand (The producer emailed Amgine, who in turn emailed the rest of the press committee). I can't believe, out of the whole interview, that's the quote they decided to use :( Raul654 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm wondering what happened to this page, as the link is still up on talk but it's been removed from FAC and not archived. It was at nine support and zero object, with all outstanding issues essentially taken care of. Cheers, Marskell 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant to promote it (which is why it wasn't archived - I put it into the promotion log [20]). Somehow I looked at that list and skipped the bottom one. I've fixed it now. Thanks for letting me know. Raul654 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. Marskell 08:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 24, 2006 Raul654 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Longest FAC[edit]

Hi Raul654, I'm simply curious here, that's all. What is the longest an article has been on the FAC list and made FA and the longest one has been on the list and not made FA? Rlevse 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not something I keep strict tabs on. If I had to guess, Bulbasaur was up there in 3 consecutive nominations and/or resets. Tack them together, and it probably spent nearly 2 continious months on the FAC before being promoted. As for unsuccesful nominations, I honestly have no idea. Raul654 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just curious. I know there are some successful nominations that spent slightly more than a month on the FAC list (only one FAC round, not multiple like Bulbasaur). Rlevse 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Scheduling of Aleksandr Vasilevsky[edit]

Hi Raul,

Sorry to bother you with this, but as I see you selected FAs for almost all September, can you please schedule Aleksandr Vasilevsky on September 30? I requested the article almost 2 months ago (on July 24 to be exact) so I guess I was first :P and it would be actually quite nice and symbolic if it would appear on main on this anniversary date... :)

Thanks in advance, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Hey Raul, I've noted this elsewhere, but could I just put Torchic up for September 28? Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC of West Bengal[edit]

I am forwarding the following to you from my talk; it looks plausible IMO that the FAC in question is still making progress. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be a bit premature to close that FAC. The fac nom was placed by someone who wasn't a regular editor (wasn't noticed by most editors until a few days ago). I have voted "oppose" but was working with another editor in finding out the gaps and mistakes. The other oppose votes are not hard opposes, and work was going on to fix them. So, I request you to reconsider the close of the article, and re-list it as the discussion is still ongoing. Thanks. --Ragib 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFA[edit]

Thank you very much for the promotion. Sure was nice of you to take a random request at 4 in the morning on IRC. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit late...[edit]

crapaud d'Amérique

Perhaps this message comes a bit late, but I too have received Plautus Satire's mass e-mail last Monday, regarding the actions you and Phil Sandifer have taken against him. I just wanted to inform you that I fully support your block, that Plautus has deserved it, and that I don't intend to take any action in this matter. And that I hope this message won't feed the troll :) Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On the brighter side, I did get myself a nifty new IRC nick - "A Man Among Men" [21] Raul654 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I somehow liked "an overinflated fat toad" better ;) Btw, what does an inflated toad look like...? Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of inflated toads, is it a coincidence that the only obese toad in Toad is an American toad, or is it systemic bias? ;) Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please move this page [[22]] which is hardly worth an article, to here [[23]] which is also a general talk page related to Kerala? Not there, when I looked closer. Rather here, [[24]]

Cyclops64 question[edit]

How much money has been invested and spent on this project so far? --NEMT 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I do know it was on budget, except for one item (a serial <-> ethernet chip which apparently is proving to be far harder than evisioned) Raul654 06:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
So if some crazed billionaire wanted to buy it, you couldn't give him a quote? --NEMT 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't work for IBM, and they're the best ones to direct those kinds of questions to. I can tell you that the chip will, in fact, be available as a commerical off-the-shelf product, and (I'm totally guessing here) I suspect the price will be competative with a modern Pentium IV class processor. Raul654 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating, I had no idea IBM planned to market the end product to consumers. Will they offer any kind of x86 compatibility, or is it geared towards a drastically different market? --NEMT 06:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by x86 compatability. As a totally different architecture, it will be totally incompatible (except through code recompliation). Also, it's geared towards the supercomputing market, which x86 is not really a major player in (except in as much as x86 processors can be used in clusters and on the grid in applications that are embarassingly parallel, or nearly so). Raul654 06:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying activites by NPOs[edit]

Hey Mark, you asked me about lobbying activities that are allowed by NPOs at Wikimania. Here is a link to some official IRS stuff on that (and the related campaigning/free speech issues):,,id=161131,00.html --Alex756 09:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ogg video[edit]

Starting with this information I have tried to produce some video in Theora Ogg format. I cannot get VLC (Mac) or mpeg2ogg to work. I got Super to run but it produced a video that terminates part way through. I think what I really need is a tutorial that describes how to convert .mov video files to Ogg video. There seem to be many people who want to sell file converters. The documentation that I have found for free file converters is very poor. Can you aim me towards a good source of information? --JWSchmidt 20:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Super will take care of my needs. The first file I tried to convert had a very complex data structure. Super seems to work fine for most normal video files. --JWSchmidt 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


LILO DIED. GET ON FREENODE--CableModem 21:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Syria in 1973[edit]

Hello Raul, I noticed you reverted a change in the Yom Kippur war article stating that Egypt and Syria did not have the same flag in 1973. Even Syria left the United Arab Republic, it did form a looser federation with both Egypt and Libya called the Federation of Arab Republics. All 3 countries in the loose federation (more of an alliance really) had almost identical flags. See Flag of Syria (historical section) and Image:Syria-flag-changes.svg and, the current flag of Syria was (re-)introduced in 1980. 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Something strange...[edit]

Hi there. Very recently, anonymous user made a vulgar personal attack on my user talk page. The reason I am telling you this is because the culprit appears to have signed his comment with your user name [25]. I thought you might like to know, in case someone out there is trying to frame you. Cheers. Pobbie Rarr 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not amused. I checkuser'd the IP, but with one meaningful result - 13:06 (User creation log) (diff; hist) . . Raúl654 (Talk | contribs | block) ((New user account)). The impersonation account is now blocked. Raul654 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Aloe aristata.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on October 9, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations!

FYI, when this was promoted to Featured Pic status, not all steps were taken, otherwise it would have been POTD a few months ago. Anyway, better late than never. ;) howcheng {chat} 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. That happens to be the day I'll be using Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, as the main page FA, so both features that day will be mine :) Raul654 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there three other sections on the Main Page that you could aim for too, you know. It should be relatively easy to write a new article for WP:DYK, and something is bound to happen that deserves to appear in WP:ITN. WP:SA will be the hardest. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
big blue blanket looks tempting to write, but it's probably too obscure (I have no idea where I'd find a citable source) Raul654 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It was a technique devised by Jimmy Thach to ward off kamikaze attacks. Fighters would fly in radius of up to 80 miles from their carriers, and (using radar coordination) would intercept incoming kamikazes long before they could attack ships. Raul654 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah - I see: interdict the suicide bombers them at arm's length, before they are a problem. Google finds pages on a New Zealand band of that name too, but I doubted that was what you were referring to. Anyway Google is your friend - "big blue blanket"+kamikaze turns up some decent links. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Net neutrality[edit]

Looks like a bad case of The Shills! What to do about it? -Ste|vertigo 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Charizard FAC[edit]

Sorry, I just wanted to get some clarification in relation to Charizard's FAC, and the validness (like that's a word) of the objections. People are arguing over the quality of the "poor" quality of the references, and it's a few steps away from Bulbasaur.

On a side note, can I wave a small flag for Torchic for September 28? Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The objections to the reliablity of certain sources are debatable. I'm not sure if reliable sources on individual pokemon exist (I suspect those pokefans who say they do not exist are correct). Assuming they do not, do we allow FAs on such subjects, where there exist no highly reliable sources? I'm inclined to say yes (because I personally am reluctant to put in place rules that bar whole subjects from becoming FAs), but I recognize that there are others who take more principled, less pragmatic approach. So, to put it bluntly - I'm not sure. It's a corner case we never anticipated.
On the other hand, there are other valid objections (such as Sabine's) that definitely should be addressed. Raul654 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that's reassuring. I will get around to Sabine's notes, I'm swamped ATM, and the WP:PCP has done a runner. Nice to know they'll be back to take the credit. Highway Daytrippers 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for leaving a message, Highway Daytrippers 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just out of interest, what time would you determine as long enough? It's just, I don't see similar restrictions placed on other FAs. Sorry, Highway Daytrippers 19:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lion King[edit]


I have a couple of questions about The Lion King's FAC.

1. Do you believe there are too many fair use images? I have had some objections regarding that.

2. What do you think of the references? Do you believe there are enough to get this to featured status?

I apologize if you are the wrong person to come to, but I'm new at this FAC thing, so bare with me! Thanks for your time. PlatformerMastah 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

William Clarke College[edit]

Hey Raul, when you get a chance could you use oversight to remove the following?

I have the list of edits at User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/William_Clarke_College. Thanks mate!

Ta bu shi da yu 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

Hi -- thanks for helping me with the Microsoft vandalbot. There's an unblock request at User talk: now, though, saying that it's a Singapore mass hub (probably a Starhub address). Could you please unblock it or just block it for 15 minutes or so? I hate the reality of the situation too, but I'll keep watch over that IP until I log off. I realize this may not be the formal way of requesting an unblock, but it does look like that IP needs to be unblocked very quickly.

Thanks again -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How about I reblock it to allow registered users (but disallow anon editing or new account registration)? Raul654 07:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It's alright, it's already been unblocked. I think soft blocking/disallowing anonymous edits wouldn't really address the problem, which is really just that occasional vandalbot, moreso than punish the legitimate users. Thanks for helping stop the vandal, though. I think everything's okay now, and I'll keep watching that IP for a while. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC Jake Gyllenhaal[edit]

Could I please ask why you failed this article? It had 4 supports and 2 objections - one objection was by an editor who had had his concerns addressed and had not replied when I contacted him. The other was from a a writer who also did not reply. 4-2 seems like consensus to me and the objecting editors had had their concerns addressed. Dev920 09:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please could you reply soon? Dev920 11:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
4-2 is (IMO) not consensus. Feel free to renominate it in the future, though. Raul654 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

35mm main page featured article[edit]

Hi Raul! I'd like to thank you for promptly scheduling 35 mm film for a main page feature on September 29th, but as a primary editor of the article and its FAC nominator, I would also like to request that this be indefinitely postponed. Basically, there are still some areas that I think could do with a little bit of tweaking and expansion, but I'm unfortunately not as able to do the required edits as I'd like to be for another month or so due to work dominating my life at the moment. I do definitely want this to get to the main page, but I would feel bad knowing that it could easily be even better. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Girolamo Savonarola 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested diff[edit]

[26] TIA. -- Longhair 02:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Diff erased. Raul654 02:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured picture delisting[edit]

I've nominated your Featured Picture Image:Camouflage.jpg for delisting. Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Flounder camo md.jpg for the discussion. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A provocative edit summary[edit]

Looking at this diff, I must ask where is the style change you supposedly reverted? I'm not complaining about your edit, which looks fine to me, considering the subject, merely your edit summary, which is, at best, misleading. --Jumbo 10:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you to take offense -- I meant that edit was both cleanup and revert the dating style (two seperate things in the same edit, which is why I seperated them with a semicolon). I rewrote parts of the article (breaking up the paragraph, adding the birthdate to the intro, splitting a compound sentence, and several other minor things - aka, cleanup) as well as changing the dating style. Raul654 13:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
But you didn't revert the dating style. I've been going through, wikifying dates of the "xxth of January" variety to "xx January". These are easy targets for wikification. In this case I missed the fact that it was an American subject, so I have no problems with you changing the format, but it seems to me that you are being imprecise in your attempts at explanation. --Jumbo 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. You are right about that - I apologize for the mistake. Raul654 13:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Barney Gumble[edit]

Hey -- just wanted to let you know I've undone this block. There was an edit conflict going on, sure, but no discussion was attempted with this user. I gave a warning, but undid the block. Mangojuicetalk 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2006[edit]

I saw you edited the article. Next Wednesday? Thank you :))) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

October 4 Today's Featured Article[edit]

Hi, Raul,

I kindly draw your attention to the request for the October 4 slot to: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Lost_.28TV_series.29. That seems to be the most appropriate day, as any later and the article is liable to experience fan-entropy. Much thanks, --LeflymanTalk 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See the section immediately above. I'm sure that the Rhinoceros would be entirely happy to cede its position to Lost, although query whether the day before the third series starts (i.e. 3 October) would be better than the day itself? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, ALoan. I missed your note prior to posting. Since October 4 UTC actually starts on October 3 in the States, I thought it worked well, to match the expected interest in Lost's season premiere-- and wouldn't appear as "promotional" if it were earlier. Durer's Rhinoceros is quite interesting, but doesn't seem to have a particular date associated with it. (Well, except perhaps for May 20, but that's a way off.) --LeflymanTalk 16:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Both of you (Leflyman and Aloan) are welcome. Raul654 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And much thanks, Raul, for reviewing that. -LeflymanTalk 03:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Raul654 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan on the Main Page[edit]

Hi Raul, the current scheduled POTD for October 2 is Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png. Seeing as you control the FAs (and have deliberately kept Wikipedia off the Main Page as a blatant self-ref), I thought this might interest you. I've brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Wikipe-tan as POTD? any comments would be appreciated, thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god... absurd.... Raul654 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy tag for FA[edit]

I was wondering if you think this idea makes sense. Marskell 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

JayJG and date styles[edit]

Could I ask you to take a look at this discussion and work something out with JayJG, please. I'm sure he thinks I'm deliberately provoking him, and I'm just trying to get a consistent opinion, which really shouldn't be this hard. --Jumbo 21:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All your Meetup images are at CSD[edit]

An awful lot of Meetup 2005 images you took are listed at CSD because they have restricted licenses (WIkipedia only) and you haven't changed the tag to GFDL-self. I'm not going to delete them but someone else might and I wanted to make sure you had a heads-up. Thatcher131 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Notification was already given above. [27]Psychonaut 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Images for deletion[edit]

The following images have been listed for deletion as they are not used on any article:

Psychonaut 00:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2006[edit]

I'm assuming that you didn't mean to leave Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2006 unprotected. :) — TKD::Talk 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed most of the October ones are unprotected when I looked at them earlier.--Peta 01:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was an oversight on my part not to protect the October 9 blurb. I just went through every one of them, and the only unprotected one I saw besides the 9th was LOTR on the 5th (which I fixed). Raul654 01:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Raul654. AFAIK you were the one who started the Exosquad article and were the first who said "The show was advertised and marketed as a saturday morning cartnoon for children, but found most acclaim amoung teenagers and young adults. Because of this misunderstanding, the ratings never lived up to their potential, and the the show was cancelled after only two seasons." This statement has been now tagged with "citation needed", so maybe, you would like to add some sources?.. %) --Koveras  18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Template:Infobox VG:[edit]

You recently protected[28] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India[edit]

Hey! I saw you removed this FAC from WP:FAC without changing the template on the talk page of the article. Could you please look into it. Thanks! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops - I was halfway through promoting/archiving and got distracted. Raul654 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello. You changed the FAC bar on Photon's talk page to be a featured bar, but the debate still seems to be going on at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Photon and the Photon page doesn't seem to be marked as featured. What's going on? Mike Peel 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely featured - [29] and [30] (the latter is the definitive list) Raul654 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I was under the impression that the debate pages were flagged as archives once consensus had been reached, but evidently not. I've now added the {{featured article}} flag to the main page, and upgraded the rating on the wikiproject banner on the talk page. Hopefully that was the right thing to do. Mike Peel 22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes for All you need is love[edit]

Why did you remove quotes from the FA page for the song All You Need is Love? It is proper format for songs to be in quotes. All other links to songs on that page are in quotes. Medvedenko 00:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be problematic given the way I do the scheduling, but as I see it's not the only one, I suppose it won't be a problem. I've reverted myself. Raul654 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was curious. It hadn't been an issue until now. Medvedenko 00:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Public relations:[edit]

You recently protected[31] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Images on episode lists[edit]

Are images allowed on episode list pages?? (Yugigx60 13:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC))


Thanks for taking care of the Tor exit nodes. I was just about to see if I could find somebody with a bot to do the job. --GraemeL (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A TOR block-bot would certainly come in handy. Raul654 14:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:3 soldiers statue.jpg[edit]

Hi Raul. Can you tell me why you feel this image is not covered by Template:Statue, specifically US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2)? It appears to me this image should be tagged with that template. Your thoughts? --Durin 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The statue itself was made as a work-for-hire by the US Government (making the US government the copyright holder). Beyond that, my guess would be that it is in the public domain, pictures of which are copyrighted by the picture-taker. Raul654 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

TOR blocking[edit]

Thanks for your work blocking those TOR nodes; you're well-suited to the job of checkuser! Keep the good work up.... you've done well!! Smiley.svg --Gold-Horn 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal remarks[edit]

Raul, please don't say I have a "well-established record" of pushing anything other neutrality here at Wikipedia. I've asked countless times to be shown an example of "POV pushing", along with an explanation of how my edits have "pushed" any particular point of view in a way that violates the neutrality of an article. No takers. Not one, not ever.

FM says he "refuses to play the game". [32] Morwen simply referred to an AFD vote which itself gave no reasons for POV fork votes.

I've been branded with the label of a POV pusher and a 'maker of POV forks'. But this is unfair! I've only tried to balance articles so that they do not assert any one POV as true but rather report what each POV is.

I respectufully request that you retract your Edit summary remarks. [33] --Uncle Ed 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter[edit]

Hoping you like this idea to try to increase our FA output. Marskell 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FA promotion[edit]

I have noticed that recently the FA pages are not getting the FA template on the main page, just the talk page. I was thinking, you could probably use some helpers. Would you like help closing the FAs? Perhaps you can just add the template to the talk page and I will add it to the main page and add text to the bottom of the FAC page saying if it was promoted or not. What do you think? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Several editors assist Raul654 in dealing with the featured article templates. WP:FA should be definitive, so feel free to add or remove templates on the articles and their talk pages to reflect the position there. Template:FAC on the talk page is essential, but Raul654 is not particularly enamoured of Template:featured article on the actual article (although many other users - including me - like it). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on the main page[edit]

Hi Mark, could you take a look at the discussion at WP Talk:Fair use. Since you're the featured articles director you might have something to say about it. I hope so, since I'm rather confused. Mainly, I'm confused why it is ok to display fair use images on the main page but not on portals. For example, on Portal:Computer and video games it's not ok to display the boxart for The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, but when it's on the main page it does seem to be ok. Why is that??? Cheers, jacoplane 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote impersonator[edit]

We've permanently blocked an impersonator of you over at en:Wikiquote. Since we seem to be moving toward single-user logon, I don't imagine it's necessary to "claim" this user ID for yourself, but I wanted to let you know in case it portends more cross-project impersonation in the meantime. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

RfAr decision wording[edit]

I saw that you slightly modified the wording in one of the paragraphs of the /Proposed Decision in the so-called Giano arbitration, along the lines of a suggestion I made on the talk page, though of course I don't know whether you actually saw my suggestion or it was just a coincidence. Just a reminder that for consistency, you should consider making the same change in the paragraphs dealing with the individuals currently affected. (As indicated, this is a general comment about wording, not a comment on the particular individuals; I've said too much about this case already.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arisch[edit]

Thank you. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I know you aren't the prime person for this question, but you are the judge when it comes to FAC, what should I do with Charizard? I would quite willingly fix the grammatical errors, I set up a peer review, but Taxman more or less halted progress. Is there any point improving the text, if it will be repeatedly shot down because of an unactionable objection? (I know Taxman claims that shrinking it down to "whatever can be reliably sourced" is an actionable objection, but I have to disagree.) Thoughts? Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 10:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

*waves* Highway Grammar Enforcer! 11:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You've asked this here before. There's a great debate about what to do with articles which the authors claim have no reliable sources (read: pokemon). These, of course, lead to debates about what is or is not authortative, etc. It's a subject where reasonable people can disagree. Taxman takes a harder line than I do. I'm not really sure what to do about it. Raul654 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Raul, I have asked what I think is a straightforward question regarding a remedy at [34]. Since that page has... devolved... a bit, I wanted to point it out so it wouldn't be missed. It may be no big deal, I'm not sure. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded there. Raul654 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing protected tag[edit]

Thanks for this edit. You just beat me to it! I wasn't aware that that tag could be applied without protection, and I spent several minutes trying to work out how a (literal) Wiki-newbie could protect an article, when of course it shouldn't be protected. Thanks again. Carcharoth 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome Raul654 16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


just because one person with a well-established track record of pushing pseudoscience says it is biased doesn't make it so

Your record on Football Club Bosna article. N(ogometni) K(lub) Bosna is in bosnian language name for F(ootbal) C(lub) in english. Why you reverted it?! And what's the thing with pseudoscience?! I will revert it again. Just to explain you, and for further reverts please assist me. --HarisM 22:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That was an accident - see my comment on the talk page -- I typed 'rv' and firefox autocompleted it to an edit summary I used days ago. As far as reverting, I was requested to do so because it was improperly moved (cut and paste moved) Raul654 02:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor comment on Giano[edit]

On Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway's RFA remedies, should it be "and, if desired, must get them back through normal channels" instead of "and must get them back through normal channels"? Ral315 (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


This may interest you. It relates to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 7, 2006. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Easily fixed [35] Raul654 04:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ffmpeg2theora and other video converters for wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I don't understand how to work the video converters. Can you help me step by step. Thank you. When I try to use ffmpeg2theora, a command prompt opens, types and closes before my eye can even blink. Please reply on my talk page. Sir Studieselot 04:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this Raul654 16:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Sir Studieselot

Jake Gyllenhaal FAC[edit]

Please pass it. The last FAC had 66% support: but it was failed. This time round, it currently has 100% support. The prose, the only actionable objection in the last FAC, has been taken care of by DaveOinSF; what else can I do? The only objection raised on this nom is that I nommed it too early: but if the prose had been dealt with, and there was a clear majority of supports last time, why wait? WP:IAR and all that. Is this not consensus? Or more to to the point, where are the specific criticisms of the article that speak louder than a mere vote? There aren't any. Because it's a good, FA standard article, and I don't know what standard people who say it isn't are following, but it must be fictional because they can't substantiate it (and are contradicted by all the supports).

So that's why I'm asking you to pass it. Not as some sort of special favour, not because it's my brainchild and I'm blind to any flaws it may have (anything overlooked by me has now been dealt with by other editors); but because it's a good article, with a consensus of support in both FACs. I hope you will consider this. Dev920 (Tory?) 07:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. Dev920 (Tory?) 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


--Ideogram 17:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be. I purposefully didn't any single person out. I just don't feel that continued discussion on the talk page will do anything but embitter people. Raul654 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Not that it has any real significance, but per User:Piotrus's question during the FAC, is Ulm Campaign the fastest FA in Wikipedia's history?UberCryxic 20:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If by fastest you mean least time elapsed between article creation and becoming featured - I have to say I haven't seen anything become featured faster than that article. Raul654 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No - see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive8#New→featured record? from April 2005 - I think Pioneer Zephyr and Kreutz Sungrazers are both still the two fastest, both under 7 days from creation to FA, but Ulm Campaign is probably 3rd. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Dammit you're right. Well in my defense those two articles don't even meet the criteria now. Scotsman fallacy aside, Ulm Campaign is the only true living FA to have gotten there this quickly. So there....UberCryxic 15:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Please suggest DYK entries like everyone else. --Peta 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I don't suggest DYK entries (I don't even know how), and I am sure most other people don't either (rather than it being everyone). --Cyde Weys 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Cyde - the suggestions section has never been a requirement for admins. It's there for non-admins who cannot edit the template. Raul654 16:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think at least two of you are talking at cross-purposes:
  1. There is no compulsion on anyone to add suggestions at Template talk:Did you know. I am also sure that "most people" do not add suggestions there, but then "most people" don't get an article on the Main Page at Template:Did you know either.
  2. After some discussion, it is clear that the DYK regulars consider it bad form for an admin to make use of use their admin bit to add their own article directly to Template:Did you know, and thus jump the queue of articles listed at Template talk:Did you know. A fairly large number of DYK suggesters are admins, and they make their suggestions on the talk page first, like everyone else. Most DYK suggestions make the Main Page, but there is a queue to provide a degree of review of the suggetsions before they do so. I am sure that Raul654 would be unhappy if I or any other admin edited the TFA template to put my own featured article on the Main Page; a DYK is not quite on the same scale, but the same principle applies.
If Raul654 wants to have a quiet word with the next DYK updater, I am sure that something can be done to, ah, improve the record attempt. I have not yet worked out which anniversary is yours, and I have to say that setting off that atomic bomb in North Korea was a bit extreme! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Abbie thanks you[edit]

Abbie thanks you for reverting Keegan's userpage vandalism. Teke (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, Abbie Raul654 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Done[edit]

Hi Raul, Congrats for getting your picture to Featured article star.svg Featured Status, and then today getting it all the way to the front page. Well Done ;) --Deon555talkReview 05:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ps: 158 threads, 158 KB.. time for an archive perhaps? :) --Deon555talkReview 05:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For about 5 minutes, my work was featured in 3 sections of the main page - the featured article, featured picture, and did you know -- a record that will be very difficult to beat :) Raul654 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa nice stuff ;) --Deon555talkReview 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you turn Ogg back to other files too?[edit]

Sorry for disturbing you again, but I was wondering whether you could change Theora to other files too. Also, I don't know how to change MIDI files to Ogg files. Thank you! Respond on my talk page. Sir Studieselot 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond. I don't mean to be rude. Sir Studieselot 04:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not too difficult to change ogg vorbis into mp3 using audacity; ogg theora into anything, on the other hand, is nearly impossible (since virtually nothing does theora). Midi to ogg vorbis can be done with audacity, but I don't really see any point (other than to make it system portable). Raul654 04:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean that you can upload MIDI files to Wikipedia? What a pity that no video converters can convert Theora files! Sir Studieselot 02:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Block on User:[edit]

Hi. This user sent an email to unblock-en-l asking that they be unblocked, as they hadn't intended to vandalize anything. They believe that their edit to the Iwo Jima article [36] [37] was intended as a positive contribution. They have indicated that they want to create an account, otherwise contribute, and talk to you about it but can't as they're blocked for a month... Which seems excessive, the edit seems fairly innocuous to me, unless there's a pattern in the article history I didn't see.

Are you willing to apply WP:AGF and give them a chance to show that they have positive intentions?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 04:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Woodsball video[edit]

Hey Raul654. I'd like to know if you could help me out with converting an MPEG video I have on my computer of a woodsball heavy weapons specialist firing his rocket launcher into .OGG format. Thanks! -Maximilli, 20:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this Raul654 02:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That did it. Thanks for your time. - Maximilli, 05:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Charizard Again[edit]

Greetings Mr. Raul! I know this is HARDLY a significant or groundbreaking topic, but would you mind checking out the characteristics section for the Charizard article? It's oozing with awkward "woulds" and "coulds", and looks rather unsightly and grammatically incorrect. What are your thoughts on it? Mr. Highwaycello keeps reverting it, thinking it keeps it "out of universe", but I beg to disagree... He also tends to delete anything anyone else adds, even if valid. Nintenboy01 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


I have a query concerning this edit. How "the most significant" is not a peacock term, when WP:PEACOCK specifically identifies "significant" as such and there is huge discussion on talk pertaining to this issue? Should I add {{dubious}} tag instead? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone tried to impersonate you[edit]

Thought you might find this entertaining. A user named HRosson (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) tried to impersonate you by putting "{{User:Raul654}}" on his user page. --StuffOfInterest 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename user (bis repetita)[edit]

Raul, you never answered this request. Could you have a look at it? Bradipus 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 23:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, I feel like I am myself again ;-) Bradipus 20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

FAC - Thiruvananthapuram[edit]

Raul, The article Thiruvananthapuram was nominated for FA on 30.sept.06. The FAC comments are being addressed, and some users supported the article. The article is now moved to FAC Failed state on 10.oct.06! This time span is too short, as the article was receiving positive responses all the days. As the editors are constantly trying to improve the article, and the issues are being resolved; can I change it back to FAC state from its FAC Failed state ??? -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 11:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

TFA request[edit]

Hey Raul, kindly check if you could squeeze in this one: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Macedonia (terminology). Rationale for the dates is below in the request. Thanks. •NikoSilver 16:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikpedia The Movie[edit]

Someone deleted the article while I was editing it, all there is is my scene, what is going on?

†he Bread 05:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Raul654 00:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


The disco ball of knowledge certifies that Raul654 is among the finest contributors in the world of Wikipedia, and helps it to never stop turning. Bravo, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 10:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1956[edit]

Hi Raul! A quote from an editor: "We are working hard to prepare the article 1956 Hungarian Revolution for FA status and would love it if it could be featured on 23 October, which is the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising. It would mean a lot to not only Hungarians but also to all who have ever lived under repression to see it honoured as FA on the front page on its 50th anniversary. This was truly one of the bravest acts of the 20th century. Please give a think and consider it for this date. Thank you in advance. Istvan 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)"

Now it seems the candidation procedure goes well (15 support votes) and we would still like it to be featured on the main page on 23 October. I know well, it's not a featured article yet, I just wanted to ask you to think about that and consider it for this date. Thank you in advance! NCurse work 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of all who worked to bring this up to FA status - Nagyon Szépen Köszönjük ! (we thank you very much!) Istvan 20:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As you would expect, Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is a headline item for WP:SA on 23 October, and it is traditional not to have the same article featured prominently in two places on the Main Page. How about 10 November instead, the day when the last pocket of resistance called for a ceasefire? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raul, and thanks once again. Please please consider a workaround, so that 56 can be FA on 23 Oct. - Here are a couple of suggested solutions: 1. WP:SA on 23 Oct to say "see feature article" (the wp:sa entry's current version is not completely correct); 2. Amend the Oct 25 wp:sa to mention that the Government fell (the parliament massacre already mentioned) and this was, technically speaking, the date of the "revolution" (i.e. change of government), or 3. Mention the end of the revolution on 10 November in wp:sa and under any circumstances allow the FA to run on 23 October. We are happy to help with any of this.
Please understand that in Hungarian eyes, 23 October is the special day; 10 November is not the appropriate time to run this FA. Nobody smiles on November 10. I apologise right now for being very presumptuous, our motivations are not for ourselves but to remember some very brave people who paid all they could, in a way that nobody else dared, and as another editor put it - its a once in a lifetime opportunity (avg. life expectancy of the Hungarian male is less than 60 years). If we can be of any service (i.e. editing wp:sa text) we are happy to do so. Once again, thank you for your consideration.Istvan 00:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not Raul654 (although I obviously share his innate common sense and good looks). I'm sure he will think of a suitable work-around. It seems pretty clear that the article must be in WP:SA on 23 October - would it work for you if the FA was on the Main Page on 25 October? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. We must plea for 23 Oct for this story as this is unquestionably the date deeply connected to the event in the hearts of all Hungarians. 25 Oct would only work for wp:sa as it is interesting but only in an academic sense. 23 Oct for feature is really the thing to do, as those who fought for their freedom will not live to see another round anniversary as significant this one, the 50th anniversary, before they die (and they're starting to go quickly now). And, you have to admit, that article is in very good condition - it has become not only the best illustrated infosource for 56 on the web, but also a tour-de-force for Wikipedia at its best, and what it can accomplish. Its timely delivery will make everyone happy. Istvan 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We could somehow mention the date being an anniversary in the Featured article box , and then remove it from WP:SA for this year.
Also the commemoration events on the 23rd will be pretty significant, maybe even (wiki)news worthy with about 40 heads of state and high ranking officials attending, but more importantly the whole country has been preparing for the anniversary (with erecting statues, planning the commemoration events all over Hungary). I don't think there is any one date in this half of the century (until 2056...) that bears this much significance as this for the Hungarians. Making it the FA of the 23rd would be a gesture of such grandure that can never be repeated; the date is essential I think as the circumstances (50th anniversary) can never be recreated, and most of all bureaucracy should NOT be the reason for it not making to the front page.
Sorry for taking your time with this possibly redundant post, I just felt I needed to take a stand. Thank you for your appreciation! --Dami 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE put it as FA instead of wp:sa on Oct. 23. PLEASE. We've worked so hard for this, for the memory of the fallen, for Magyarország!! PLEASE make it FA on 10/23. K. Lastochka 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

K. Get a hold of yourself! Get a grip, man!--Paul 04:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, my mistake--funny how some people get emotional about big anniversaries of momentous events, isn't it? :) K. Lastochka 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it would be much more important to see the article on the main page on 23 October than in WP:SA. The contributors have worked unbelievably much to get this ready for that date. An other date would be a great disappointment. I see the confrontation between WP:SA and the main page article, but this time an exception would be welcome. It's very significant for millions of people to see that perfect article on the main page on THE date. Thank you for your appreciation! NCurse work 12:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Chiming in here to emphasize that main page is more important that WP:SA. If the conflict (and potential precedent of a dual feature) is such a problem, just take the article out of WP:SA for this year and put it back in forevermore after 2006-10-23. Of course, an exception allowing this one-time conflict, would be welcome. For Hungarians, October 23 is sort of like Thanksgiving, July 4, the day Cornwallis surrendered, and the day the Constitution was adopted, all rolled up into one.--Paul 13:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I too must emphasize that having the article on the main page on 10-23 is much more important than a mention on WP:SA. Putting it up on 10 Nov. would really be terribly inappropriate. 10/23 is the day we take pride in Hungary's constant refusal to put up with oppression and celebrate the bravery of the revolutionaries. 11/10 is the day we weep over their graves. K. Lastochka 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Something similar to this happened with Hurricane Katrina on August 29 (one-year anniversary of landfall), and the request wasn't granted. I agree, if there is the chance to showcase an article in TFA on an important anniversary, then it should just be kicked off of WP:SA. Titoxd(?!?) 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, at the risk of setting an unfortunate precedent, I'll (hesitantly) grant this request, and we'll see what happens from there. Raul654 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Raul654. You have done a very good thing - to help the world remember some very brave people at this significant time. It is not for us, but for them. We, who helped make this article shine, are happy to see it before the eyes of the world at the spot-on proper time. Mégegyszer Nagyon Szépen Köszönjük ! (once again, we thank you very much!) Istvan 04:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many many thanks! Everything has worked out just as we hoped! Here's to you, 56'ers!! K. Lastochka 14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks too, Ruhrfisch 15:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Instantly[edit] gives the following definition:

It doesn't mean "within a day". The guys who raised the flag were not "instant" celebrities, they weren't even identified in the initial publications. It's sloppy writing.Michael DoroshTalk 03:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your face at work[edit]

The... fruits... of your face, as requested. (Took me a bit too long to find. It was hidden in the archives! Imagine that!) --Keitei (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Failing History of Solidarity[edit]

Raul, could you do me a favour and tell me why you failed this nom? As you know I have created close to 20 FAs and I was suprised this one fell through. Not counting my nominator vote, there were 5 supports and 4 opposes; that's close but: 2 oppose votes just claim POV without citing any references (or discussing the issue at talk page) and (hope this is not WP:WL) they seem to me to fail to present 'a specific rationale that can be addressed'; two other opposes are on minor techical grounds (unaddressed one include cluttered pictures, non-brilliant prose and footnotes inside sentences); I have replied to all of them and they look rather minor to me. That said, while I think the POV objections are rather POVed themselves, I am trying to discuss the technical issues, and considering my nom is from October 13, and we still have open noms from Septmeber, I was expecting we would have a week or more to discuss the article at FAC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul, is there some specific reason you are not replying to my enquiry? The FAC discussion, despite being removed from the page, is still active, and one user asked me why it was closed so soon.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring you. To answer your question - I gave it the usual 5 days, after which, it was 5 in favor and 4 opposing. This is clearly not consensus, nor is it likely to settle to a consensus in any reasonable time frame. That's why I removed it. Raul654 05:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I am however worried about the new tactic I am seeing by some users who oppose on the ground of POV, without citing any sources, but succeeding in derailing FACs. Still, if you deem those arguments have merit, it's your decision.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Raul. This "one more user" it was me :) I can understand your cutting-off technique in your job. Just a remark. In this particular case many issues have been addressed (or, at the very least, reasonably answered). Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days , did they have their chance? Moreover, addressing some objections require some time (copyediting, for example). One might expect some improvements. Further, personally, I like to make some analysis before voting... and I was too late. I would appreciate if you could rethink your technique of quick delisting. Best, --Beaumont (@) 11:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Counting recent comments and a user who told me on my talk he is no longer objecting, the score is 9:3. But I will renominate it after Logologist finishes his copyedit. But I'd appreciate your reasons for considering Ghirla's and Irpen's objection valid. I am not questioning your judgement, I am trying to understand my POV and while I thought their objections are not valid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that when you put the featured article tag on the Gliding talk page, you removed (understandably) the Good Article tag but also the FAOL tag? Is that a standard practice? Is there some reason for it? I generally think it would be a good idea to keep them on as even if we have FAs in more than one language, it is still possible to improve them with information from the other. (In this case the German article has some detail about the early history of gliding not found in ours). Daniel Case 00:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is standard practice to remove FAOL from articles once they become featured articles. The purpose of FAOL is to indicate alternate languages articles from which mateiral could be imported to improve an en article to FA status. By achieving FA status, it negates the purpose of having the FAOL tag. Raul654 00:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of FAOL was not to provide a source to improve an article to featured status, but to provide a source to improve an article. Since featured articles can still be improved, why remove the tag? It seems that links to old peer reviews are not removed; I imagine this is for the same reason. Pagrashtak 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup[edit]

Perhaps you might perfer [:Image:Free RWC William Webb Ellis.PNG]] over Image:England_world_cup_winners.jpg (currently going up)--HamedogTalk|@ 04:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also Image:Mike Tindall Webb Ellis.JPG :P--HamedogTalk|@ 05:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Image:William Webb Ellis Cup.jpg is also very good.--HamedogTalk|@ 12:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.[edit]

I don't have easy internet access at the mo, so thanks for letting me know which day to go and admire my article! Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Raul 654, you never answered the last question here. Sir Studieselot 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Midi files are on the allowed list or not. Raul654 00:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding comments to archived FA discussion[edit]

Hi, do you think it's acceptable to add comments with "support" or "oppose" votes to archived discussions of FA candidates? Closed RfA and AfD discussions, for example, have a warning asking people not to modify them, but there seems to be some ambiguity regarding FA candidate discussions. Beit Or 11:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

TFA request[edit]

Hello Raul! I've just added the Kochi article to the TFA suggestions list. It would be great if you could schedule it for November 1st, as it happens to be a sort of "double anniversary" for the city this year. TIA!--thunderboltz(Deepu) 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano RfA and User:John Reid[edit]

Hi. You're probably already aware, but just in case you missed it, an issue has arisen in the so-called Giano RfA regarding the proposed ban of User:John Reid and an alternative proposal, after you moved to close the case. I know you are monitoring the Proposed Decision talk page so you may have seen some discussion on this issue. My views are set forth there and I won't lobby here but I do urge that you and the other arbitrators attend to that item of pending business so the case can indeed close. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Jim Inhofe[edit]

Hey, I don't really think the discussion regarding the graph on Jim Inhofe is really addressing the main points I and the other "anti-graphers" have made, so I went ahead and summed up the reasons I still feel the graph doesn't belong. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and respond on the talk page. Thanks, Elmer Clark 04:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Giano" arbitration and pending proposal[edit]

With the so-called "Giano" arbitration about to close, I wanted to make sure you were aware that there is a pending proposal by one of the arbitrators (to modify the proposed ban on User:John Reid) which several arbitrators including yourself have not yet considered and voted upon. I am sure you are aware of the extensive discussion of this issue on the talked page. You may wish to give this your attention before the case closes. Newyorkbrad 12:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark sock army[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You deserve no less, my friend. Good show!--MONGO 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


User:ZEC117 has stolen your personal information on your user page, and uses your name for dubious means (i.e. nominating the 2006 World Series for an AFD). Just a warning. bibliomaniac15 00:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ZEC117 (aka user:MY PASSWORD IS frogs, aka user:XLR Freak, aka user:User:Railer 881) has been a busy bee. I've blocked his IP for a month - sounds like he could use the vacation.
The moral of the story - don't mess with checkuser. Raul654 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfect T[edit]

I did see it, and it warmed my heart. (Is that wrong?) I figured it was a troll, but I thought it best to wait until there was no doubt before requesting a block. Did you recognize the style, or were you just keeping an eye on Akens? Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer not to say what tipped me off on this page. (Where checkuser is concerned, I try not to give away any trade secrets) Ask me on IRC and I'll be happy to tell you. Raul654 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And, by the way, no, it's not wrong at all Raul654 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, s/he's a sock? Well, I apologize for re-adding the WP:AN thread then. I thought s/he cited a bit too much policy to actually be a newbie, but I quelled those thoughts. It appears I WP:AGF'ed a bit too much in this case. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 01:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's okay; I'm not overly concerned about your methodology. 'Tis a pity I missed the WP:AN thread before its oh-so-untimely demise. I haven't been accused of going rogue by an angry sock for a while, and it's nice to know I haven't lost the touch. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano Rfar[edit]

Thanks, that was in danger of becoming a very peculiar outcome. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree; thank you for your follow-up on this matter, perhaps prompted in part by my post above. I know this was a judgment call and appreciate your willingness to consider the matter afresh. I also hope that some of the discussion might have been of help to you in resolving a very complicated situation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Banned user talk pages[edit]

SlimVirgin wrote:

Fon, are you Gurch? I was wondering about the wisdom of deleting talk pages of banned users. It can be quite helpful to read talk page posts of sockpuppets if they turn up again in another guise. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 wrote:

I just came here to point out the same thing. Please desist from deleting users whom I tag as sockpuppets. Raul654 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this has caused any problems; you are of course free to reverse any deletions you think were inappropriate. My intention is not to delete all banned user talkpages, or all sockpuppet pages. I'll try to explain my rationale. The bulk of these userpages are simply being removed from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages; a category that was set up about a month ago and into which all new pages with {{indefblockeduser}} or similar templates are placed. The idea is that once these pages have gone a month without being edited, they are to be removed. The month-long delay gives the blocked user plenty of time to make an unblock request, or otherwise contest the block before the pages are removed. Usually, the userpage will consist only of {{indefblockeduser}}, and the talkpage will have something like a username block message or a series of vandalism warnings. Since the category is relatively new, there are a large number of similar pages that are not in the category because {{indefblockeduser}} has been substituted on to them; I have also been deleting these (if they have not been edited in over a month). I'm sure you'll agree that there is little point in having pages like these; I should clarify that the original idea was not mine (the category is the end result of a series of CfDs and other changes none of which I participated in) – it has just fallen to me to do the actual deletions.

I do, however, understand the problems caused by deleting certain banned user and sockpuppet accounts, and I appreciate the need for these to stay. The pages of banned users (as opposed to merely blocked users) shouldn't be in the temporary userpages category, nor should sockpuppet accounts blocked for being sockpuppets (as opposed to username or vandalism blocks). I have taken extra care not to delete any banned users' pages, so if one or two have slipped through, I apologize. I have ignored sockpuppet pages in most cases – again, it is certainly not my intention to delete them all. However, I have deleted these in some cases – when the page's title is not only inappropriate but extremely offensive; this includes violent personal attacks against specific contributors, anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi sentiments, and other excessive uses of profanity. Most of these are blocked for inappropriate username but some are tagged as sockpuppets. I refuse to believe that there is any valid reason for retaining pages titled, for example, "User:I'm in ur germany, gassing ur jews", no matter what they have done or what the admininstrative need may be. These usernames, sockpuppet or not, were created purely for the purposes of getting attention.

If I have deleted talk pages of banned users (those prohibited from editing under any account by an ArbCom ruling or Jimbo) then this was a mistake; it was certainly not my intention, and feel free to reverse it immediately. If I have deleted sockpuppet pages which contain useful information and do not have an offensive page title as described above, then once again I apologize; these must have slipped through the net. The material on most of these pages seemed to be limited to witty {{unblock}} requests or simply a block message, however if there is more than just that, it negates my argument that the page is pointless – Gurch 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm currently working on malaria in order to improve it to FA status. However, I notice it has a FA star already, although it is not listed on the FA page. I'm confused, which is correct? TimVickers 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles is the authoritative list. It's not listed as an FA there, therefore it is not a featured article. Raul654 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my fault, I imported some formatting for external links from the AIDS article and didn't notice the featured tag. TimVickers 14:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Shorthanded unpreparedness, maybe, on my part: FA[edit]

Earlier today (October 28th) I was observing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2006 to see if there were any upcoming articles for which I could make an audio file, because WP:SPOKEN notes that

So I started with hydrogen, since I can't pronounce Japanese names without massacring them and am frankly not interested in movie history, and found that the science article was to my liking (and ability to pronounce). Remarkably, I did not finish by the time the article got on the front page; I did not expect the recording to take 6 hours when the article audio is only 30 minutes. This is my first time doing a recording, so if I don't sound too bad, would it be a good idea to (at the last moment) add the audio link on the Main Page? I hope I'm not coming off too conceited. If the audio file isn't that good, it would be a good idea not to display it on the Main Page. Thanks for your latent consideration.

--Gracenotes T § 06:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have three links on the main page template, which is about the limit. Beyond that, and it looks cramped. So I'm not keen on putting another one there. Raul654 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Raul![edit]

This is Judgesurreal777, just saying hi, and mentioning that V for Vendetta would be great for November 5ths Featured Article, since that is Guy Faukes day. Remember, remember, the 5th of November! All the best, Judgesurreal777 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the movie for the first time a couple weeks ago. I haven't made up my mind, but this is a very interesting suggestion. Raul654 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You Rock Raul! Thanks so much!! :) Judgesurreal777 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Parkinson surgery.jpg[edit]

Hi Raul, the image is not from me, I added it after a search following a Wikipedia:Requested pictures entry. I do not know the uploader, but if he claims GFDL i am willing to believe it unless he has a bad history or someone else has a credible claim otherwise. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Raul. Do you have any suggestions regarding how to get feedback on my FAC? Kroger Babb has been sitting there for a week now, and is the only one without any comments. I don't know if it's poor form to promote the nomination, or if you have tips for people to get more input or what. With his 100th birthday coming up in a little over a month, I was hoping to get some consensus on it to nominate it for that day, but while I know the process takes a while, I expected some input. Any clue? Reply here, I'll keep it watchlisted. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Am I wrong in feeling that the article Hinduism is tried to be monopolised by HeBhagawan on one or other pretext while removing my worthy edits and resorting to sock-puppetry with Apandey? Do I have a right to object to such attitude in principle? I feel, you must be over burdened but could I request you to see the edits and it's removal by HeBhagawan and discussion? Could I look upon you for your just views? Swadhyayee 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)