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


Copyrightleft infringement?[edit]

Seems like this guys (an italian newspaper) are using something really rally similar to the one you contributed and licensed under GFDL. Just to let you know, in the past I've contacted them for similar cases but it wasn't really useful... See you, good work
( here I am, just in case of a response ^^ )

Plant gallery usage[edit]

Did you want entries in your plant galleries marked when they are used? I see some images are already in articles, so you or someone else did not mark images which already have found an obvious home. (SEWilco 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

I hadn't thought to do that. For the purposes of browsing them, I'd actually prefer to keep them unmarked. But if it would help people, I wouldn't object to temporarily marking them, or creating a copy and marking that one. Raul654 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page (Slavery)[edit]

Although I do think that one can decry slavery exorbitantly, I was amongst those who had occasion to laugh at your "bias" observation. At DoomsDay's quasi-suggestion, then, I bestow upon you a barnstar (although it should be observed that it is not one—<shudders>—that has been approved for use). Cheers!

Titian-salome.jpg The Barnstar of Decapitatory Humor
For being so funny as to render one editor headless and to cause another to wet his computer, Raul is to be praised (and admonished to be less homicidally humorous in the future). Joe 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Why thank you :) Raul654 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Goblet fire cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 04:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey there Raul, how's it going? :-) Thank you so much for taking the time to close my RfA and handing me my new shiny mop. And since I'm going to leave this message, I might as well thank you for everything you do here. Yes, thank you, Raul! All the best, Anas talk? 15:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ID again[edit]

Thanks Raul. Plainly this topic requires ongoing diligence. I get to like the concept of having a separate category for "stable article" or "previously consensused" article more and more as I see the difficulties this topic has had when newer, unfamiliar editors come on board. But for the moment, thanks. ... Kenosis 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

HELP!! I think your ongoing attention would be helpful at the ID article, and maybe an observation here and there on the talk page too. Three editors come in and change a longstanding sentence to read that ID argues for a redefinition of science so it can be included as science, I adapt the language so it works, and now Adam Cuerden is confusing the issues once again. (ID holds itself out as science irrespective of their pushes to redefine science, and its push to change the definition of science is only one prong of their approach.) ... Kenosis 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


I know you already got this barnstar, but I couldn't help but give it to you, to. You have a great sense of humor!

Titian-salome.jpg The Barnstar of Decapitatory Humor
I, too, award you this barnstar because your comment on Talk:Main Page was the funniest comment I have ever read. As well, Wikipedia, the movie is funnier then any Uncyclopedia article! You have certainly brightened up my day. Thank you. - Thekittybomb 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Cult of Raul[edit]

Signatories, please sign below:





;-)) ... Kenosis 00:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

dien bien phu[edit]

I moved the Castor picture ([[Image:Dien Bien Phu.jpg]]) of yours to the Operation Castor article. I've corrected the picture comment as well.

You can select another fair use in the archives galleries I have added in the Dien Bien Phu article (Media Links). Paris By Night 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Date requests[edit]

I would like to take a moment to comment on you for allowing date requests on the requests page. I think that you understood where the majority (plurality?) was coming from in discussion, and I see it as a great way for both the users to suggest dates and the FA director to use that input in his/her decisions. I think that the way you set it up is a great way to have handled it, being that you only allowed 5 requests at one time, which is a small number but reasonable nonetheless.

Again, thank you for seeing out what others urged for; being able to listen to suggestions and act on them is an important thing to do when you are the only one in charge. I know from external experience that you get this whole new realm of ideas and possibilities when you mix your ideas with those of others. So I would urge you, whenever possible, to consult with others around you before making decisions (no matter how big) because in the end, it will only make people more appreciative of the work you do for us. Thanks, again. Jaredt  21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Username change please[edit]

User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat -- Cat chi? 00:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It took 30 tries (maybe more) but it finally went through. Raul654 00:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Mind 3RR -- it would be typical of a certain individual to try and nail you there. This Dkowalski person has been singularly unhelpful, though I don't think he's done anything actionable yet. Raymond Arritt 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Feature article candidate disappeared[edit]

The link to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Chou just disappeared from the FA nomination page without promotion or fail. I'm new to this FAC process. Has there already been a promotion or fail and I'm not looking in the right place? Thanks! Sorry if I'm asking a dumb question. Great work, by the way! SeleneFN 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I promoted it today, along with 13 others. Gimmebot takes care of the talk pages and whatnot, although apparently today there's been some kind of delay in running it. Raul654 04:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Jerusalem[edit]

Are you sure it's not a good idea to protect the page? I have been doing a lot of reverting. Most of it is simple vandalism, but I am more concerned about POV edits that completely go against the consensus we've built up. Would reverting these edits violate 3RR? Thanks, nadav (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tariq has posted about this issue on AN/I: [1]. nadav (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin's comments there. I'd prefer to avoid protecting the featured article. With that said, however, it's now 3 AM and I'm going to bed ;) Raul654 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Well, I think the situation is under control for the time being at least. Gnight! nadav (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have sprotected again. I realize the 'ideal' is to leave every FA open to all to create a good impression, but at this point the amount of vandalism is just too high, and that creates a bad impression on the balance. Crum375 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go here[edit]

[2] I don't particularly want to get involved, but Rocco keeps asking me to ask this.--Kkrouni 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it the request isn't unreasonable--the unblock template actually does include instructions to remove it after two days in the case of long blocks (news to me, but there you are), and Netsnipe's block notice was still there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This is his exact quote not that you'll care "I'm sorry for having sockpuppets and removing templates, and I won't do anything bad on wikipedia again" Cowboy Rocco --Kkrouni 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I had a few accounts extra too, that I never used so I probably deserve a block too, but we are two different people. (why are you so sure we're one person?)--Kkrouni 01:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars on the main page[edit]

I would like you to clear up something for me as you do not appear to agree nor disagree with the recent activity over the use of fair-use images on the main page. The two Star Wars film articles (The Phantom Menace, and Revenge of the Sith) that were featured on the main page were featured using fair-use images of the film posters used in the article's infobox. Not a word was said. Recently however, a Gnomebot has going through the Today's Featured Request page and purging it of fair-use iamges claiming that it against WP policy to have fair-use images on the main page. For one, it's been done before. Second, according to your page User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts for "Selecting the image" you don't mention anything about fair-use or free images being allowed on the main page.

This has become increasingly frustrating for me because I have had four (now three) requests on the page at one time. And I repeatedly must venture back to the page to readd posters that I know are allowed on the main page. Now Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is going to be featured on the main page with a small photo of a hotel that was used for filming. An image that I think hardly at all conveys "the topic of the FA with as much specificity as possible, even if you took all the rest of the text away." The only image I think that could convey the topic if you took the text away would be the poster. Would you please place the poster on the main page rather than the image of the hotel? And whether you can or cannot, would you please comment on the subject on my talk page so that I may understand the situation? The Filmaker 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You checked the right page, but the wrong section. See page, User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts#Copyright and fair use. Put simply, I do not agree with the absolute restriction on fair use images appearing on the main page. There are obviously topics for which no suitable free image exists. (By suitable, I mean someone knows what the topic is by looking at the image and not having read the blurb). The lengths people have to go to find free images renders the image itself meaningless. If you don't know what the image is after you've read the blurb, that's a huge problem. There's almost no point in having an image there to begin with (except maybe to catch readers' eyes). Granted, there are a very few cases where this is impossible to avoid, but the topics with fair use images are not those kinds of articles. Raul654 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible article?[edit]

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Raul654 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Null (SQL) at FAR[edit]

From FAR:

"This article was promoted 2007-05-22, but I believe that Raul made a mistake promoting it, as the FAC doesn't show any consensus of promoting the article. Perhaps he meant to fail the article, but moved it to the wrong log. →AzaToth 13:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)"

Did you intend to promote after this? Marskell 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AzaToth is correct - I accidentally put it on the promotion list when I meant to put it on the failed list. Raul654 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I think I probably would have left that listed for a little while longer. Since it's over with now, just treat it as a failed FAC nom regardless. Raul654 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be traveling, but am going to leave a note to Gimmetrow, since getting the articlehistory correct here will be tricky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Invalid Checkuser outcome[edit]

The checkuser outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren is obviously invalid. I suspect the confirmation was made based on all the listed editors being customers of Elion and using its public web proxies, or belonging to the same IP address space. (I am not a customer of Elion but of Starman which is probably why I was left out of the "ring".)

Upon advice from robchurch on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en, I ask that you review the checkuser case. I have also presented the same request to David Gerard; I believe that at least one of you two is too busy to act upon it.

Thanks in advance. Digwuren Digwuren 08:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FA date requests[edit]

Hi Raul. I've had my eye off the ball recently, so missed the end of the discussions re date requests. Is there a neat summary of the conclusion somewhere? Want to make sure I play by the rules. Cheers, --Dweller 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a nice concise summary anywhere, so I'll just write one here - the requests were out of control - especially the date requests. I wanted to eliminate the requests page entirely. Other people were unhappy with that. So as a compromise, date requests are now to limited to unpicked dates in the next month, with no more than 5 pending requests at a time. Beyond that, people are still free to request "the next available date" in the section below that on the TFA page as they have always been. Raul654 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope that reduces the angst on this page. --Dweller 07:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment on proceeding on Gracenotes, RfA[edit]

Hi Raul,

It's May 29th. In case you have internet access on that sunny beach, and you're willing to take come time from sand and sun, please consider commenting on the below. Thanks and if you don't respond, I more than understand! :)

As one of the Bureaucrats recently active on RfA, I would like your opinion on how to handle Gracenotes' rather difficult RfA.

There are a huge number of opinions (over 200 supporting and over 70 opposing) and a great deal of argumentation. I would like to reserve a "Bureaucrat Chat" for the really, really difficult and unique situations, like Danny. My concerns here are that:

  • The bureaucrats should not be put in the position of being "supervoters," evaluating everything the community already hashed over, but at a "higher" level;
  • I would like to see this RfA separated from some very strong and quite valid (to the individuals most involved) emotion, as much as this is possible; and
  • Almost all the detailed opposition revolves around a single issue that I believe has acquired a life of its own separate from the candidate's qualifications, and I think Gracenotes at least deserves a chance to make a coherent presentation on the issue and allow the community to express their opinions anew in that light.

I had earlier posted a way forward that can be found (with some comments) at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#One_Bureaucrat.27s_Impression. I would like to proceed according to the six steps I suggested, which has the assent of both the Candidate, and the first opposer on the BADSITES issues, SlimVirgin.

I would be most grateful if you would contact me at my talk page with your assent, different solution and/or comment and discussion. Thanks! -- Cecropia 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with Gracenotes. I'll have a look at it now. A summary would be appreciated. Raul654 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to explain (though you've probably heard by now):
  • Full disclosure: I voted oppose on this nomination.
  • An insane number of people voted for Gracenotes
  • An insane number of people voted against Gracenotes, nearly all opposing due to his opinions regarding links to attack sites. There is some concern that his opinion may have been misunderstood by voters, and that WP:BADSITES is not policy, and perhaps a bad idea. Some oppose voters, notably Musical Linguist, have rebutted that it's not just about BADSITES being a policy, it's also about Gracenotes' posts and opinion on Wikipedia Review, and his opinion on attack sites outside the policy itself.
  • At 73.9%, it's within bureaucrat discretion range.
  • Cecropia has proposed the nomination be re-started to allow voters to understand his true opinion; my opinion is that it would be unfair to Gracenotes, but it's certainly your call.
Clearly my opinion may be clouded a bit, so I encourage you to seek other opinions as well. Ral315 » 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Eyes of the Insane" FAC[edit]

Hi Raul, when you have time could you take a look at the FAC for "Eyes of the Insane"? There's recently been a citation dispute between the Maths Project and GA / GAR, which now seems to have spilled over onto my FAC. As the director of FAC, can you tell me if you feel PMAnderson's oppose is valid according to the FA criteria? I strongly feel his oppose his wholly invalid, and I don't wish for FAC to be disrupted due to a dispute elsewhere regarding citations. Can you take a look sometime, and get back to me? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to make a pass over the FAC very soon - preferably before the end of the month. But, given that I'm going to be on the road for the next couple days (at a Mitrionics workshop at George Washington University) in all likelihood I won't get to it until the weekend. Raul654 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I hope you enjoy your time at this Mitrionics workshop in George Washington University, and it proves a fruitful experience. The weekend sounds fine to me, so I'll await your verdict as regards whether PMAnderson's oppose is valid / invalid in the "Eyes of the Insane" FAC. Take care, and thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just looked over it. I think the objection that there might be a bit too much referencing has a kernel of truth to it. The worst offender was the second paragraph in the origins section (with 5 consecutive noncontroversial sentences referenced to the same source). Here's my recommendation - go over the article, and note any consecutive sentences that reference the same source. If they are making noncontroversial statements of fact (e.g, "He read the article on the plane), delete the ref in the first sentence. Beyond that, the article looks ready to promote. Raul654 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do this, though only because of your recommendation. Please note that PMAnderson's objection is in bad faith as can be proved by his edits. If he does such things in future FACs of mine, please don't allow him to do so as I find it quite disturbing. As far as I am concerned, the things he's done of late as concerns GA warrant a block. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 10:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Per your recommendations, I've cut down on consecutive sentences which reference the same source. Could you take a look at my recent edits to the article and check whether they're correct or not? Also, have I now addressed the "overrferencing" objection? Just wondering, because I can address any valid objections one has. Thanks for everything, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. LuciferMorgan 10:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PMAnderson's also objected at "God Hates Us All" (bad faith again, he even called me "illiterate in the "Eyes" FAC, but I'll defer), though Metalhead's addressed his objection. Is this sufficient for his oppose to be deemed invalid at this FAC? Sorry to barrage you with messages, I apologise. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SR 1002 FAC[edit]

Hey, thanks for concuring with me on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania). Its been a while now and are you going to close it now because everyone else seems to have opposed it. Besides, you can leave a comment if you think it should/shoudn't deserve to be a FA, if you want. But I don't like waiting, and if you close it, I'm cool with it, i'll just take it to GA. Cheers. -- JA10 T · C 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cautious consideration[edit]

I'm cautiously considering working to bring Israel up to featured status. I just want to make sure I'm clear on this: the near-permanent semi-protection due to persistent vandalism will have no bearing on the article's ability to reach featured status; correct? -- tariqabjotu 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 should correct me if I'm wrong, but so far as I know, that should not keep it from becoming featured. Near any article should be able to reach featured status, and opposing a candidacy because of semi-protection would not be an actionable objection. ShadowHalo 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Selfish request[edit]

Hi. Although I generally believe that people doing this puts unfair pressure on you, and is a tad selfish, after reading your comment here that you "try very hard to defer to the wishes of the article's primary author(s)" I've decided to give this a crack. I am the primary author of three articles that have become featured over the last five months (All Blacks, Crusaders (rugby), and Waisale Serevi) and none have yet featured on the main page. I was wondering if it would be possible to have one of them as Today's featured article some time in June. All of them are related to rugby union and the first two are New Zealand articles. Thanks. - Shudda talk 07:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We just had a rugby article yesterday, so I'm hesitant to put another one on for at least a couple of weeks. With that said, I'll try to put one on in later June. I can't make any promises, but I'll see what I can do. Raul654 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for considering. That Sydney Roosters article was rugby league, and the three I'm talking of are rugby union. The sports have things in common, but they are very different. Thanks though. - Shudda talk 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization[edit]

SandyGeorgia suggested that I leave a short note to explain my feeling that this discussion is ready for your review this weekend. Her only lingering objection was a question about the reliability of sources. As she requested, I sourced and summarized opinions from a variety of experts, and the consensus appears to be that the sources are reliable. SandyGeorgia is stuck in a hotel with crappy dial-up Internet so she can't review things thoroughly at the moment, but please ask for her input if you have any questions about this. Jehochman Talk 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with the replies to Sandy's concerns about the reliability of the references - that the nature of that article means that web-based references will tend to be some of the most reliable. As such, I've promoted the article. Raul654 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that was much easier than I expected. Thank you very much! Jehochman Talk 04:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My exploding brain[edit]

Ack. You promoted a batch in June and added them to June archives/promoted, but then reported them as May at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics, which messes with my brain at the Citations list, where I reported the end of May number. ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get them in before the end of the month. The 4 hour difference between UTC and EDT came into play here. I consider the promotions to be in May because my clock still says it's May :) Raul654 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the discrepancy should be removed. Featured articles log lists all the 14 recently upgraded articles in the June month and Featured article statistics lists them in May, so either one of them should be corrected. I prefer you should go with the changing data in the Featured article statistics and make the FAs equal to 1407 in the end of May. DSachan 07:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Changing them now may create a GimmeBotification mess; I'll look at how you've sorted it out when I'm home. Just trying to avoid having confusion somewhere down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The bot has nothing to do with the stats page, so changes there would have no consequence. Moving the articles from the June archive to the May archive wouldn't matter either, since the bot isn't going to look at May again, and they're already tagged closed anyway. Gimmetrow 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey, Raul. I notice that the FA queue for June is mostly blank, so I wanted to put in an anti-request for some FAs I worked on. I'll be away on a business trip from the 2nd to the 6th, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't main-page Cameroon, George Washington Dixon, Old Dan Tucker, or Donkey Kong (video game) during that period. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bongo (antelope)[edit]

Hi Raul. For many months much work has been put into this article by a lot of really dedicated people. The article has previously been a candidiate for FA status but was not promoted for various reasons. After much toil putting right all the concerns I'm asking you to have a look at the article and check out whether or not you feel as if it's up to a candidacy. All the previous concerns have been addressed with many other refinments. We're really working at this over here!

I really appreciate all your efforts and look forward to hearing from you. Yours, Black Stripe 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester FAC[edit]

Hi. When you've got time, could you please explain to me your reasons for failing the Sale, Greater Manchester FAC? Thanks. Epbr123 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to your lack of response, I'll assume you had no good reasons. Epbr123 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC[edit]

Hi Raul, as the FAC nominator of this page last time, you might want to contribute to the current FAC discussion. All the best. TimVickers 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Raul. This article has just promoted to FA. I understand that you are the man who schedules the feature article on the main page. Indonesia's National Day (celebration of its declaration of independence) is 17 August. What are the chances of Indonesia being made article of the day for 17 August 2007? kind regards --Merbabu 10:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Date requests Raul654 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Or you want to be an admin like Marskell. Epbr123 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Raul, you've got this one up for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 11, 2007. It's already been TFAed: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 24, 2006.

If you wanted to be a real gem, you could promote Cougar and throw it up there ;). It's down to the little nitpicks. Marskell 14:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neat - I'll try to make a pass through the FAC soon. Assuming I promote it, I'll have no problems putting it up on the 11th. Raul654 14:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe the article could wait its turn. Epbr123 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't be grouchy—there is no set "turn." I have three (including Cougar) that haven't gone up, but I haven't pestered Raul until he accidently reminded by editing Jaguar today. Some birds have twittered and some dinos have rumbled across the mainpage recently, but there hasn't been a mammal since Jaguar, AFAIK. So it would be a fair choice. Marskell 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An FYI and an offer[edit]

FYI: I'm now updating the by-year nomination lists (like Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007) and the WP:WBFAN page with a (supervised) bot I run pretty much daily. The bot notices any additions to the monthly FAC promotion log files and adds appropriate entries to the by-year lists, updates main page appearance dates in the by-year lists, updates FA/FFA status, regenerates the WBFAN list from the updated by-year lists, and makes sure every article in FA or FFA has a nomination history in one of the by year lists (and vice versa). You might find the by-year lists useful for picking main page articles.

Offer: This is all stuff I was doing much less frequently with a collection of scripts, leading to manual copy and paste edits. I've found tying it together with a bot that does the edits makes it significantly faster and less effort. Based on this discussion, I could probably develop a tool/bot for you that would similarly assist your FA activities. It could (for example) list the oldest noms one at a time and prompt for a disposition (pass, fail, skip, or quit), and when you enter "quit" it would make all the appropriate edits for you (showing a diff for confirmation before making each edit). There are some things currently done by gimmebot that we could think about shifting to this tool/bot as well, for example closing the FAC. If you're interested in pursuing this, let me know and we can work out exactly what it should do. To start, you'd have to set yourself up to run PyWikipediaBot. I suspect this isn't anything you couldn't do yourself if you cared to (it is simply programming after all), but perhaps you get your fill of programming elsewhere. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey Raul. Could you please check this out? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


I realize you dislike O'Reilly a lot, but please do realize that a lot of the changes in this article are driven by political bias and violate wikipedia's NPOV. Media Matters is not a viable source for commenting on O'Reilly and I would ask you not to cite claims made by them.

A Canticle for Liebowitz[edit]

Way back in 2004 you added some analytical commentary to A Canticle for Liebowitz (the edit). Is there any chance that you recall where you obtained it from? Thanks.
04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Random featured article[edit]

I didn't really propose the idea, but I just stepped up to say the words to ask for it. Thanks anyway. I'll post it on the Main Page talk page. Powerfulmind pleasetalktome! lookatallofmyedits! 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg[edit]

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Name switch[edit]

Hey, this is my current main Whsitchy 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And this is the doppleganger account. Whsitchy 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, somehow my talk didn't get moved over, could you do that for me? Whsitchy 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle[edit]

Removed from FA by Tony Sidaway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you decide it's removed, we'll need to figure out what to do with articlehistory and archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential edit war regarding the Bus Uncle[edit]

Since you have been involved in the current debate about The Bus Uncle, I thought I may ask for your assistance on a potential edit war that may take place. Since you reverted Tony Sidaway's edits, another user deleted all that due to it being "unencylopedic" anecdotes and trivia. If the edit were reverted at this point, I am worried that it may trigger a revert war. What can be done about this? (Refer to Talk:The Bus Uncle for more information)

My personal opinion is that the introductions of the characters are brief but not trivial, and the parties involved in that incident should be clearly identified, along with the consequences of the events. After all, it's just like any other current event that is written on Wikipedia, and this one's no exception due to the media coverage last June.--Kylohk 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Philadelphia Invite[edit]

China Gate, Philadelphia.jpg

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
Sunday July 8, 2007

Time: 5:00 pm
Location: It will be in Center City, Philadelphia at 112 North 9th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Tel: (215) 829-8939

(view/edit this template)

Frank K[edit]

Is there a way I can privately contact you for the numbers? Or perhaps I'll check to see if he's okay with their release. Anyway, there's been a definite effect, but the tally can't be counted yet as certain pages are still busy. Zeality 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Use the email-this-user function to send me a private email. Raul654 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comments[edit]

...on this matter. Raymond Arritt 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Replied by email) Raul654 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh this gets interesting! Raymond is calling in the big guns and Raul has to respond by email rather than publicly! RonCram 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeeboid block[edit]

I'm assuming I'm missing something here, because I don't see how this edit warrants a 24 hours block. It seems this point is disputed, as Zeeboid is not the only one removing the word "controversial". Also note the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Zeeboid is requesting to be unblocked, so if you could shed some light on this block, I'd appreciate it. - auburnpilot talk 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And I must say, I really disagree with the block if you are involved in the dispute. - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Basically, Zeeboid is one of a cadre of anti-science pov pushers on global warming topics (and has been blocked because of it several times in the past). The Great Global Warming Swindle basically a propaganda peice (said one scientist who now regrets his participation there, the film is "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."). In short, it's a polemic. That's what the article used to call it, until it was changed to "controversial". Now Zeeboid wants to remove that too as Raymond predicted earlier. Frankly, his edit doesn't stand the laugh test. Raul654 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And as far as me being involved - my participation in the dispute happened *after* I blocked him and them someone else came along and re-inserted it. Raul654 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response; that's all I needed to know. I'll head over and decline the unblock request, as it appears 24 hours is clearly warranted. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I would like to know if you have any advice about how to become an admin? I have not been active on Wikipedia with this account(I never before used accounts), but I know I could better serve the Jewish Community on wikipedia if I was an Admin. AniChai 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Why? I'm basically doing it as a means to find non-complant templates and fix them. TAnthony 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Because WikiProjectBannerShell clutters up talk pages far more than WikiProjectBanners, and many people (including myself) dislike it greatly. As SatyrTN said earlier, the detente that has been established is that article tagged with one will not be converted to the other. Raul654 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you want to find non-complaint templates, copy them to a third page (a subpage in your namespace) and modify them there all you like. Raul654 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand it's a preference, and I hadn't realized a "détente" was established, but reverting every one of my like 10 measly conversions seems a little second-grade. I don't think anyone would have cared out of the 3600+ articles that still use WikiProjectBanners. But whatever. TAnthony 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request date[edit]

Sorry about that, today has been sort of an off all day. I either missed it or just miss counted when after I saw it. I think it's time for some sleep. Haha. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, I added a request date for Today's Featured Article earlier today yesterday. BsroiaadnTalk 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle featured article review[edit]

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Late remark: normally if Raul promotes something from FAC it shouldn't go to FAR for three months or so, to reduce frivilous opposes and re-hashing of just done FACs. In this case, everybody seemed to want a place to talk about it, so it was left up there. Marskell 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


I need to talk to someone about an IP user who keeps erasing my factual information in two articles and puts false information in its place. I do not want to continue this battle. I have left a message on his/her talk page, but he/she has not said anything back to me. What can I do? Please help--Thank you! 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello! I have nominated an image of yours, Image:Okapi2.jpg, as a featured picture candidate. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Current nominations. Feel free to chime in if you have any comments about the image. Thanks for the great picture - it made me happy. --Strangerer (Talk) 14:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Isaac Asimov has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

3RR Warning[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on House demolition. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

(1) I'm only at two reverts (you, on the other hand, are already at 3, not counting the many you've been doing over the last few days). (2) As I said before, your edits have materially changed the meaning of one of the sentences to make it misleading if not outright false. Raul654 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You are at 3, and were at 3 when I warned you. feel free to change the sentence you believe is misleading (properly attributing the figure, of course). I will not tolerate further accusations of POV pushing from you, when your own edits have been the epitome of POV pushing. Isarig 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do not believe that house demolition is primarily related to the Israel-Palesitnian conflict (as Gdett's edits on the talk page make clear - 48 of these 50 on Amazon, 47 out of 49 on Lexis Nexis, 8 out of 8 of the sources used in the article) - then you are living in a fantasy. Clearly mentioning the Arab-Israeli conflict belongs in the lead. Raul654 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The above is a content dispute - you may not violate 3RR to push you rversion of a content dispute. Isarig 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul, how do you stay sane when people issue these "by-the-book" warnings when you've been here since close to the beginning? It must be insulting. — Deckiller 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It can be trying sometimes. Raul654 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, House demolition has made it to AN, c/o Isarig. -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne FAC[edit]

Hi. I'm fairly new to the FAC process. I'm just wondering, all of the issues that had been raised with the article Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne have now been resolved, and there have been multiple votes of support. All those who initially said object, all their comments have been resolved. I'm just wondering whether the decision about the article can be made, or whether there's like a time limit (2 weeks, 4 weeks etc.) thanks if you do clarify this. I'm quite new to this whole thing. Thanks. --Paaerduag 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, could you explain why we do not want a template that links across to Wikitree? Is there a policy or guideline about these things? Cheers, John Vandenberg 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FA[edit]

Er, Raul, I hate to be difficult, but you removed Evolution from the candidates list here and haven't closed it or anything. Is this a mistake? Adam Cuerden talk 17:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Adam, GimmeBot will be through later to do the closing chores. You can go ahead and add the star to the article, but the talk page updates are best left to the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The bot closes it. This is the edit you want to look for. (Wikipedia:Featured articles is the definitive list of featured articles) Raul654 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, right! Sorry about that! Adam Cuerden talk 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Derry City F.C.[edit]

Hey there. I notice you debolded the words "Derry" and "City" in the article, even though these are often used as names for the club in common parlance. If you have a look at the Norwich City F.C. FA, for example, you'll see "City" is bolded as one of that club's nicknames. Seeing as Derry City's other names/nicknames are bolded, I thought the most consistent approach would be to bold them all, but possibly there is a policy in place that advises otherwise?... Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 23:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles says: If possible, the article’s topic is the subject of the first sentence of the article, for example, “This Manual of Style is a style guide” instead of “This style guide is known as …”. If the article title is an important term, it appears as early as possible. The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given. Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface. - The rule that I use is that you should only bold a phrase if it's an actual redirect (or disambig page). "City" doesn't uniquely refer to Derry FC, so the rule of thumb that I use would say not to bold it. Raul654 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

premature archiving?[edit]

Editor, I understand your desire to keep the FAC page tidy, but I believe your archiving of the discussion for Providence, Rhode Island was premature. It was up for 6 7(?) days, while today my only comments on it were to inform those who commented that I had completed adding their suggestions in. Should I nominate it again?--Loodog 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It got its fair share of time on the FAC. The usual time to decision is five days. (E.g, I won't archive noms less than 5 days old; when they reach 5 days, I consider them fair game to promote or remove)
I recommend waiting a couple weeks before renominating it. In the meantime, I suggest you continue editing the article to fix the problems identified in the article. You may want to privately contact the people who reviewed it this time to make sure they are satisfied by it. Raul654 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It was archived just as we were closing up those discussions.--Loodog 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll tell you what - normally, immediately renominating an article is strongly discouraged, but I think we can make an exception in this one case. Go ahead and renominate it. Raul654 02:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it.--Loodog 02:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Front page[edit]

I have a question. I was curious if Aquaman (TV program) could make the front page. I know that you keep an unofficial list of articles that cannot make it, and I've never seen an FA episode on the front page. I've seen television series on the front page, and films, but never an episode. I didn't know if that was because they never requested it, or if it was because they really aren't cut out for it. Since Aquaman kind of acts as its own television articles (as opposed to merely an episode), because it was never officially made, I wasn't sure if it would fall into the same category. I ask because I didn't want to waste everyone's time requesting front page and then realize that it really isn't suitable for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why that couldn't go on the main page. (Although being a TV show, I'm sure we'll run into the same image problems that those have been causing as of late). Raul654 20:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just (as in like 10 minutes ago) found your guideline for main page articles, and I didn't see anything that said it couldn't. I found it good to know that you try not to deny any article main page space. I put in a request, I hope I did it right. I didn't specify a day, cause it doesn't really matter. I'm curious, if pages are selected for the main page, is someone notified ahead of time, or is it more like you'll find out when you open Wiki up?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone (usually SmthMany) will make a note of it on the talk page at or around the time I schedule it. You'll know it's scheduled for the main page when someone adds "maindate = June 19, 2007" (or some other date) to the featured article template at the top of the talk page. Raul654 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for the assistance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Bot Flagging[edit]

Hi Mark,

I hate to bother you with this, but since you seem to be the most active 'crat at the moment, could you do me a big favor and flag the two approved bots listed at BRFA?

Thanks & cheers Seed 2.0 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. --Seed 2.0 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle[edit]

Raul, you really have to stop blocking people for "POV pushing" on this article simply because they've removed the word controversial. You are clearly involved in a content dispute, as a brief look at the history shows, and these blocks are highly questionable. I've unblocked Boondocks37. - auburnpilot talk 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I have not and will not lift the autoblock on the main account or the block placed on the IP address. In the future, however, I wish you would reconsider blocking users related to this issue. - auburnpilot talk 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Norwich City F.C.[edit]

If you had read the reaquest I made you'd I say that I knew there were already five reaquests. But the date was less than a week away so I wasn't going to get another chance. Buc 05:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrm.... I'm not going to make any promises, but I'll consider it Raul654 14:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection[edit]

Hi Raul. I just protected this for four hours to flag the mutual 3rr. Obviously, you can edit over top, but better to start a talk thread. DrK has, in fact, reverted more than thrice in total today, but he's not in bad faith on this—he just disagrees with the long-standing principle (others do as well, apparently). Marskell 15:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. Somehow that page had slipped off my watchlist, I didn't realize until I saw the AN thread today that he'd gone and tried to change the entire meaning. I'm greatly tempted to move it back to it's old title, Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles Raul654 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
TBH, I don't even think it needs a page. You don't want to be constantly pointing people to that old user page of yours, but we could simply add a small paragraph to the protection policy. I'd suggest something like "protect for now more than half-an-hour when vandalism is particularly incessant." I was also thinking the devs could come up with a sort of semi-semi-protection. No anon IPs say, but free to edit immediately if you started an account; this might actually increase good faith new-timers signing up, while decreasing the vandalism. Perhaps no to placing images, as well, if that can be done.
To be fair to DrK, he did up six FAs of his own in one great big surge of editing this year, and I assume he's genuinely concerned about the headache of a main page day. Marskell 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I admit, he's a fantastic contributor. And while I can see where he's coming from on this issue, he's flatly wrong. Raul654 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your compliments here and at my user talk.
I've made a suggestion at WT:MPFAP to redraft NOPRO, which I'd like your feedback on. This version of MPFAP is a disputed guideline. This version is a proposed policy. This version is policy. We know this because they are helpfully labelled at the top! This version is just a page with some information on it explaining why MPFA isn't protected. The purpose of the re-draft is two-fold. One, to remove the "disputed" tag and agree a page, and Two, to return to your original conception of a page where NOPRO is explained. At present neither of these are achieved, the page doesn't explain it because the "rationale" doesn't match the guideline, and, as we all too unfortunately know, it is disputed.
I suggest that we re-phrase the page so that it is an actual description of what happens now rather than an injunction. We simple say "is" instead of "should". You can't easily dispute something that "is" because it either is or it isn't! The "rationale" section could then be moved to the bottom of the page under a new section heading, perhaps called, "Considerations". It would also mean that we could remove the headers, and just have a page with a description of current practice. Like so: [3].
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection so that the others can read your reply. Thanks. DrKiernan 07:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that you've been commenting on a few pending requests; does that mean you're active? :) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I've switched myself to active. Raul654 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to be active only on cases accepted after now, or should we move you to active on all pending cases, or only cases not yet in voting, or ...... ? Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Case-by-case basis, definitely. Raul654 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay; I've made a note of this on the clerks' noticeboard; but please roll up your sleeves and dig in, as the case backlog seems to be building up again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Good afternoon, sir:

I noticed a few edits on bot approval subpages, one where you claim to approve a bot. While we'd love to add new bot approvals group members, we only allow such members to approve bots, due to the risks of unexperienced users approving inappropriate processes. While I'm sure you'd be able to pass a vote for entry, you have to go through the process, just create a new section at WT:BAG. Usually - at least for me - the voters like to see contributions to many BRFAs and a knowledge of bots and bot policy. You are, of course, free to create and comment of bot approval requests, however please do not say that requests are approved, as that could mislead bot operators. Thanks! ST47 22:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking block info[edit]

Raul, can you shed any light on this block of Biophase (summary: sockpuppet - ask arbcom). I've asked Mackensen, but he's on a wikibreak.--Chaser - T 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, not at the moment. I have over 4,000 unread arbcom emails sitting in my inbox. Buried in there is almost certainly an explination. But I do not have access to my archived emails at the moment, and probably will not have until this weekend. Raul654 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)`
Wow. OK. Thanks.--Chaser - T 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Null (SQL)[edit]

Null (SQL) is the article brought to FAC by SqlPac (talk · contribs), promoted apparently in error, brought to FAR, and then removed from FA. Should all of FAC/FAR be implicated because of one, rare mistake? Meet the FAckers is spreading; we didn't all make the mistake, it was an extremely rare occurrence (possibly a first?), and several editors have expressed their regret to SqlPac. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a mistake - my mistake - and he's right to be upset. I think that page, though, is a counterproductive way of responding. Raul654 14:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you dropped him a note; I hope it will help some. I understand his disappointment, but also understand that we are all only human, and it was a very rare mistake. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Raul, thank you for the note. I understand a mistake was made, as mistakes do happen. However, what I do not understand is how poorly the "fix" was handled. Perhaps all the FACkers were just making up the rules as they went along because it was so rare a mistake, and no one ever thought ahead to "hey, what if this mistake happens? how do we handle it?" The bottom line is FA is an obviously broken bureaucratic process, and I really don't have the inclination to continue to participate in it again at this point. Fix the process and I'll be happy to give it a whirl. Fix it right and you'll probably increase participation considerably across the board. If "Meet the FACkers" is spreading, it might be an indication that there is a large group of people other than myself who feel similarly. But personally I'd like to address the real issues here, not the symptoms. I'd be happy to discuss my particular issues with anyone who really cares to listen. Obviously that excludes the FACkers I dealt with previously, who were not interested in listening to anything I had to say. I brought all these issues up -- and more -- during the FAR process. And all were summarily ignored. So you tell me? SqlPac 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A note: Just wanted to point out that Marskell did provide constructive feedback during this process, but unfortunately it's doubtful anyone else even bothered to look at the content. In the end, as you know, it made no difference and did not even pretend to slow down the bureaucratic steamroller. SqlPac 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Do you think this has any merit? It might actually encourage new account start-ups. Marskell 09:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Holst 'The Planets' recordings[edit]

Hi, I noticed that according to Wikipedia:Sound/list, you uploaded the file 'Holst- jupiter.ogg'. However, it doesn't seem to exist, and the deletion log shows nothing - just wondering if maybe it never got uploaded correctly, or if there's a typo in the link on the page? It would be great if all four files for 'The Planets' could be there. Thanks! Madder 15:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

See here and here Raul654 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As for Wikipedia:Sound/list, I've stopped maintaining it. Bringing it into existence required a tremendous amount of work on my part to jump the innumerable hurdles (both technical and social). I'm happy that I succeeded, because up until that point, there were basically no music or movies on Wikipedia. But at this point, maintaining it requires more time and energy than I care to invest. Raul654 15:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Raul, just wanted to drop a note of thanks on your talk page now that Ælle of Sussex has been promoted. I've had several FAs now, and I think I've been fairly diligent about thanking the reviewers and editors who've assisted with them, but I've never thanked you. I just wanted to say that it's a nice buzz when I see the promotion, and I can put that little star on the article; and that I really appreciate the time you spend running this process. It's rewarding for me, and I think for many other FA editors, and I hope it's rewarding for you too. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Licensing on images you uploaded in 2004[edit]

I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Copyrighted_images_for_internal_use_only.3F before I realized I should probably post a note to you as well. You are welcome to join the discussion. -N 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Entrance Photo for Army Ordance Museum[edit]

Raul, nice addition of the entrance photo for United States Army Ordnance Museum. That was one of my shots that didn't come out well, from those that I took when I was there, so I'd gone with the Krupp K5 across the street. - Thaimoss 23:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many more where that one came from Raul654 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your last revert on Global warming[edit]

You just automatically reverted an edit that I made, with "rv per Raymond" as your edit summary [4]

I urge you to explain why you agree with Raymond Arritt about this edit. Further, there is a talk page discussion about this sentence, and feel free anytime to use it to share your views about your involvements in edit disagreements between two other editors. --Childhood's End 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw the conversation there. I particularly liked Raymond's first comment, which you attempted to delete. The new wording (a) does not have consensus, and (b) is an attempt to water down the language - and both of these sentiments have already been expressed to you. Raul654 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed your amusing rebuttal because it took up the whole bottom screen of my PC and the whole discussion was rubbish. Perhaps I'll put it all back on the talk page of the troll... however on the above I am with CE. I respect Raymond obviously but the can of worms comment is just too obscure for me to grasp... --BozMo talk 14:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
For "can of worms" read "thin end of the wedge" if that helps. Raymond Arritt 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That you liked Raymond's first comment, which was pointless bickering, is not edifying for you. Thanks for sharing your view about the edit though. (a) What's more important for an edit? That it 'makes consensus' or that it improves the article? If second option, let's get to (b) which at least looks like an argument; (b) why is an attempt to water down the language wrong per se? Is it impossible that watering down the language, in some instances, happen to be an improvement? --Childhood's End 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment and request[edit]

I closed this FAC because the article was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. I added it to the unsuccessful monthly log, as well.

A while back, I asked you if Samuel Adams could be TFA on July 4, 2007. You said you had no problem with that, and you told me to remind you again at a later date. Well, it's a later date, so I was wondering if I could create the TFA entry for July 4. The content of the item to appear at TFA is located at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Samuel Adams. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A non-standard closing like that might mess up GimmeBot; I left a talk page note for Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

special prosecutor[edit]

I respectfully request you reconsider the copyright infringement case I made on special prosecutor. Your the admin, and you've been here a lot longer than I, so if you can cite enough reasoning I'll understand. I am by no means a copyright expert.

  1. You are the original author of the wikipedia article. Can you remain objective in this analysis? Would you like to bring in another admin or group that is familiar with copyright to analyze?
  2. I'll quote the copy vio template Template:Copyvio

    Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement

  3. The words and sentences are in nearly identical order, with frequent word substitutions.
  4. Put yourself in the shoes of an english teacher. This is Plagiarism.
  5. Put yourself in the shoes of the copyright holders at What would you think/do if you were them and you read the article?

I'll appologize in advance, if I'm way off base. I'm still a novice in this community. But I get the feeling that Copy vio is a big deal on wikipedia and assume it's best to err on the side of caution. --SB 03:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User page template[edit]

I've fiddled with the user page template. I want my user page text located on the userpage itself (rather than being located elsewhere), and I wanted the page history preserved. I like it as I have it now, except that the "History" link is red. Raul654 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the menu and mod it for you. I'll put it at User:Raul654/Menu. If you don't like it, you can make your own, or choose one from my list. --Andrew Hampe Talk 04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests[edit]

Hi, about this page's header, it says that the final desician rests on you, I wish you tell me why is that, thanks --Andersmusician $ 07:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in a nutshell, the final decision rests with me because I have been doing it since the very beginning (that is, since 2004, when the main page as it exists today came into being). And, by most accounts, I do a good job of it. Raul654 04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
good to hear that, keep it up the good work--Andersmusician $ 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


St. Petersburg skyline St. Petersburg Meetup

Where: Bishop Tavern, 260 1st Avenue North
When: June 29, 2007, starting at 6 p.m.
This box: view  talk  edit

Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S ordance pics[edit]

saw those pics u took i liked them alot, u should ove goten some inside the muesum, i was thinking about takin the 20 minute hick up there myself. i dnt no what this was about but anyway also r u a admin?(Esskater11 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

I work in the secure part of the post about two miles down from the museum. I'll probably go back sometime this summer. And yes, I'm an admin. Raul654 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia as article of the day...[edit]

Hi Raul. I just noticed you've slotted in Indonesia for this 21 June as article of the day. I actually asked you how to go about nominating it for feature on 17 August (Indonesia's all-important national day), but from what I understood, I could not nominate anything more than 30 days in advance. What are the chances of you postponing this until 17 August? I notice it still seems vacant. Hope you can help - kind regards, --Merbabu 04:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Raul654 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. (Don't forget! - he he). Merbabu 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
PS, I was interested in your removal of the TOC limiting parameter. I thought it was a good thing to have there as differentiation between the only two headings in the TOC (ie, in 'References') seemed a little unnecessary. Well, it's a minor point, and I'm sure you have good reason. regards Merbabu 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(1) Drop me a reminder as the requested date (17 August) approaches. (2) Templates that affect TOC rendering and layout should be used sparingly, if at all. (Personally, I'd like to delete the lot of them). It was not necessary in that case. Raul654 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New Photo for Search Engine Optimization[edit]

As you requested, I found something that's copyleft (CC-BY) for search engine optimization. Let us know if that works. Jehochman Talk 06:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

People like the fair use diagram, so they restored it to the top. I've added the CC-BY image in the History section where we talk about Google. I suggest using that second image. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


I sent you and email. Just checking you got it. --BozMo talk 08:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(Replied by email) Raul654 13:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(and again) --BozMo talk 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Shuttle-Mir Program[edit]

Just a quick message to say thank very much for scheduling the Shuttle-Mir Program article for the main page on June 29 - much appreciated. I am a bit confused about the image choice, however, and have posted a comment about it on Talk:Shuttle-Mir Program. I look forward to reading your reply. Anyway, thanks again! Colds7ream 09:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Raul, thanks for selecting Slayer for FA on the main page for the 27th. Since it currently has full-protection i was hoping you could change a few minor things. Could you please remove low value links such as 'album' 'DVD' 'Big Four' and change 'Slayer are known for their' to 'Slayer is known'. Once again thanks for putting it up and here is a link to the page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 27, 2007. If your'e busy i could ask another admin. M3tal H3ad 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've de-linked album. Big four should not be delinked (it's not low value). In the other sentence, I changed "their" to "its" to make sure they agree in number. Raul654 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition[edit]

Raul, thanks very much for the kind words about my rewrite of House demolition. I hadn't particularly planned on submitting it for FA status - I wrote the whole article in a little under 24 hours - but if you think it would meet the grade (and you would know better than most, I guess) I'd be happy to see it nominated for FA when it's had time to settle down. In the meantime I'll see if I can get it DYK'd, dig up more content to add to it and ask the Military History WikiProject people to review it.

I wonder if I could ask for your views on another issue? I recently did a similar rewrite-and-expand job on Gazimestan speech, about an important political speech in pre-war Yugoslavia. As with House demolition, I rewrote a short and rather unsatisfactorily sourced article (before) with a much more comprehensive and better sourced version (after). I do intend to submit that for FA status in due course, btw! Unfortunately I seem to have run into an ownership problem. Could you take a look at my comments under Talk:Gazimestan speech#New version and see if you think I'm proceeding along the right lines here? -- ChrisO 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What You Waiting For?[edit]

I'm sure you won't have a problem, but I figure it's at least a good idea to check with you first. Since Hollaback Girl has been TFA recently (by the way, thanks, that was the funniest talk page discussion), it seems a bad idea to have What You Waiting For? on the front page any time in the next few months. Since you have more than enough requests there to the point that I question the page's usefulness some, is it alright if I remove What You Waiting For? from the requests? ShadowHalo 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Raul654 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday[edit]

Birthday candles.jpg Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

..Cometstyles 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S I'm sorry if its not your can revert this is you like :)

Thanks - I'm suddenly feeling old ;) Raul654 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Belated Happy Birthday. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Very Belated Birthday Greetings. I find it amazing that the birthday party is still continuing :) --Bhadani (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Missed again! Happy birthday :--) +sj + 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Greetings. There is a debate at Wikipedia:Fair use review#12 June 2007 about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey Raul!

I think you might be interested in closing two 100% RfA's which 7 days had expired. One's been sitting 5 or 6 hours. Thanks! Evilclown93(talk) 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It's already been YesYdone by Warofdreams. Evilclown93(talk) 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Raul. I approve your move there; can you please sort out the talk pages as well though. Thanks. --John 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --John 21:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FA promoted while factual accuracy is being contested[edit]

Huh? Geology of the Lassen volcanic area Whatever you do, please don't put this on the main page under these circumstances. I simply don't have time to write up a 200 MY geological history of Mount Lassen. If the authors had stuck with the Cenozoic, it might be okay, but it's a disaster as is, and should not have been promoted, imo, while tagged with its factual accuracy in question--the very least thing a FA should be is accurate.

How's it going by the way? Fully recovered from my latest tantrum, but way too busy to participate much in FACs, so not really up to date there. The front page has been looking good lately, timing articles with current events in the news. I suppose that's on purpose, though.

KP Botany 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look over at the article before promoting (More often than not, I don't). I didn't realize there was a tag. Hrm... Raul654 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've addressed KP's concerns but he simply has not had time to look them over yet. However, I was surprised to see the article promoted while I was still working on addressing two user's concerns. If possible, please relist as a FAC so we can work out the remaining issues and thus archive the best possible version of the article via the history link on the talk page. --mav 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be a good solution. KP Botany 14:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
ArticleHistory supports wikiproject approved versions, see Talk:The KLF. I would find that easier than undoing and redoing all the FAC stuff. Gimmetrow 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've re-opened the FAC on this, per Mav. Raul654 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed it from WP:FA and from the June Featured log, so that everything should be on the same page now (reinstated FAC, to be processed as usual by GimmeBot when promoting/archiving next time). By the way, my comments on the FAC mentioned the factual accuracy tag; I didn't see the need to Oppose considering Mav was likely to fix the issues during the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It's still in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2007. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had removed that; perhaps I didn't save, or it was reverted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Double-checking, it doesn't show in my contribs, so perhaps I forgot to save. I'll remove it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much for the compliments on Kramer. It's unfinished, though. The entire Gay advocacy section needs to be done, and I sat down with Kramer and read it line-by-line and he pointed out typos and sentence structure problems. It was kind of done on the fly. Also, the FA thing is a little too grueling for my sensitive nature. I haven't enjoyed the process with my Tompkins Square Park Police Riot article, which is on-going (I've stepped away). Thanks again. --David Shankbone 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) Good deal. If memory serves, And The Band Played On noted that he has a somewhat... volatile personality. You may want to mention that (2) Tompkins is a good article. I hope you don't get discouraged. Roughly half of FAC noms fail - some have failed 5 or 6 times before passing. Raul654 02:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Video questions[edit]

Hi Raul, I have some questions about video usage. So, I found this fantastic video [5] (Video S6, toward the bottom of the page) sorry no direct hotlinky:( . The video is 40 seconds long, is currently in .avi format (5.4 MB), and is from a free source (cc-by-2.5 specifically). I think that the image would be extremely useful in a number of articles, and illustrates phagocytosis in a way that no still image could ever come close to. The problem is that I don't really know the policy here, or how to convert the video into the proper format. Could you please advise? Cheers--DO11.10 00:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The hard part is finding copyleft music and videos. Converting and uploading them is relatively easy.
Useful tools: Downthemall firefox plugin (to automatically download them all), ffmpeg2theora (to convert them), and Commonist (to automatically upload them to commons).
Now you need to use the video template to insert those videos into articles. You can see an example at Apollo 17. Raul654 02:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for doing all of that! They look great and I have so many ideas of where to use them... However, I seem to be having a problem getting them to open in the Wikimedia Player. When I try to get my video to play it says "failed opening http://tools.wikimedia.blah..." Here is my test area. I used the Apollo 17 article as a template, and of course, it plays fine. Sorry to be a bother, but I can not figure out what I am doing wrong, could you take a look?

Also, I added: {{video}} [[image:FilmRoll-small.gif|This is Video (Ogg Theora)]] to Image:S6-Dendritic Cells with Conidia in Collagen.ogg to mimic Image:Ap17 schmitt falls.ogg, do I need to do this with all of the files? Thanks so much!!--DO11.10 04:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There are three templates you have to use:
{{multi-video start}} - use this to indicate the start of a list of video files
{{multi-video item...}} - use this once for each file you want to have linked
{{multi-video end}} - use this to end the list.
I've tweaked your sandbox accordingly. As far as the watch-in-browser, it doesn't seem to work for me either, but I'm pretty sure that's a problem with the toolserver. The linked file plays perfectly in VLC. Raul654 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, I see now. Thanks! Hopefully the videos will start working with the toolserver at some point(?). Thanks again.--DO11.10 15:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the problem is or when it will be resolved. I did alert Greg on this talk page, and while I was there I noticed that someone else had already notified him of the same problem Raul654 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that does sound like the same problem... the watch-in-browser plays fine from the image description page (either en.wikipedia or commons), but not from the article space. Good to know it wasn't me doing something wrong. Cheers and thanks--DO11.10 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, it might be a good idea to sweep through this journal and slurp down all the useful media content for upload to commons. I wish they had a media search (for locating videos, which I consider top priority) Raul654 15:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the "Open Content" journals are really great resources with philosophies similar to Wikipedia's, unfortunately their rather archaic search functions limit their usefulness, IMO. Indeed, to find just about anything you have to know what you are looking for in advance. I just happened to stumble across these videos while I was looking for something else. Hopefully as the journals gain prominence in the scientific community (as they have been) the search functions will improve. I always keep my eye out for useful images and video, but, like I said, it is generally an I-stumbled-across-it sort of thing. (If you didn't know, there are a series of these journals PLOS and BioMed Central are two.) Thanks again for all of your help.--DO11.10 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam, ToFA, June 23[edit]

This thread at AN may be of interest to you. Your comments are welcome. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently fully protected due to an edit war. Maybe its appearance on the Main Page can be rescheduled until the disputes are resolved? Beit Or 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Raul, full page protection has been removed and the content dispute behind it has been resolved. can a new main page appearance date be scheduled? ITAQALLAH 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Eli Zeira[edit]

Sorry about that. Don't know why I didn't take the time to look at the history. Thanks for catching it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, noticed your comment about my "BLP spree", particularly on Bus Uncle. Well I don't apologise for that, I think the article as it stands now is much the better for my prunings, because it focuses more (though not yet enough) on the media phenomenon and less on the backgrounds of the private individuals involved in the recording--all of which are available in the references.

But that is a subject for an ongoing debate.

You do know, I hope, that I'm not an admin. Your comment in the proposed decision is well taken--if I've exceeded the bounds of reasonable interpretation of the BLP of course criticism is right. But presumably most admins are a bit more sensible than I and can be trusted to get it right. I'm just a silly editor who shoots his mouth off. --Tony Sidaway 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Traitorous8.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Traitorous8.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Egyptian_soliders_after_crossing_the_Suez_canal.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Egyptian_soliders_after_crossing_the_Suez_canal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:DeWeldon_Gagnon.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DeWeldon_Gagnon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Attalus head.jpg[edit]

Hi, Raul654. Is this orphan image still useful for some article? Thanks! --Abu badali (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Being bold here - any chance of this selfish request being granted? - Shudda talk 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(Done - all blacks was featured a few days ago) Raul654 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils on main page[edit]

I don't know if your aware of the request to have New Jersey Devils on the main page on June 30th. I'm worried you will reject it due to fighting in ice hockey being on the main page just five day before. Can I therefore suggest you remove fighting in ice hockey for now and compile with the NJD request as it is a significant anniversary for the team. Buc 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Diyako checkuser logs[edit]

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([6], [7], [8]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(Replied to Coolcat in IRC) Raul654 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BDJ principle 5[edit]

Hey there. Your addition of principle 5 to the BDJ arbcom (re: BLP and the deceased) is very welcome. I think this is a significant point not just in this case but relating to the application of this important policy. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've stated my opposition to the proposed decision as vehemently as possible. Raul654 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For somehow being able to work as a Bureaucrat, Checkuser, and Arbitrator, while never letting down the mantle of the Featured Article Director. Please reveal your caffeine supplement of choice, so we can buy stock in the company. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Rageahol :p Raul654 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vadodara - quick removal from FAC[edit]

Hi, I just found that this article was nominated for GA on 19th June and even before a GA review could happen, has been nominated for FAC. I suggest that the article goes thru GA and then be bought back for FAC. Request speedy removal from FAC. --Kalyan 21:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin[edit]

Please see my User talk: and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Raul. Thanks. 03:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Is it your idea that if you canvas enough admins, one eventually will agree with you?

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

You my unsignatured friend, are a troll. 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your attention could be helpful[edit]

User:Durova, perhaps the sanest person on Wikipedia (no offense intended to present company), seems to have acquired a pest. You may want to have a look at User_talk:Durova#Your_post. Raymond Arritt 02:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My PhD proposal is in about less than 12 hours, so I'm not going to be doing much editing through tomorrow. When I get back, I'll take a look. Raul654 02:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Said pest appears to have gone on a Wikibreak anyway... --BozMo talk 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Please leave Lsi john alone. He's upset. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
PhD candidacy exam? Hope it's gone well. --Aude (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The process varies from department to department, university to university. The steps at mine are listed here It's three steps - first the qualifying exam (to demonstrate an expert knowledge in the subject. I passed it in June 2005), then the PhD proposal (which I had today), then the PhD dissertation defense.
My proposal was approved :) For anyone interested in perusing it, I've posted it here. Raul654 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Great! Maybe one day you can be on the "other end" of the process, where it's more enjoyable. (By seating the committee members in each corner of the room and properly sequencing the questions, we can sometimes get the candidate rotating at 2 to 3 rpm.) Raymond Arritt 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent to hear! Sounds like the results of your project will be very useful. --Aude (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


"I have reconsidered my position on this principle. This a very slippery slope, one which we are already slipping down, as illustrated on the talk page by people wanting to apply the biographies of living people to the recently deceased. Furthermore, I categorically reject the entire principle that censoring information that could potentially upset people is a good idea. And make no mistake about it, when you strip away all of the euphemisms, that's exactly what this is, and it runs counter to our fundamental principle that Wikipedia is not censored. To wit - "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE" - Wikipedia:Content disclaimer In And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts notes that AIDS was the first epidemic that nobody died from because newspapers wouldn't report on it, to avoid upsetting people from the stigma attached to the disease. This contributed significantly to the spread of the disease in its early years. Raul654 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)"

Thank you for saying that! -- Ned Scott 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome Raul654 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup[edit]

Is it possible Rugby World Cup could appear on the main page for the start of the 2007 tournament even though it's already been on once. Buc 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam, again[edit]

You may want to keep an eye on the goings-on at Islam. I know you will sometimes defer articles in the midst of an edit war (like you did when it was schedule to be ToFA on June 23), but I don't want to protect the article again, thereby forcing you to. So, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you believe the recent reverting is problematic. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very irritating. Raul654 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class Articles[edit]

How do you nominate an article for A-Class? Dreamy 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that A-class did not require a nomination. Raul654 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War deletion effort[edit]

Centralized here. El_C 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My username[edit]

Hello Raul. I heard that you are one of these bureaucrats. Please change my useraccount to User:Pubaquoc without a redirect. Thanks. -P.P. 08:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Raul: if you don't mind checking it out, we have a four-day backlog at Wikipedia:Bots/Approved bot requests. Thanks. —METS501 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

won-dering what is up[edit]

You understand that I do not blame you personally for our systemic bias towards undergarments, of course ;) -- phoebe/(talk) 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Raul, I noticed you were around at the moment. Do you have a minute to drop by Wikipedia:Bots/Approved bot requests and flag the three bots waiting for flags? Great if you do, never mind if not... WjBscribe 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WjBscribe 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision[edit]

Given your positions on principles 3 and 4, I figure you have a separate rationale for why what I did was wrong. Could you please clarify for me? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC for Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989[edit]

I'm not sure why it was closed...I acted on all actionable comments, and left some explanations for a few other comments that I disagreed with, and never got a response. How was it closed if only one person even left comments, and I responded to all of them within a day? -RunningOnBrains 23:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, you're right - I should probably have left that on there longer. Go ahead and renominate it immediately. If anyone give you a problem about renominating it so soon, let them know I OK'd it. Raul654 04:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your attention. -RunningOnBrains 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition[edit]

A couple of things: First, I've been adding more material to the article over the last few days. I intend to do some further work on it over the weekend then propose it as a FAC, per your earlier suggestion. I would of course be grateful for your support!

Secondly, the spinoff article that I proposed, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has perhaps predictably become a battlefield with SlimVirgin and Jayjg attemping to delete it through the back door rather than going through AfD. I don't intend to work on it myself - it's not my area of interest or expertise - but from the volume of material I found in researching House demolition it's clear that it's a notable topic. I've had the article AfD'd as a means of stimulating input from the wider community on the merits of keeping it - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Your views would be appreciated given your past involvement with the content. -- ChrisO 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the distortion, Chris. Far from trying to "delete it through the back door," I redirected the subpage back to the main page because I feel the issue needs to be dealt with there, in part so as not to bury it, and in part because it would make the page more interesting to examine the use of home demolitions by various countries. That can be changed if the articles ever get too long, but they currently aren't. Putting it up for an AfD misses the point of AfD, which looks at whether to delete a title. I agree that the title's existence is appropriate; where I disagree is on the issue of where the content of the page is best placed, and an AfD can't decide that. What you want to do, Chris, is create another attack page on Israel, even if it means the main page is less informative. That's placing POV over the readership, in my opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I also don't appreciate the distortion on your part. I purposefully avoided going into much detail on the I-P issue in House demolition because it's a hugely complex topic with an enormous amount of background documentation. It simply can't be covered adequately in an overview article. That was why I suggested a spinoff article in the first place, as I've explained in the AfD. But I guess you wouldn't know this, since you've never been involved in discussing or editing either article before your sudden intervention yesterday. And I have to say that I think that your attempt to impose a unilateral solution without consensus is deplorable. You really need to re-read and practice Wikipedia:Consensus. -- ChrisO 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

After spending the better part of the last 8 hours auditing the FA stats, my brain is pretty well baked tonight. I'll look into this tomorrow night. Raul654 03:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, your input would be welcome. It would be very regrettable if partisan bickering turned House demolition into a battlefield. I reduced the Israeli-Palestinian content to a summary to avoid that scenario and to avoid giving undue weight to that one conflict. Looking at the article again, I think we need to further reduce the I-P material and remove the subheading that you added; it's already being given more weight than any other conflict mentioned in the article. -- ChrisO 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thankfully, the AfD has closed with a substantial majority in favour of keeping the spinout article. I've therefore gone ahead with reducing the I-P material in the main article (others have migrated the surplus material to the spinout). I'll be making some further changes to the article in the next couple of days with the intention of nominating it for FA shortly thereafter. I'll drop you a line when the nomination is up. -- ChrisO 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare FA process[edit]

Hi. Can you tell me where to find the FA request results and any reasons for the denial? This is the first time I've participated in the FA process and I can't seem to find anything other than "denied" on the WS talk page. Thanks Smatprt 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no results beyond the nomination page itself. I use the comments there as the basis for my judgment for whether or not the article passes. Judging from numerous issues brought up on that page, I didn't consider the nomination to have a consensus to promote. When you feel you've addressed the problems, though, feel free to renominate it Raul654 03:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR archives[edit]

Moved to User_talk:Raul654/test#Updating_FA_stats Raul654 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul, can you go ahead and build the rest of these diffs? I don't know how to do it when they span pages, and it will help me reconcile and locate probs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I've done this. To do this you either pick out the oldid you want to diff by hand (yuck) or display the history page 500 entries at a time and then change the history page URL by either increasing the limit value or (arguably better) sliding the starting diff by changing the offset value. The offset parameter in the URL starts with 8 numbers in YYYYMMDD (year, month, day) format (the rest is the time, I think). If there is no version that exactly matches the requested offset, it starts the history listing at the next earlier version. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Rick. With my head buried in archives and numbers, it's hard to keep it all straight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I got a lot resolved; there's a lot for you to read on the talk page, and update on the test page. I'll wait for you to catch up now; don't want to edit your test page myself. We should be mostly reconciled through 2005, but there are a couple of +/- 1 months in mid-2005 (need diffs from Rick, would rather not have to learn to do that myself since I'm rum-dummy now); and 2004 looks like a real bear because things were so chaotic then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of strangethings found, don't know how to fix them all, you can skip straight to here on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark - I've uploaded alphabetical lists of FAs from each of the start/end versions the diff tool was looking at, and added links on the workbench page. I hope this makes it easier to resolve any discrepancies. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article statistics page on en:wikipedia[edit]

Hello Raul654, I have answered to you on my talk page. Best regards from “my” Wedding :-)) --Marbot 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) PS I would like to take the opportunity an thank you for your work for wikipedia. I appreaciate it a lot!

Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group[edit]

Wiki-cookie for closing the request, right? ;-)

Raul, could you please close the request for Matt on the page above? Its driving me crazy 0_o! Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 07:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I know it says you close them when a consensus it reached, but what happens when an objection has been addressed/fixed and the objecting user is absent? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Erie, Pennsylvania. All of the image problems there have been fixed, but the user that opposed because of them has been gone the past week. What happens now? Will it not be promoted because an oppose is present? (all the image's are free now, except the flag and seal) Thanks, --trey 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Make a note of it on the nomination page. I'll look into it during the next round of promotions. Raul654 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I know it may seem a little annoying, but when is the next round?--trey 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Tonight or sometime tomorrow. Raul654 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this whole FAC thing is pretty stressful =) --trey 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess thats tomorrow then? :P Happy 4'o July! --trey 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Replied my talk page. Mak (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


I was bored, decided to look through past RfA's, and found this. Things have really changed since then I must say. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

...And every person who voted there is more-or-less inactive. I suddenly feel very old...Raul654 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Images used by permission[edit]

Hi again. I'm trying to clear out Category:Images used with permission where there are many pictures you took of Wikipedia meetups. These pictures currently qualify for speedy deletion under CSD I3 because they are not used in any articles. Would you please consider releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, so that they will not be deleted? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I got them all. Raul654 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Could you do Category:Images of Wikipedians used with permission as well? This time, please use the more specific {{GFDL-self}} template rather than the plain {{GFDL}} one. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. What about Image:Acegikmo1.jpg and Image:Group1.jpg? —Remember the dot (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


I'll talk to Sandy but I don't think it'll be a problem. She has said she wants meetups to be more than once a year, so I'll let her know. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on his talk page) Raul654 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note of appreciation[edit]

Since I'm sure you get plenty of threads on your page about TFA, I'll be brief:

I knew it was a reach for me to resuggest putting up 2012 Summer Olympics bids on the 6th, but I did it anyway because I knew in my mind that it was more than appropriate. And with my appeal reversing your verdict, I have become more appreciative of the process you have set up. Again, I thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Jaredt  05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War[edit]

Hi, I saw your note regarding the combatants in the Yom Kippur War - thanks, I will keep that in mind in the future. Perspicacite 06:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image at July 6 TFA[edit]

First of all, thanks, Raul, for putting this article on the main page on the date I requested. But I think it will be better if you change the image from Paris 2012 to one of London 2012; after all, it was the winning city, but mostly I'm asking you this because I can already see tomorrow loads of edits (voluntary vandalism or not) bashing/criticizing using a losing bid-related photo rather than one of London.

I hope you understand my suggestion. Cheers. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I back this as well. While it's a wonderful picture, I think that a London image would be more appropriate (even though the page is all-encompassing). Thanks. Jaredt  04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Would you also be willing to relicense Image:Acegikmo1.jpg and Image:Group1.jpg? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived another one[edit]

Raul, I archived another one. I just started my weekly runthrough of articles at FAC to prep them for GimmeBot; that article is at both FAC and GAC, and has snowball-ish objects, hasn't even passed GAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Raul654 01:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Platypus for July 8[edit]

Hey Raul, according to the article's featured history and this, Platypus has already been featured on the main page. I dunno if you've changed the policy but i remember you had said you wouldn't refeature for five years, so, i'm thinking perhaps this was a mistake, thus i'm asking you first before I add the tag and edit summary notice. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It was defeatured, and repromoted. When it was re-promoted, it was added to the FA list with no been-on-main-page tag (I just fixed that). So when I picked it from the list, it appeared as if it had never been up. I'll pick another one momentarily. Raul654 02:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Copy. :) -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, going to check on Joshua A. Norton, just re-promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you got that one; I left a reminder at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Octopus card in case it's repromoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Periodically automatic review[edit]

Hi, I put a comment in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Periodically automatic review. Please add your idea. Thanks.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived nominations[edit]

As we're archiving old nominations at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations, the files for February through November 2005 (which each contain multiple months) are slow going. Can these files be split by month? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Raul654 14:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

wonder of wonders[edit]

Did anything come of the end of the wonderfool saga? +sj + 21:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I haven't been following the saga since he was reinstated. I think something else happened afterwards (IIRC, on Wiktionary), but I'm not the best person to ask. Col. Mackenzie, one of the guys on Wiktionary, might be a better person to ask. Raul654 16:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists on the Main Page[edit]

I don't know if your in charge of this sort of thing but you seem like a good person to ask.

I wonder what happened at this proposal. It's been disscused at large for over a year. The only major objection seemed to be that there weren't enough of them and the solution to this was to have them on there weekly. So why has nothing happened?

The FA-diehards seem to don't want to add FLs in the Main Page. Then if this is the case, then we should really rename this into Wikipedia:Showcased lists or Wikipedia:Best lists because the lists here, aren't really featured. Buc 13:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a non-starter. There's nothing to a list worth putting on the main page. Raul654 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
So are you that no matter how many FL there are, they will never be put on the main page? Buc 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
In place of the featured article? No, that will not happen. Raul654 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania[edit]

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A lobby of editors are trying to provoke me for a edit war.[edit]

They are removing cited articles

I tried to put the same at Veda but they took off the same. Now I created a separate page. They are taking that off too. BalanceRestored 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Link presentation[edit]

Just for future reference since I'm kind of new here, I thought that since I hadn't changed the appearance of the link on the Global Warming page and it still went to the same place that it was all right. All I did was compress it so it didn't display the messy # reference. Is there a wikipedia policy that forbids that or something? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We prefer to avoid raw html in articles where possible. Furthermore, for templates like that, it's preferable to keep it as a template rather than hard coding the HTML. That way, changes are automatically propagated out to all articles using it. Raul654 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clearing that up.~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Goldenwiki 2.png The Hero of the Wiki, is Raul654!
I TREYWiki, award you the hero of the wiki award. You work hard with everything, without sufficient reward. You do many jobs, too many to list. At least I know, your not Klannish. =) Raul is Cool! in swimming pools! Your IRC nick sounds like cunt, the vandals are what you like to hunt. You are a nice guy, TREYWiki says goodbye! —treyjay–jay 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) Raul654 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Umm, sorry about this. I don't think I like Twinkle anymore. --Deskana (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine - Lord knows I've had to apologize to people more-than-once after (literally) a slip of the finger caused me to accidentally revert them. Raul654 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I am referring to [16]. Please don't accuse me of being someone from the Intelligent Design folks. It's an inappropriate personal attack and a very offensive one. Please stop accusing me of trojan horse argimentation. That's bad faith. Finally, don't block me for "general troublemaking". I have not done anything to you. As an ArbCom member, you should know better than that. --rtc 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana end time[edit]

Raul, technically the RfB did in fact end at 21:19 as it was posted to WP:RFA at 21:19 3 July 2007 [17]. On the admins channel on IRC, we were having a bit of fun with Deskana, who was jittery about the result. The end time changing was a bit of fun in support of that; entirely accurate, but just a bit of fun. The promotion was an obvious consensus, and there's no disputing that. Eight minutes would not make any difference. Just wanted you to understand why it was done. Thanks, --Durin 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Thanks I appreciated it! Giano 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Andrevan RfB[edit]

What do you think the consensus is here? Given this falls below the 90% threshold that is normally accepted, what do you think is appropriate? --Deskana (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard asking for input related to that (and Ral's RFB as well). Raul654 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Andre (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Raul654 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral's RfB[edit]

In response to your query, Raul, I would strongly object to promotion. I posted a rather extensive oppose on Ral's RfB. Therefore, I do not think I should close. Also, there are still four hours to go so we can't be conclusive now. If it really is a broil when it actually closes, I think bureaucrat only chat is appropriate. The non-bureaucrats will already have had their say. Otherwise, extend the RfB for 24 or 48 hours. -- Cecropia 03:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you object, which is why I'm treating this one with kid gloves. I think your suggestion to extend the nomination to a reasonable hour is a good one. Raul654 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
{edit conflict) To elaborate just a bit, I really wasn't sure there would be a problem until just today (soon to be yesterday) when I saw a rapid buildup in support and then looked at The Signpost. We already have two competent (I believe) new bureaucrats. I think it would be better both RfA and Ral and the signpost to not promote this as discretionary. -- Cecropia
Either 24 hours or 48 hours would give people a chance to absorb whether they find my oppose important or not. If you are amenable to extending, I think doing it now would be best so we're not going down to the wire. Cheers, Cecropia 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the point of extending it would be to have it end at an hour that isn't in the middle of the night for me (and presumably you) :) -- how's 40 hours? Raul654 03:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. :) -- Cecropia 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that an extension to a time convenient for you will be less convenient for crats in other parts of the world. The advantage of a close and a bureaucrat chat is that you can canvass the opinions of more crats without requiring them all to be in the same timezone. WjBscribe 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought about that. I'm not going to do multiple extensions. I think what I'll do is extend once for 40 hours, after which (if there isn't a clear result) I can freeze it and we can talk about it. But in order for me to do that, I want it to end at a time convenient for me. Raul654 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul's laws[edit]

I was reading your Raul's laws and was struck by Rule 11 - By the same token, the users who most zealously advocate changing Wikipedia's rules are the users who refuse to obey the rules as they currently exist. Their article looks like its going to be deleted at AfD or are in a debate over an issue specific to an article, they run over to the policy or guideline affecting their particular issue and change it or work to change it. Scholarly reliable sources are better than newspaper reliable sources for important topics like Global warming so we need to change WP:V to establish this. An unsourced Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables is about a classic work so we need to change WP:NOT#PLOT. I get the impression that such efforts are increasing due in part to the increased speed at which editors understand how the system works. Do you get a sense that there is an increase in such efforts or is it pretty much the same as before? -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If do not understand the above comment. Who is they? What is "their article"? You may also wish to read this - "What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." Raul654 20:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There was an effort to use that ArbCom ruling to insert into W:V that no non-academic sources could be used in science or history articles at all, no matter how reliable. I think this is what Jreferee was referring to. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
For historical topics, that's clearly wrong - we can and should be using first person sources. For science topics, off the top of my head I can't think of any specific situations in which prohibiting non-academic sources would be a problem, but I tend to suspect it would. Raul654 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Raul654. "Their article" refers in general to articles by users who refuse to obey the rules as they currently exist. "They run over" refers to 'the users who refuse to obey the rules as they currently exist run over'. Two recent examples (at WP:V and at WP:NOT#PLOT as noted above) gave me the general impression that efforts to advocate changing Wikipedia's rules are increasing by those who refuse to obey the rules. I was wondering if you too sensed an overall increase in efforts to change Wikipedia's rules by those who refuse to obey the rules. I was impressed that your Rule 11 written a while ago was true even today. Sorry for the confusion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting FAC[edit]

I was wondering if you might cast an eye over this current FAC? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity. Reading this article has got me (an architect) the closest to actually understanding relativity as I've ever got. Objections are being raised that wikipedia is not a text book and that it should be merged into General relativity or punted over to Simple English. I disagree and think there are some subjects of considerable importance to modern life, that do warrant a special approach by wikipedia, and that such articles are a credit to us. Care to take a view? --Joopercoopers 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not fond of "Introduction to..."-type articles, for exactly the reason you just mentioned - Wikipedia is not a textbook. I'm not saying the material should be deleted -- it's just the general relativity article should be written such that it covers all the material covered by the introductory article. Raul654 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
On the same token, though, disagreeing with the topicality of a well-written article should be no grounds for opposing the article's FAC. The article should be looked at from it's current position, and if it meets the criteria, then it should be supported and accepted. While it's technically not too late to merge the articles, it would probably be an inappropriate action to take at this point in time, but since I have yet to review the article, I should not say anything further. Jaredt  20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the interesting thing about this FAC is that when judged against the criteria, it will probably fail 1b. comprehensiveness. But here's the thing. On the one hand we don't want to 'dumb down' wikipedia, but on the other it should be intelligeble to a general readership. In my view FA's shouldn't be so technical as to prevent the later, particularly with such 'non-intuitive' subject matter. How can we achieve this in this case? The opinion voiced by a number of objectors is that there is a holy grail/beautiful balance that can be struck in the main article. I think this is wishful thinking. The beauty of the simplified version is, in part, it's approach - a sequencial explanation of the evolution of the precusor theories, and also its paring away of extraneous facts. So we're in the strange situation where we have a superb article, understandable by most intelligent but non-specialist readers, that can't be considered one of wikipedia's best because it will be charged as not comprehensive by a scientific elite. In my opinion there's no reason why an introduction and a full version can't both be considered 'our best work' - the introduction immediately disclaims its comprehensiveness in its title, so its hardly misleading, and the benefits are incalcuable. Aren't we here to inform? --Joopercoopers 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has at least 450 Simpsons articles (very quick count), including one on D'oh. I don't oppose these because there are people willing to write all of them (certainly this is an excessive number dedicated to a single television series that has lasted a mere twenty years - empires that lasted for hundreds or even thousands of years get less coverage on wikipedia). What is the big deal about two useful articles on general relativity? As I said on the FAC page, I fail to see the harm here. I see only benefits: both specialist and lay readers can gain a better understanding of general relativity. A combined article would necessarily suffer on either the mathematics or the metaphorical explanation. (By the way, if you want to delete an article, it would not be the "introduction to general relativity" but rather "general relativity". That is the specialist article.) Perhaps I should suggest a merger of those 450 articles... Awadewit | talk 11:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One more voice in favor of "introduction" articles in general. Absolutely our goal is to both cover a topic comprehensively, and make it understandable, but there really are certain topics that you just can't do that to in only 30-60K of text. Relativity is possibly the poster child for this; there is a lot to it, and it just isn't simple. So the basic approach here, where one article goes for comprehensive, and the other goes for introductory, is a fine solution. There won't be an infinite number of articles like this; articles on people, or places, or things, or events, which between them will always make up 99% of our content won't need introductions ... but this is a large, complex, and unintuitive concept, that has made a significant impact on the world. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the size of a topic should never be a consideration. There are topics on which 100s of books and tens of thousands of pages have been written. Summary style and subsidiary articles deal very well with size. What is an issue here is complexity and technical material and the level of knowledge assumed of the reader. Should the article be self-contained (as stated at Wikipedia:The perfect article: "it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles"? Or should it assume a certain level of existing knowledge? Should Wikipedia attempt to do introductory articles? I think it should. Carcharoth 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this?[edit]


News to me that I'm a part of an anti-Raul cabal! Marskell 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Per Yomangani's very funny post to my talk page, I just want to know if President of the Society for the Destruction of Raul645 (sic) is a paid position :-) I've got overnight houseguests due, so will have to continue my cackling later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Raul, I'm very surprised and annoyed by this and hope it won't worry you in any way. Please be assured that I, and every editor I have mentioned you to, hold you in extremely high regard and are deeply appreciative of the hard and generally-unsung work you put into making the FA process run as smoothly as it does. You are a valued and highly-respected member of the Wikipedia community. Tim Vickers 16:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your input on Andrevan's RfB closure would be appreciated[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Promotion_of_Andrevan. Thank you, --Durin 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please? Haukur 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Haukur 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied there. Any replies to my replies will have to wait until I get back. Raul654 13:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No they won't - but any replies to replies to your replies will. :) Haukur 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit[edit]

Didn't even know that I did it. I was looking through you edits and I must have clicked it, the page must of reloaded, and then I must of clicked another link before the page could have refreshed. My mistake. Pepsidrinka 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at your revision to the page, but I didn't know that I had hit the rollback button. Pepsidrinka 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Happens to everyone Raul654 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot break[edit]

In case you're planning to do any promotion/archiving, the bot operator will be away from the net until sometime in the evening of 7/15. Gimmetrow 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My girlfriend is flying up from Florida tomorrow and we're going to the beach over the weekend (no internet access). I do want to do some archiving/promoting before then, since the FAC is getting out of hand. Raul654 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Gimme may be gone already, Raul; he's mentioned to me several times that he'll have a problem with weekends over the summer, but that Sunday night promotions would work for him. Not sure if this helps any ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the FAC can wait until Sunday night if it has to. Raul654 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

-1= 0[edit]

Could you please tell me what line the mistake is in? In exchange, allow me to hand over a more common and less challenging 1=2 proof:

let a = b

multiply both by a

a.a = a.b

take b squared from both sides

a.a - b.b = a.b - b.b

(a-b)(a+b) = b.(a-b)

Cancel out the (a-b) on both sides

a + b = b

Since a= b then the following substitution is valid:

b + b = b

2b = b

Cancel out the b's

2 = 1.

Ofcourse from here we can proove any number is equal to anything! Tourskin 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Tourskin's talk page. Raul654 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC list[edit]

You may want to whittle down the 80+ item FAC list.Sumoeagle179 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to, but (a) apparently the bot operator is out until Sunday night, and (b) I won't be here until then either. So it'll have to wait a couple more days. Raul654 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you are awake[edit]

Would you mind having a look at this thread? I'm quite weary to fill out a BugZilla ticket with only two 'crats liking the idea. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get much done in the few hours I have to edit tonight before I leave for the beach tomorrow. I'll put it on my list of things to do, but I make no promises that I'll get to it for a while. Raul654 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon on the Main Page[edit]

Hi, Raul. I see you have Cameroon scheduled to be on the Main Page tomorrow, July 14. I'm going to be out of town and away from internet that day, and I'd like to be able to keep an eye on the page while it's featured so prominently. Would it be possible to trade Cameroon's place in the queue with another article? I'll be back to internet Sunday night, so Monday or later would be perfect. Sorry for being a bother; if it's impossible, I can live with that! Better to have the article on the Main Page when I can't look after it than to not have it there at all! Thanks, — Brian (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bengali Language Movement FAC[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bengali_Language_Movement is now at a stable state, with all opposition issues either withdrawn, or fully covered. The article has gone through a lot of copyedit, and the editors who initially opposed (e.g. User:Tony1) now opine that the article has improved to FA level. So, can you please close the FAC? Thanks. --Ragib 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some FAC issues[edit]

Dear Raul, When you get back into things and before you get stuck into promoting etc. you may want to take a bit of time and have a look at some comments by Spamsara (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ailanthus altissima and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deinonychus - in terms of how many cites there should be in a Featured Article, which then may lead to some clarification on FA criteria etc. (Obviously in one case I have a vested interest but I've tried to open it up for debate on FAC talk page) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to give a number, but I wrote Wikipedia:When to cite to answer just these kinds of questions. Raul654 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

login problem[edit]

Hello! I am user ro:Utilizator:Bekuletz on the romanian wikipedia. I have a little problem with my account, it seems i've lost my password. I can't remember when I created it, and I think I have not confirmed my email address for that account. I have made no edits on using the username User:Bekuletz. My confirmed email address for the account in Can you reset the password, or delete the account so I create a new one? Please answer on my talk page, or send me an email to the address I have mentioned. Thanks! ro:Utlizator:Bekuletz --01:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC for Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989[edit]

I would like to withdraw my FAC nomination. Other users have suggested that part of the article is significantly lacking, and their criticisms will require a few months of work to correct. Thank you. -RunningOnBrains 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the nom from the FAC page. Raul654 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Canadian Grand Prix FAC[edit]

Can I ask why you failed this so quickly. All issues had been addressed in some. I was waiting for more feedback. Buc 05:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the FAC is currently bursting at the seams, and a nomination with 3 opposes and no supports does not look like it will readily gain consensus. Raul654 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

J. D. Salinger FAC[edit]

I too was disheartened to see my FA candidate, J. D. Salinger, delisted and archived. True, it had received two votes to delist, but the first was from a user who has since been blocked and vanished, and the very next comment on the nomination after his was "please don't delist it." The second user who voted to delist has engaged in a dialogue with me about improvements to the article, and I have made all of them except for one (adding peer-reviewed journal refs) which I said on the FAC page (since archived) would take me a few days to make. Did I overstep some time limit for FACs? I just felt like the article was so close, you know? Thanks, Hobbesy3 05:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on his talk page. Raul654 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Scaling FAC?[edit]

Raul, I periodically think about how FAC would scale further, but I don't want to waste bandwidth at WT:FAC if this is not really a concern at current levels of activity. Examples of things which I assume are very time-consuming to do thoroughly: complex noms that have lots of responses and which take a lot of time to read and evaluate; getting through the sheer volume of FACs; seeing which of the FA criteria have actually been reviewed and which are outstanding; seeing if anyone with content expertise has looked at the article. Do you see bandwidth as a significant issue right now or in the near future? If not, I think the system is doing fine; otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing what ideas people have, and might post some myself. Mike Christie (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

what is the code for the wikistress thing[edit]

the title says it all

(Raul - I assume you won't mind) Please see Template talk:Wstress3d. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The current hot topic[edit]

Hi Mark,

I see from the discussions at the "talky" parts of RfA that they are trying to see you don't get much work done today. ;-) For my own part, I would really appreciate it if, in future RfAs (and especially RfBs) that you follow the convention of not discussing pending matters (between closing and decision) with the general community, even within project space. I understand and respect that your style is to bring things to a rapid and satisfactory conclusion, but sometimes speed is not the only issue and there are other bureaucrats, both to discuss with or to make the decision themselves if need be. When bureaucrat responsibilities are discussed with whoever else just happens to be online at the time, it empowers a handful of respondents to try to move a process that is the province of the entire community and the responsibility only of the community-chosen bureaucrats to resolve. Just as a practical matter, you can see the ongoing heat generated by making even a correct but swift opinion on a disputed matter. Best regards, Cecropia 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

House demolition FAC[edit]

House demolition has now been stable for a couple of weeks, so per your earlier suggestion I've nominated it for FA status - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House demolition. Please feel free to comment! -- ChrisO 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Ack!! What is Plan B? I know all the steps to do it manually, but ohmigosh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That last promoted/archived bunch hasn't been botified. I asked Rick Block (talk · contribs) if he could be of any assistance, and started a list of the steps in each process at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox (not including updates to articlehistory). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... I'd prefer not to wait a week to do promotions. What are our options? Raul654 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the best plan is, because I don't know why he went on break; this was news to me, and I'm concerned about how long he might be gone. Actually, I'm more than concerned; I'm downright undone and worried, because Gimmetrow asked me at the beginning of the summer if I could learn to run the bot, and perhaps I let him down. If Rick Block is able to help automate some of it, we can probably keep up manually until/unless we hear from Gimmetrow. And, perhaps we could go back to adding the old templates to the pages for facfailed, etc. until we get a better idea of when/if GimmeBot will be back to update ArticleHistory. Further conversation on RickBlock's page, and sample steps at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If Gimmetrow is truly gone for a long period, and/or a backup is needed, I'd be willing to look at what it would take. I probably have sufficient technical background to be able to run it. I would rather not be first choice, if another volunteer with more spare time can be found, but I'll volunteer if needed. Mike Christie (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't have the bot code, Mike. Gimemtrow asked me if I could run it at the beginning of the summer (because he was going to be unavailable on summer weekends), and I said no :-( Several people have volunteered to help, so we need to coordinate this conversation somewhere off of Raul's busy talk page. Raul, should we move it to the talk page of my Sandbox? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The FAC promotions/failures look easy. I'll do the lot from the 17th when I get back this afternoon if nobody gets them beforehand. Yomanganitalk 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
ah, the gems come out of the woodwork fast :-) Do you have Dr pda's articlehistory script, or would you rather leave that part to me or Fvasconcellos? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I should be able to manually keep up with the FARs, since that's a lower volume; it's the FACs that are daunting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
PS, to my knowledge, the people with programming skills who are most familiar with the task are Rick Block and Dr pda, but judging from Dr pda's contribs, he's busy and not on-Wiki much. I think Rick Block can probably jump in the quickest to do something, but will wait to hear his response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone needs help updating ArticleHistory, I'll gladly jump in, just slap me upside the head. I did a few manually back when the template was first created, and, although it takes considerably longer, I think I'm pretty accurate :) Now, where can I get this articlehistory script everyone's talking about? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, heck, I'm so useless on that stuff. Can you browse the talk page at Dr pda (talk · contribs) and figure out how to add it to your monobook, or can you grab it from my monobook? I'm not sure how that works. Doing articlehistory without it is not a healthy undertaking :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Got it. I know, Talk:Cocaine gave me a lot of trouble... At least it was a nice challenge :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
oh, it's a boatload of work at first, but we are finally getting to a point where we are reaping the benefits, and I don't have to fix almost _every single nom_ that shows up on FAC (an example is the kind of mess now at those Raelian articles). If anyone is interested, pls also grab the articlehistory error category from the userbox on my userpage, as I have to browse it daily for errors introduced by vandalism and the GA folk :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think all the promotions/fails from the 17th are done now, so it should be up-to-date. Definitely need a replacement bot for that task though, I don't fancy doing it again. Yomanganitalk 00:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not reimplement the code unless Gimmetrow stays gone for longer than his wikibreak notice. We might be able to convince user:ST47 to write some code sooner if manual methods really aren't going to be adequate (sounds like it will be about a week). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It is probably OK as long as there aren't a lot of promotions or a hurry to get them up-to-date. The bot would take some writing anyway as there are a lot of odd cases and convoluted processes. Yomanganitalk 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help today because, um, I had no sleep last night, but generally I should be able to help. If we can hold down the fort while we wait for Gimmetrow, that's my preferred option. I hope Gimmetrow will return to a lot of messages of appreciation on his talk page. He's such an unsung hero-volunteer. Beautiful work, Yomangani; was that your pennance for an 8-day start-to-finish FA, and some kind of record for having two back-to-back FAs line up in the featured log (Beagle and Needham :-)) As you can see, that's one heck of a bot, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So if I do some promotions later today, is everything ready to botify them? Raul654 15:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Yomangani, but I'll be available this evening (around ~2300 UTC). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably be around about the same time (promotions are easier to deal with than fails, so don't feel obliged to fail them just to get them out of the queue) Yomanganitalk 18:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
ack, I'll be at the theatre and then an opening night party. If there's anything left undone, leave me a message, and I'll clean up when I get home. So sorry to not be of use when the chips are down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm back temporarily, and can do botwork for things through Monday night. I'll check Tuesday morning your time. Basically I'm on call for a task that I expect will keep me away from the net for about two weeks. As of right now, this task is expected to start Tuesday, but the start might get pushed back a few more days. Gimmetrow 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious[edit]

Tell me Santa Claus exists; tell me there's justice in the world; tell me that I'm not seeing people asking me to make lists of things on my FAC! Everything I've learned on Wikipedia goes against it! Can you just confirm that I'm not going insane? Zeality 05:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sandy's talk[edit]

Raul, I usually abide by the adage regarding sleeping dogs, but I find myself unable to at the moment. A week ago I posted you a link to a thread started by FeloniousMonk on Sandy's talk. Here it is again. It's since expanded (though he has said nothing else himself), but all I really care about is the initial post. It's a smear. It's a smear of the worst sort, because it's obviously hearsay (he's never interacted with me, and I don't think with the others). And it's damaging because it hits good faith long-term editors who don't deserve it. I need to know whether you avow it, and if so I would like to see it typed from your fingers. I ask because you've been silent; perhaps you thought my initially bringing it up was glib or unconcerned. If I were the only name mentioned, I'd pay no mind. But slandering TimV (who, as you know, is one of our most prolific current FA producers) and Sandy (who, as you also know, puts in more personhours than anyone for FAs) is not right. Does Tony send shots your way? Yes, sometimes—but Tony's a big boy and is allowed his opinions. I do not believe I have ever directed the slightest hostility towards you. So: do you feel I and others mentioned are trying to "undermine" you? I would very much like to know. Marskell 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I need to grow some balls; I too would like an answer. Four respected editors in good standing were smeared, and that's not good for the Project or for Wiki's culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Aha, finally an answer to the gender question ... or is it? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
TimVickers is calling me "babe" now; that's my story and I'm sticking with it. Anyway, I was up late last night putting together the GimmeBot Sandbox info, and just got a nap, so back to finish my commentary. The comments on the FAR were not from Marskell, Tony or TimVickers—they were mine. It was wrong of me to characterize the lead of the article as "embarrassing", because that belittled people's work. And the FAR wasn't the appropriate place to raise a question about the appearance of conflict of interest, so I sincerely apologize to Mark for that; I don't envy the considerable crap that goes along with your position and have always tried to help. Also, the silliness on my talk page doesn't reflect upon how seriously I view this matter; it was an attempt to keep it calm, and to keep two other editors with a history of hot-headed encounters from going at each other. IMO, this is very serious, and Wikipedia should scrap any pretense of a pillar code of conduct if the culture tolerates the kind of "phlegm" FM deposited on my talk page and on FAR. Policy pages are not owned by anyone and there should be no place on Wiki for the intimidation, harrassment, lack of civility and failure to assume good faith expressed by FM on my talk page. Considering your silence, I would like to know if you believe I have intended to undermine you or carry on a "vendetta". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note - I'm dropping a message on the talk page of each of the participants there to see this comment:)

Suitably sappy image of my kitten Loki to go with our expressions of universal love and understanding. Tim Vickers 13:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a sensitive issue which I have been trying to handle delicately. My intention until now has been to refrain from saying anything publicly to avoid taking sides and inflaming the issue. I believe Marskell is correct when he says that Tony sends shots my way (this one was a bit on the stranger side). I have quite intentionally avoided reciprocating to Tony's remarks (again, to avoid inflaming the situation and driving Tony away). FM, Giano and others believe Tony is undermining me and that I'm ignorant of what he's doing. I'm not ignorant - I have chosen to avoid the baiting. Further, they (FM, Giano, et al) have painted Marskell and Sandy with the same brush. I believe they are in error on this. I have never gotten the sense of hostility from Marskell or Sandy. They do an inordinante amount of work to make the process run smoothly. (Nor do I mean for this to be taken as a slight to others who I have not mentioned- they are far from the only ones who do lots of work)

Without meaning to sound sappy, I can say without reservation that we all have the best intentions at heart. It is my sincerest wish that all the people who regularly participate on FAC and FAR, as reviewers, nominators, and editors (all of you: Tony, Sandy, Marskell, FM, Tim, Giano, Lucifer, etc) could work together amicably. I think the comments on that page were based on misapprehensions on both sides, and I think it might be best if everyone simply recognized that the comments said there should not be taken personally, but as a misunderstanding between well intentioned people. Raul654 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul, you may not have detected the hostility, but it is present. Dolores Umbridge wants power. If only <sigh> she weren't <sigh> so darned busy <sigh> she might help people but <sigh> she must work on a bot. Geogre 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I would hope that Sandy's attempts on saturday last to dampen fires outside of her contol would be viewed as a sign of credibility and good intention. Slainte. Ceoil 22:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood what this is about, but I second Raul's hope that this is a misunderstanding between confused but well-intentioned editors. Tim Vickers 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Raul. I don't find it sappy it all and I understand the need to be delicate (plus, who can argue with a man and his kitten). So that Tony doesn't seemed singled out, I'll borrow an argument that Geogre has expounded on: posting criticism of another editor's decisions is not by itself an attack. In fact, it's a hallmark of transparent processes; Tony is free to criticize, though he, like Giano or Lucifer or Marskell, should avoid personal animus. What I do find poisonous is comments of the "Joe told me that Sue doesn't like you" sort, or (even worse) "I know people you don't and I know they are watching." Not that anyone can pretend to saintliness when it comes to gossip, but comments of this type are distasteful and can be very corrosive on Wiki insofar as they are used to intimidate editors. (We do have to keep the trolls at bay, of course, but no one involved here is a troll.) This is what had me bothered.
Anyhow, no need to go on at too great length after Raul's thoughtful post. "Let's try to get along" will not work in every case, but it's never bad advice. So here's to universal love and understanding, Marskell 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't caught up here this morning, but the kitty belongs to Tim Vickers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I intended to respond to this first thing this morning, but, well ... anyway. Raul, I've always interacted with you on the level of the business of keeping FA rolling—articles, stats, bots, archives, re-starts, and the like. I've rarely had the chance to observe how you deal with the people. I was troubled when the editor behind that Null (SQL) issue (a rare mistake) didn't get a really fast apology and offer to make it right by re-starting the nom. I was concerned that you overlooked the person, and then we all got blamed for it. My concern about ID was similar; if there is an appearance of conflict of interest and consensus to promote isn't strong, the mess ends up at FAR, bringing the FAR bashers out of the woodwork. That is my concern. The good people like Ceoil (there are many others, naming him since he has weighed in on the fracas), who work at FAR to save someone else's stars, don't get recognized, while the FAR-bashers focus on the demotions. Your response here has lifted my respect for you, in that it shows concern, consideration, and diplomacy for the people behind the process. I would have made a sappier response this morning, but it's hard to be real when Geogre's sarcasm is in the room. I appreciate the delicate balance here, and am satisfied with your response. However, there are still some gaps in your explanation (not yours to fill). I suspected all along where these notions were coming from, just as I think I know how Tim Vickers got rolled into this. The facts remain: what Felonious Monk has done is against Wiki's core policies, and he has made no amends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of this discussion when I made the irascible comments at FAC talk. I was furious to read your comment, Raul, because it undermine the only technique available to enforce Criterion 1a. Have you any suggestions for alternative methods, then? And when are you going to support the efforts of reviewers to criticise the pretty bad standards of prose?

I sometimes wonder whether you care only about the other aspects of WP articles. Tony 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess Raul didn't notify you of this conversation <ouch on the irascible>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Copied Geogre's posts from Talk:SandyGeorgia.

The "campaign against Raul" is more a campaign to replace Raul. Sandy, in particular, with LM, has been wanting to get a little committee of "experts" on "what is a featured article" to replace Raul as the corporate bureaucracy that controls FA and FAR. They disagree with his promotions vocally and publicly, esp. when Sandy has objected for some process reason. Those who believe this is about bettering the project can only say so by sharing Sandy's bizarre and unaccountable ideology of forms, forms, forms, and -bots, rather than reading and thinking and editing. I'm sure such persons exist. It's all so much easier when you don't think, when you just look for numbers or check marks on a page. The lazy, incurious, and self-satisfied the world over love this approach. The people who came to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and one that anyone might edit, generally do not. Geogre 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it in direct form: Sandy, do you support FAC being taken over by a committee instead of Raul? Do you believe that Raul has been woefully inadequate and wrong in his promotions? Do you believe that there is a body of "experts on what is an FA" who should be making the decisions? Do you believe that FA's should be determined by a concrete series of steps that can, by themselves, disqualify most applicants? Geogre 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd read anything I've already (and always) said wrt Raul as featured article director (including just this morning), you'd already know the answers to that line of questioning. But I'm glad we're finally seeing the origin of these peculiar notions, even if we haven't yet seen a single apology on Tim Vickers talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

See, and here it was because of reading your words that I got that idea. How silly. I doubt I'm the origin of anything, except a few articles, but I have read what you've said in the past. So the answer to the questions is what? You don't mind, I'm sure, and are not too <sigh> busy to answer. After all, it takes as much time to say that the answer is obvious as to actually offer an obvious answer. Geogre 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer is that you are misinformed on every count, but since I've always defended Raul as featured article director, and I've always stated that his sole authority is necessary for the process to work and not degenerate into a free-for-all, and I've always resisted efforts to start any secondary processes (that's why we have peer review), I don't need to repeat my stance to you, when you don't approach the matter civilly. The extended answer is that, I *may* be able to understand how Tony came to be accused because he's very vocal about his prose concerns and he's my friend, and I may understand if you rolled Marskell into this because of FAR, but I sure don't see how Tim Vickers got rolled into this nastiness, and LM's issues with Giano are beyond anyone's control and not my concern (except that it pisses me off that when Giano finally tried to civilly dialogue about his issues with me, we couldn't "talk" because LM brought in their old baggage instead—to Giano's credit, at least he tried, and he did so with civility, which can't be said about you, Geogre). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I'm uncivil, mean, and fail to like you, etc. So, without being too busy or too passive-voiced or too passive aggressive, the answer is that you do not wish to see a committee replace the director and do not wish to see a change in director and you do not disagree with promotions despite your objections? Good. I will keep that in mind, and I hope that you do, as well. Geogre 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, you must know that my entire identity hinges around your approval. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Lucifer and Tony have responded on my talk page; since the discussion is about Raul, I'm linking it here. Honestly, Geogre, do you understand at all how busy Raul is? If those were the ideas you had, you could have asked me long ago and avoided all this unnecessary kerfluffle. Now why doesn't someone get FeloniousMonk to apologize like a man to Tim Vickers so we can end this "fractious fracas" and get back to the Project? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

When Raul's input at FAC talk prompts this: "I am delighted to hear that. You have now given the green-light for everyone to ignore Tony1's demands for more copy-edits. Many of my noms have failed because of that. Thank you, Raul654." I start to wonder whether he believes in the wording of the criteria that he's charged with applying. Why have the word "professional standard" in there if the director undermines the attempts of language reviewers to hold true to that wording? Tony 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I'd like to see the director's baton passed among two or three people. I think it's unhealthy both for Raul and the FAC process to have just one person do the whole job continuously for a long period. That's not what I call a committee, though: it's a rational sharing and collaboration that is entirely within the spirit of WP. Tony 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I've been watching the FA process since the end of 2004, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that Raul654's approach is the thing that has kept it alive. It would have fallen apart long ago were it not for him, and there's no sign that he could let go of it now without it deteriorating into a toxic mess. He knows what's he talking about, he understands the spirit of the project, and he knows when to be hands-on and when not. Lots of common sense, in other words, and very badly needed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What I really intended to work on this morning was the Gimmetrow/GimmeBot issue. Geogre's derision of grunt bot work demeans the considerable effort that quiet, unassuming editors like Gimmetrow put into the support of FA. Gimmetrow makes Raul's life easier, and he's completely overlooked until he's gone. This is the comment that most bothers me at the FAR ("the one person"); no one mentions what Gimmetrow does to keep FA rolling, no one thanks him, no one acknowledges him, and we're up shit creek without him. I don't know if he saw that comment, and I don't know why he's gone (for all I know, he broke a leg or something), but let's not let concern for the real people who support your stars with the bot grunt work get in the way, Geogre. It really troubles me that people don't thank and acknowledge Gimmetrow; your articles mean nothing if you don't care about and take care of the people who deal with the little stuff that keep FA rolling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the tears fall like rain. I do not know how busy Raul is, but perhaps that's because he doesn't embed in every comment, every message, some passive aggressive assertion of his own value by a sigh over just how darned busy he is. As for the horrible insults I may be paying to -bots, I shall continue to regard them as less than human until such a time as one of them develops feelings and judgment. Until that time, I will continue to assert that humans are capable and that humans have done "this job," can do it, and must do it, that any attempt toward the blanking of judgment, the elimination of wit, and vacuity of forms is an attempt away from both Wikipedia and encyclopedia writing. Let automatons read what automata approve, and I will not be compelled to stand and applaud the (just so busy!) -bot makers. I'm sure they do their work well, but I am not sure that they do work that is needed or properly evaluated. Sandy's passive aggression is noxious, but what is beyond being personally despicable and into the realm of counter productive is her desire to be in charge, to move more and more to an anti-humane system where no person judges, no person reasons, and no person assesses, much less stands behind his or her assessments. This lachrymose self-pity party is beyond contempt on its face, but what makes it actually pernicious is that it is masking an ever-widening attempt at dispensing with discourse even as it valorizes a continuing realm of socializing self-praise. Geogre 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Focus. No one's assessing except Raul, based on the consensus at FAC, which he has to do equally with or without GimmeBot. GimmeBot is only archiving and doing talk page updates on articles which Raul promotes or fails, to save Raul and others from the maintenance work. Ask Raul, Marskell and Joelr31 if they prefer doing all of that manually. Geogre, you spend much too much time on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, and if only we were all as fascinated by you as you are, it would be a happy world. Stop praising yourself. Start reasoning with people. Stop being imperious. Stop working a reference to your own value into every comment you provide every place every time. I cannot help it if you have been so personally unpleasant that by attrition others now stay away from FAC, but I can still oppose your efforts at taking over it (and then complaining that you're just so busy, and no one else is volunteering, after running everyone off). If I were to spend a tenth the time on you that you spend praising yourself, it would actually be worth comment. Now, how about all the genius it takes to write a -bot, Sandy! Ain't it the work of gods themselves? Shouldn't we understand if they're just too busy to speak coherently to us? Geogre 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, folks. No need for this violence. Please. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If I may, this discussion over several talk pages is rather disquieting. The key is to ensure that people can be confident about the FAC and FAR processes, and any tensions or disagreements between those that are regulars with the process undermines that. One point is salient here. People can up and go, or fall ill, or whatever. If that happened to anyone here, would anyone be irreplaceable? Hopefully not, but are there contingency plans in place to take up the work that is left behind? Also, what is essential when you have regulars working in an area like this is to keep looking for fresh blood, for new people to join in, to help out, to train up. That sort of thing. Keep a tight grip on the "everyone wants the best for the project" idea, and talk about things like that. Carcharoth 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not for the good of the project to move toward form-filling, -bot running, and egomaniacal onanism. If something were to happen to Raul, then something happens to Raul. He is supposed to have human intelligence and judgment and to know how to appoint someone else, and I think he does. What must not happen, though, is a set of "experts on what makes an FA" doing anything. First, they should not exist. Second, they should not have the bald faced arrogance to proclaim it of themselves. Third, the fact that they fail the second proves that they cannot and should not be in charge of anything. Geogre 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a coder. As a coder I can say BOTs = Evil nasty insidious unscrupulous misguided things that generally only serve to hyper-inflate the ego of those running them. (present company excepted, of course, since I have absolutely no knowledge of the bot masters here). Anything I can do, a bot can do better... not. But, I digress, please to carry on... Peace.Lsi john 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
ArticleHistory and GimmeBot were set up under Raul's direction, in conversation with him, and to help Raul after long discussions of the steps involved in closing FACs, but if anyone wants to close the next batch of FAC promote/archives manually, I suspect Yomangani will be relieved :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, folks, I want to offer a friendly apology for how tempers have flared over the issues of the FAR of intelligent design. Raul's observation about the mix of good-faith criticism and POV pushing are pretty much correct, IMO. And, a bit of a bunker mentality has developed there too, apparently causing some to draw very hasty conclusions, some of which are simply incorrect IMO. Hopefully it'll pass quickly and any darts thrown at the FA crew will be chalked up to accumulated anger over having had to deal with frequent barrages of various kinds of tactics pushing for certain POVs that are quite inconsistent with the relevant reliable sources. These have included many agressive and/or sly tactics by a minority who appear bent on having biblical apologetics taken as fact, a sort of hybrid of socio-political motivations and religious totalitarian motivations it would seem, the POV of which apparently is presumed, by those who hold it, to be important enough to merit these kinds of tactics. I feel sure that some of the hasty conclusions and angry outbursts can in very substantial part be chalked up to frustration and cynicism from repeated exposure to this sort of stuff.

I also have several observations about the FA process that I would like to pass along for future consideration of this small-but-very-diligent FA community here, having to do with how the infomation flows and what the standards are for making decisions on contested issues. But these can wait till later. For now, I just want to convey my good regards for all the work you folks do -- and I've also noticed this is an extremely bright bunch of people here. Good regards to you. ... Kenosis 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unneeded[edit]

At the very least, this conversation no longer belongs on Raul's talk page. Marskell 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I gather it's time for the obligatory "can't we all just get along" speech. SandyGeorgia is, not always, but often, the single most active FAC reviewer, and his (her? babe's?) comments on the featured articles I have seen are constructive and helpful. Geogre is, not always, but often, the main champion of the people who write featured articles in conflicts with the admin community; and these conflicts do come up more than the average, since people who write featured articles are quite often touchy, and, how shall I say this nicely, occasionally not quite believing in the equality of mankind, or even somewhat full of self-importance. You're both extremely helpful for the smooth running of the process, and should not take shots at each other. Raul654, meanwhile, besides being FA director, is an active bureaucrat, checkuser, arbitrator, oversighter, and so should, by all rights, be as spastic than an octopus with an espresso machine attached by an intravenous drip, and yet somehow manages to keep his cool far better than either of the previous two. Please, everyone, don't just give each other a little slack; give each other a lot of slack. You all deserve it. We are all on the same side here. Want to argue about process? Fine, great, that's what talk pages are for, maybe we can improve things. But please argue about the process, not people's personalities. Please don't make comments about passive-aggressiveness, identities hinging on approval, tears falling like rain... you know what they are. You're all excellent editors, the best we have; please edit your comments just a bit, be nice to each other? Please. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Me, three. Thanks, Mouse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Mouse has a way with the heads of nails. Both these people are unusually bright, unusually productive, and probably care more about the project than than is usual. I don't think either have a hidden agenda (and I've considered from both angles); imo its a personality clash. Ceoil 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the above. I'm posting this here only because SandyGeorgia is again trying to stir up trouble on FeloniousMonk's page. Sandy turned up at an FAR insulting the editors who had written it, calling it "embarrassing," even though it's one of a very small number of articles that has been cited approvingly by external sources. She then started insulting Raul, claiming he had a conflict of interest when he promoted it. But when she was called on it, and reminded that several editors don't submit FAs anymore because of her, she started demanding apologies, and continues to keep the issue going well beyond its sell-by date. She also started the routine of being desperately friendly to certain key editors to ensure she had some back up. I've watched her do it too many times before to let it pass again.

My suggestion to Sandy is that she apologize to FM and the other editors of that article for the abuse she meted out to them; and that she start writing some FAs of her own. People really have had enough. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC and FAR closings[edit]

Ack, good morning world. Raul, pls see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#FAR closure. As always, the concern isn't so much for this article, but that this precedent can lead to FAC becoming a free-for-all. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 13:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; best to keep stable process, particularly in a contentious FAR. Now for my coffee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree but suggest you make this desire a little clearer on the page? --BozMo talk 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary box[edit]

I don't know if you have seen the new summary boxes they are using at WP:FLC. It certainly makes everything easier for all concerned. You may want to try to institute it at WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, I sincerely apologize to you and GeraldK for tersely calling this a bad idea, and to Raul for butting in on his talk page where it was none of my concern. I've developed a bad habit of being quick to defend Raul and FAC/FAR because of some accusations, and that just is not an acceptable excuse for bad manners or for butting in here. I know you're both intending the best possible for Wikipedia, and trying to help the Project along; I'm very sorry if my comment felt belitting to either of you, and I wish you the best in your endeavors. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Too busy to answer, but not too busy to rule? Or is the issue so far beneath contempt as to not require communication and reasoning? (Now why are you so misunderstood?!) Geogre 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you do an awful lot of attacking for someone who is so quick to defend. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The summary boxes were only added yesterday, by Geraldk. They were not added as the result of consensus discussion, but a good-faith attempt by that user at clarifying the current status of each nom and hopefully encourage more contributions for the lonely noms. Sometimes you have to try things and then discuss rather than the other way round, provided no harm is done. Geraldk has now opened debate at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. I recommend they be discussed at FLC before anyone jumps to adopt elsewhere. They certainly increase the maintenance hassle, and FAC has enough of those for sure. Colin°Talk 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew we could count on Colin for a full answer, but then Geogre didn't know that's why I didn't waste my breath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but you did! That's what I was getting at. If you're "too busy" to talk to someone, then you're too busy to talk at someone. What you do is yell at people, preempt them, rule over them, and then say that you were just, sigh, so busy that you didn't have time to speak more fully. Well, then, hold your fingers. It's one or the other: it takes the same amount of time to be reasonable as to be self-aggrandizing, but one helps other people, and the other helps only you. Had you not commented at all, that would have been fine. The world would have gone on. Raul might have formed his own opinion. Colin might have shown up to provide information. You didn't let the world continue to spin: you had to announce a ruling on a person's ideas, but without any reasoning. How very, very, very "incivil" of you. Geogre 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be more hassle. If the people who participate get use to it, it would be jsut like the summary counts at WP:RFA where most people update their own edits. I think it makes it easier than looking through 10 levels of indentation to figure out if someone is in support of a candidate. It seems like everyone likes it at FLC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, only two people had responded by last night. Lets see how it works in practice a little longer. FLC and FAC are somewhat different beasts. Colin°Talk 08:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it is working our well at FLC right now. I see Sandy just checked in on some articles. Maybe she has an opinion after getting her hands dirty over there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy that using it on all FACs is overkill, but it might be useful if its use were limited to the longest, drawn out, most difficult-to-understand FAC noms. Tony1 has said he doesn't care for me restarting such noms, so this might be an alternative. Raul654 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Raul, I'm sure I've been unnecessarily aggressive towards you recently; sorry. Don't much like the boxes idea, because it makes it look too much like a vote: that's why we have you there, to interpret rather than do a raw count. If we must have a box, maybe make it clear in the instructions that:

The Director, and only the Director, may add a box at the top of a nomination page where, in his or her opinion, the review process has become convoluted and thus difficult to interpret.

I still think it's best not to have a vote-box. A second alternative, which I think I prefer, might be:

The Director, and only the Director, may create a "Summary of declarations" section at the bottom of a nomination page where, in his or her opinion, the review process has become convoluted and thus difficult to interpret. In the summary section, reviewers are expected to restate their declaration of Support or Oppose with an absolute minimum of supporting text.

That way, complete restarts might be minimised. Tony 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Wikipedia. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!   j    talk   20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia to FAC...[edit]

Last month you listed Indonesia to go onto the main page (was it 23 June?) but I requested it be postponed til August 17, Indonesia's national day. See [18] You also asked me to remind you closer to the day. So here I am. :) Kind regards --Merbabu 06:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still almost a month away. Please remind me when the date gets closer. Raul654 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


OK, I'm in. Let's see how it goes. Raymond Arritt 16:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on his talk page) Raul654 02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Posting RFA[edit]

Raul, I realize its been a while since you've prepared one of these, but nowadays the standard procedure is to let someone answer the questions before posting so that the evaluators have a full picture to work from. Dragons flight 01:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I posted mine before answering the questions, and a few people reverted (and were themselves reverted by an admin), or left messages for me telling me that I'd have to answer the questions first or I'd get oppose votes (thereby delaying me while I was actually in the process of typing the answers). I didn't get any oppose votes because of it. I imagine the people who know the candidate can vote immediately; those who feel that the answers are important in helping them to decide can wait until later. ElinorD (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You weren't kidding that it's been a while (I went back and checked. My last RFA nom was in early 2005). Anyway, Raymond has answered all the questions now, so it's a non-issue, but I'll bear that in mind in the future. Raul654 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA nom[edit]

Per this comment...yeah, it's been a while. But were you a crat last time you nominated someone? Giggy UCP 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although the procedure for nominating someone has become substantially more complicated since then. Raul654 04:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dropped one[edit]

I think one FAC got dropped, not archived or promoted ??? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Victoria Cross for New Zealand. I'll give you my opinions on the Summary Box and restarts if you're interested. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for New Zealand has too few comments to merit either failing it or promoting it. I'll put it back on the FAC.
And by all means let me know what you think of the box idea as an alternative to restarting. Raul654 02:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't completely concur with Tony on restarts, although I do understand his point and his concerns. Perhaps the Hilary Putnam FAC still colors my thinking, but there are times when you just need to start over with a clean slate. Maybe the restarts wouldn't bother Tony if they were used very sparingly (unusual cases like Putnam) or if you did them with no comments that leaned toward support or oppose; I'm not sure, since I've never had that conversation with him, but it seems his concern is more that there be no conflict of interest or any commentary from you that might introduce bias. On the other hand, I really dislike the summary box. I shouldn't have to think about how to format a box and comment when I'm trying to review an article and provide constructive input. The last thing we need is more work, another thing to keep track of, and another thing to make it harder to enter commentary. Also, it's so very un-Wiki-like to "tally" votes like that. I see you're in a tough position; perhaps further conversation with Tony on the restart issue ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR Intelligent design[edit]

And, I can think of at least one FAR that could really benefit from a clean restart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you prefer that I restart the ID FAR? I'm concerned that will occur in a rehashing of the current nom. Raul654 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That question would probably best be answered by Marskell; it seems that nothing has helped there. Keeping the FAR open was supposed to be A Good Thing, but some are still upset. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, please withdraw from this situation. The FAR was closed by an admin. You then re-opened it, despite being in a dispute with the article's creator and after having seriously insulted him and the other writers. I have closed it again. It would be best if you were to allow others to handle this from now on. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can whoever is the director of FAR (if one such exists) bring some order back into the ID FAR? It was clearly closed by mistake as a user simply asked an unrelated admin, User:BozMo, to close it without completing the process. It was reopened by User:SandyGeorgia and discussion was continuing. And then User:SlimVirgin reclosed it again. I assume the persons responsible for the decision of whether to continue to FARC or to truly close the FAR properly lies with User:Raul654 or User:Marskell. Can we just finish the process properly? --RelHistBuff 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All right - I'll look into it. Raul654 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to close it. Per my comment from yesterday, I think restarting it will result in a rehashing of recent events, which I think were corrosive. Raul654 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Four days ago I thought it best to keep going to avoid the appearance of sweeping things under the rug. By this point I think closing is sound. It had gotten to the point I couldn't even edit for the bloody headlines. Marskell 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey wait just a second here, folks. "Finish the process properly"? "...sweeping things under the rug..."? The disclosure at the top of the FAR page at the beginning of the FAR of intelligent design stated: Nominations last for two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed.

Note the confusion about decisionmaking here. The consensus quite plainly and overwhelmingly was, from very early on, that there was no review process in need of completion. Even despite the statement at the top of the FAR page that previously read " 'keep' or 'delist' are not declared here" (since removed from the always-changing "instructions"), approximately 15 users said essentially "fine as FA as it's presently written" (most commonly stated as "keep as FA"). Some five or six users had miscellaneous complaints, some POV related, some organizationally related, some involving minutia such as little things within the footnotes-- oh and then the bot/form advocates had their hand, thereby creating an arguably actionable deviation from FA criteria (inconsistency of internal footnote format). As of now, the FAR has gone on for over two weeks. If the argument here is that it's not really, truly, technically complete until everybody who likes to review featured articles has signed off on it, then there is definitely a problem here that won't go away with the closing of this particular FAR. But the problem is not with the intelligent design article nor with the article editors who've chosen to weigh in.

The main problem, IMO, is there are two procedural standards operating here simultaneously, and a lack of consensus on where the twain meet. One is the dynamic process called WP:Consensus; the other is administrative authority and always-adaptive administrative tradition. Whatever procedure the "FA cummunity" has developed for FAR is quite unclear, incomplete, and/or not properly disclosed to the wider community. This odd procedural hybrid that's been attempted to be implemented on the justification that "we're here only to see to it that FAs represent WP's very best" simply will not wash in the end. There's a bit too much stylistic and substantive influence being thrown around here with this "gold-medal standard" called FA, IMO, to ultimately withstand close scrutiny as to what's presently going on procedurally in this part of WP. By any contemporary procedural standard in the civilized world, everybody involved ought know by what standards they're expected to operate in a given arena before the fact, not after the fact, and right now it's obvious to everyone that it's basically a free-for-all where rules are made up as desired by a number of people. Unfortunately there are many additional people involved, of which I am but one of many. I'll cobble together a summary of procedural observations later this week or next, with no intent other than helping to sort through the mess (read that: "no blame"), and put it forward for everybody's consideration; I think it's important enough to spend some time sorting through the procudural analysis with the aim of arriving at a more stable, sustainable procedure wrt FAR's and such. Talk with ya later. ... Kenosis 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This was a case where the FAR process fell down. It is not a common occurrence. And I welcome any attempt to (as you said, without fixing blame) change the process to avoid a repeat of this in the future. Raul654 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

Do you think it a good idea to open FAR to all admins? As noted on the talk, I'm less concerned about my work there than about the general principal. I think we will have a lot more problems if people can drop in when they like and close. Cheers, Marskell 14:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See my comment here. I agree that giving anyone the ability to close a FAR will inevitably make the process inconsistent, which is something I would prefer to avoid. Raul654 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A summer of discontent[edit]

Much interesting commentary lately! I'm trying to take solace in the idea that bringing things out in the open is good, and that in later months and years we can point back to these discussions when the same questions recur. I agree with you that, while there are no perfect processes on Wiki, FAR and FAC work fairly well. You can't really blame people for stopping by and oggling a trainwreck like ID, but you also can't make rules based on exceptions, and this was a most exceptional case. I wish we had as many people with a comment on the ordinary, uncontroversial review, that simply needs light copyediting. I also wanted to thank you for your even hand. You might have jumped on this or that editor, but you have been fair-minded. Marskell 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fact - no-one will convince anyone by their witty repartée on the FAR talk page - the consensus (apart from 2 or 3) appears to be to keep things the way they are - if there is a poll and it is made official it can at least cement things the way they are.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been a lot of sniping in recent months, and now that it's out in the open and everyone's said their piece, I'm hoping that it's a catharsis. Raul654 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oversight question[edit]

Hi, Raul. In a now-deleted thread at User talk:TREYWiki, you wrote:

I do have oversight access. I think you misunderstand how oversight works. Once a diff has been oversighted, it's gone to everyone - including the oversighters themselves. I'm told, theoretically, that devs can undo an oversight, but barring that once it's oversighted, it's gone. Raul654 14:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That would suggest that the information given here is incorrect. Perhaps someone who knows exactly how oversight works could correct it. ElinorD (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since posting that message, I have been told that my understanding is incorrect - that Mediawiki now allows oversighters to see oversighted revisions. Raul654 23:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets reported by Jaranda[edit]

Jaranda has blocked some users as sockpuppets/puppetmasters (for example and JChristie7), but instead of linking an RFC (as is common in such cases), he justs says he asked you in IRC and you confirmed it. I'm asking for a confirmation of this. I think that just telling "Raul checked it." is a sub-optimal way of handling the blocking of users. Blocked users cannot complain, so at least a RFC should be available to them and others. Thanks for your time.-- ExpImptalkcon 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, asked me to look into sockpuppeting allegations and I confirmed that those two accounts (among others ) were sockpuppets. Raul654 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at Bishop Henry[edit]

I was delighted that you stepped in to directly advise a nominator in that way. Doing that from time to time is probably a powerful way of keeping discipline. Tony 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing a nomination[edit]

I am been flirting with the idea of withdrawing my nomination of John Mayer. Is that even possible, and, if so, how would I go about doing it? --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible, and you do it by asking here on my talk page. Raul654 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice as to how to proceed on the article on Food Irradiation.[edit]

I would like to hear your advice as to how to proceed on a current deadlock on the article on Food Irradiation. After an edit war the article was blocked and heavily discussed on its talk page each fraction accusing the other of NPOV violations. Personal attacks were common and the Mediation Cabal was brought in for mediation. The mediation page was created and the only user User:MonstretM who presented a differing viewpoint to the rest of the group abandoned mediation citing lack of experience and bias of the mediator. The underlying issue as I see it is that either party feels that the other would like to guve undue weight to a minority position. There are also issues with out of context citations etc. on the article. My question to you is if you feel if formal mediation might be a helpful step prior to asking for abribitration or if there is additional steps that we might pursue. My gut feeling is that there is a lack of good faith assumption on either side of the debate. Thanks for your advice. RayosMcQueen 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar (cat)[edit]

Why was this AfD closed within one day (more specificlly, 15 hours from inception to your closing)? If i'm not mistaken the deletion policy states it must run for a full 5 days before the votes are tallyed and then closed. I am most 11:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In a case like that (where there is an overwhelming sentiment one way or the other) we don't have to wait the full 5 days. Raul654 14:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed Proposal[edit]

I and a few others are proposing an alteration to the number of edits that must be made prior to being able to edit semi-protected articles. That is, the number of edits a user must make prior to being auto confirmed. Currently it's 0 and having it set to about 30 would drastically improve the protection of semi-protected articles from vandals while at the same time increasing openness due to less articles having to be fully protected due to repeat offenders. Check out the talk page and add come comments, talk page. We're trying to get attention to it, it has a consensus but nothing is happening. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your old user page design[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I am using your old userpage design, if you want you can look at the wiki code and point out any mistakes. I mainly came here to ask you for advice on how to find and fight vandalism.  Tcrow777  talk  23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


[19] Paul August 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's very upsetting. I've emailed ALoan about it. Raul654 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick change[edit]

Hi! I'm User:Nyo it. Could you change my nickname usurping the User:Nyo account? It seems he's no longer active. Thank you. --Nyo it 12:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. --Deskana (banana) 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


The page formatting at FA Statistics is messed up. Someone changed it, I changed it back, s/he changed it back. Maybe you know how to fix it? [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

HTML/CSS is one language I don't know well (or two languages if you want to be picky) I asked in IRC and Reinsis fixed it. I think it's acceptable now. Raul654 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Except it's now completely missing the template, fapages, which is used on all FA pages (and was causing the problem). I'm sure they'll work it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't missing - you may need to scroll right to see it if your browser window isn't wide enough. Raul654 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, now it's way off my monitor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There's really only two ways to fix it - either have it aligned next to the table (and some people will need to scroll over to the right to see it), or have it at the top of the stats page, above the table, on the right side of the screen. The problem is, if we do it the latter way, there's a huge empty space on the left side of the table. Raul654 18:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing notes[edit]

Raul, are the closing reminders (e.g.; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Io (moon)) helpful? For example, Io (moon) has already been on the main page, so when you add it back to WP:FA it needs the main page template. Since many are coming back, I thought the notes would help you keep them straight as you add them back to WP:FA, so we don't have a repeat of (I think it was?) Pluto, which got re-scheduled for the main page, even though it had already appeared. We've got two more coming through soon. I'm going to correct Io moon now at WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaguar was the one that got rescheduled for the main page.
I didn't realize Io had a reminder (I didn't know to look for it, so my eyes just glanced over the red text). Yes, those are helpful, but with so many coming back, I'm bound to make mistakes. Raul654 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep adding the reminders, but also keep an eye open as a backup. I fixed Io (moon). Octopus card is at FAC now, and Autism is coming back soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A Small Number of Individual Scientists[edit]

I looked through the talk archives on Global Warming and saw that this issue has been discussed extensively, although the best description I can give as to the resolution was that it appeared to be another "the foot has spoken" scenario on the part of some familiar users. I was particularly interested by some actions taken by William M. Connolley in the course of the discussion [21].

I'm not pointing any fingers, but I was just wondering how many credible scientists would need to be on that list before it no longer qualified for the 'few' descriptor. For 37 people, it just seems inappropriate to me. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that previous discussions have pegged the number of people who could reasonably be called climatologists in the 10,000-20,000 range, 37 out of that number (0.37% or 0.185%) is a vanishingly small number. "A few" is, frankly, giving too much credit to point of view held by a trivial (but very vocal) few. Raul654 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Would you happen to know the exact number of signatures on the IPCC assessment? Since the article rightly focuses so heavily on the findings of the IPCC, perhaps that would be a more reliable number to weigh them against over a rough estimate. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 01:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the exact number, but if you include both authors and reviewers, it's huge - in the thousands (in other words, a very statistically significant portion of all the climatologists in the world) Raul654 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This says there are "hundreds" of authors, reviewers, and contributors; not tens of thousands or even thousands (page 3). That's a pretty major statistical discrepancy, and I think it's safe to say the issue needs further research. In the meantime, I'll see what I can find in terms of solid numbers on the IPCC's website. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Here they refer to it as thousands. Raul654 01:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the IPCC is in a little bit of disagreement with itself, then.
The wikipedia article on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report says there were about 600 authors and 640 reviewers (still looking for exact totals, though). That's still a far cry from tens of thousands. I'll keep looking for a solid number or (better) a list.
I promise not to edit war or push for undue weight, but if reliable numbers can be found, it would be crazy not to include them. A solid reference outlining how many contributors signed on to the IPCC assessment (and possibly a ratio comparing the number of skeptics which meet all qualifications for inclusion) would make a good addition to the article. Numbers, even approximates, are better than weasel words. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you're getting this "tens of thousands" number for the IPCC. The 1200 number does seem about right though. The IPCC is (by a wide margin) the most authoritative document in climatology. And, for that matter, I can't think of anything that authoritative in any other field either. Raul654 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to your prior estimate, but beyond that, it would still be a valid addition to the article. I'll run the signature list past you if I find it. But still, 2.25% of scientists being skeptics (with the present ratio of 37/1240) is not completely insignificant. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Participants don't formally "sign on" to the IPCC reports, except maybe at the highest levels (I was a contributing author for the TAR and AR4). There are various levels of authorship plus the reviewers but formal approval is at the governmental level. Note also that there seems to be a little confusion above between the number of IPCC participants and the total number of climate scientists; the latter obviously is much larger than the former. Your 2.25% figure is off, because you're comparing the total number of dissenters on the page (some of whom are not involved in climate, and others of whom can only be called "scientists" in the most charitable use of the terms) with a subset of climate scientists. As far as I can see IPCC participation is broadly representative of the community and does include some of the skeptics, such as Lindzen and Christy. Raymond Arritt 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick review[edit]

As a neophyte admin I'd appreciate a quick check on my handling of this. [22][23]. In a strict sense the guy did violate 3RR, but given the infantile behavior of all concerned I thought it best to either block everyone or no one. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I thought what you did was entirely sensible; and once you've decided to protect the article the an individual block (which is supposed to be preventative not punative) was unnecessary. --BozMo talk 08:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your message[edit]

I was unaware of their counterproductive nature, and I apologize. Cliff smith 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you reveting?[edit]

Curps may actually be dead. We should look into this more, though. Trynton Shines 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because, to be blunt, you're a user whose been here 5 days and made less than 2 dozen edits. I don't believe you. Raul654 02:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This is my new Wikipedia life. I have in truth been here for a very long time. I've just has a bad past, I was here back when Curps was editing, and I'm here to report his possible death. Trynton Shines 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I requests his account be blocked for now, but if he e-mails us and says the email was false, he should be unblocked. Trynton Shines 03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Raul654, I have reported this claim to the noticeboard. -Yancyfry 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC of Tool (band)[edit]

Dear Raul, I am writing you to ask you to re-open (or re-initiate, I am unfamiliar with FAC protocol) the candidacy for Tool (band). Prior to being closed last night, a fellow editor and me finished what we thought was a revision of the article that addressed all the concerns raised earlier and posted a notice. After posting, one of the two opposing editors withdrew his opposition since his concerns have been addressed, and according to a quick chat at LuciferMorgan's talk page, he has only some minor concerns left. Please reconsider, and contact me, or other involved parties if you need further information. A big thanks! Johnnyw talk 10:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you have the time to take another look at the FAC, and restart it, if possible. Contact me if you have any doubts. Greetings and thanks! Johnnyw talk 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look[edit]

Raul (or an admin) please have a look; I hesitate to intervene. Green Owl (talk · contribs) just added two FACs, already has one up that hasn't been addressed, and is entering very strange comments throughout WP:FAC. For example, can the comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autism be removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I independently noticed the Autism comment and just now asked asked Green Owl about it. Something strange is going on there all right. Eubulides 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And, regular editors are requesting that The Simpsons be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Bisognerebbe is Italian. Epbr123 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, most of his edit summaries are Italian. He withdrew The Simpsons, but archived Eubulides' question about Autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force[edit]

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your support re: climate change denial. Given your interests and edit history, I'm hoping you might be be interested in signing up with this task force several editors have recently started. Come by and have a look!

Leaf 1 web.jpg You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Cyrusc 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Restarted nomination[edit]

I notice that you have "restarted" my nomination of Confederate government of Kentucky for FA status. As this is only my second-ever FA nom, I am not sure exactly what this means or why it was done. I'm not necessarily opposed to the action; I'd just like some clarification on what it means. Thanks. Acdixon 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It means the old nomination had a lot of back-and-forth discussion, and it was difficult for me to tell what the outstanding objections were. So all the old supports and objections are wiped away, and the nomination starts out fresh. People are free to bring up their old objections, if they think they are still pertinent. Raul654 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand and agree with that decision. I was just trying to see if I need to re-add my support, or if restarting disqualified those who expressed opinions in the original nomination or what. Thanks for the restart then. Acdixon 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aug 9 TFA[edit]

Hey Raul, looks like the article chosen for August 9 has already been featured. This is according to Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2007. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

D'OH. Thanks for letting me know. Raul654 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No Problem, just doing my... job, I guess? lol -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

CM Punk[edit]

Hey, I notice you are the one who decides what featured articles become Wikipedia's daily featured article. I'm really curious about that, because my little peeve is the History of Professional Wrestling, and I've joined a WikiProject called WikiProject ProWrestling. An article, called CM Punk was recently added to Featured Article status, and it is well-referenced, clear, and passed all the criteria. However, I feel that the article is really a disappointment, because the editors who obsessively added enough references to get it together and reach FA still made it too arcane, uninteresting, and esoteric for me to read, and I'm a wrestling fan. Essentially, they got the facts right, but the subject is really not important, relevant, or known to many people.

My question is as follows: how do you deal with that? What if a group of complete nerds put together an article on World of Warcraft or some anime title that you know has a very limited appeal? Do you put that on the "Today's FA" or can you scoff it off? I'm sure some of those guys probably get up your ass about not having anyone read their boring page because you won't put it up, and they think it is the coolest thing in the world. Like, I'm curious, because I've seen nothing but interesting FAs, including Ben Franklin, historical figures, science, and i'm wondering about these "FAs that shouldn't be" (at least in my mind.)

As you can probably guess, I admire your job, because I would have a difficult time compromising a website's respectability for the demands of complete losers. --Screwball23 talk 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Stop hand nuvola.svg

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:Sceptre, you will be blocked from editing. Will (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:-p Raul654 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the note, Mark. It was clearly no consensus. Less than 70% (by me, even if it were less than 75%) and so many firm and elaborated opposes can hardly be called consensus. I wanted to close this one quickly as the amazing rancor of the "camps" needed to have a period put to it, at least in terms of the RfA. Cheers, Cecropia 15:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ornithology question[edit]

Hi Mark--can't see the bird but I think I recognize the song. Is this Enviroknot? It has that stink of "banned user" and it's Comcast from Houston. Just curious, since when I'm blocking banned users I like it if I know. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Very likely a banned user. If memory serves, Enviroknot liked to use TOR, so I can't say if it's him or not. Raul654 02:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello. According to this article's talk page, you're overseeing its FA nomination. I have two questions. First, is there enough consensus now to give it FA status? And second, how much longer is the discussion going to continue?

Thank you. The Clawed One 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was unaware that being a Featured Article and being on the Main Page were not the same (I was under the impression that once an article acquired FA status, it joined some sort of "waiting list" or something to appear on the MP). So, if the article does acquire FA status, is there some sort of waiting period or something between the FA passing and requesting it appear on the main page? The Clawed One 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


I'd just like to request a WWE related featured article for Monday. like John Cena, or CM Punk--Hornetman16 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The 13th (the date I presume you are talking about) has already been requested for Maximus the Confessor. Raul654 14:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 6, 2007[edit]

Hello, could you do us all a big favour ? Replace the featured picture (the Brussels chamber) by this view of the Strasbourg chamber. Strasbourg is the official seat of the Parliament and the building is the larger of the two. More infos here : Buildings of the European Parliament. Thank you ! RCS 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A Problem[edit]

Hi there; I am a fairly new admin, and have been approached with a problem which I am not competent to handle. I threw it at User:Cecropia, being a bureaucrat with whom I have interacted, and he suggested I should contact you.

The problem: we have a vandal who appears to have an unlimited access to a range of PCs; I am of course aware that an indeiscriminate range block will do a vast amount of collateral damage, probabnly in excess of the benefit achieved. The problem was brought to me by User:Scorpion0422, and if you would look at User:Scorpion0422/Hidden Message Vandal you will appreciate the nature and degree of the problem. Whether there is antthing positive that can be done, I know not. Obviously I can block and delete as new things appear, but that does not prevent persistent new IP vandalism. Any help that you can give would, I know, be much appreciated by the three editors who have spent about three months fighting this guy. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Political correctness[edit]

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at political correctness. From my perspective, this article was in pretty good shape until recently, but has come under attack from a couple of determined POV-pushers, similar to problems encountered in quite a few articles where I've seen and appreciated your contributions. Of course, YMMV. JQ 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup reminder[edit]

Hi. On the page for the upcoming New York City meetup on Sunday, you requested that someone give you a reminder when the date was getting closer, so here it is. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost FAC[edit]

I left an example about the peacock terms that I keep finding by just scanning the article. I've been working a lot, and school just finished for me so I had not had a chance to give a thorough review, only skim the surface. I'll try and read the entire article this evening so that I can give a more detailed analysis for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Just a note, according to his talk page, Tony1 is gone for a week, so won't be able to resolve his Opposes. Most of the people who could GimmeBotify the promotions/archives are not going to be available as we get into August; seems just about everyone has something going on. I can try to keep up manually, but I will be on a dialup on and off through mid-Sept. Any ideas? Unless you know someone who can pitch in manually for a few weeks, maybe we could go back to temporarily using the old templates (facfailed, etc.) until Gimmetrow's hopefully back on board full-time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can use the old tags until Gimmetrow comes back. Alternatively, for the time being, I'm more than competent to operate the bot if someone does mind giving me some basic instructions. Raul654 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried something new with this batch: I added the star on promoted, and a facfailed template on not promoted, with an edit summary that a bot would update the talk page. Hopefully, that will eliminate confusion if there's any delay in articlehistory botification. Gimmetrow's situation isn't yet clear; will try this for a while and see how it goes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Replacing fac with facfailed caused some problems with Talk:The Colbert Report. Gimmetrow 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a good idea? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
As the bot is currently written, no. The part which deals with a page with a missing "fac" template has parts commented out. I'm guessing there were situations where people removed "fac" without adding "facfailed", and if an older "facfailed" existed the bot was grabbing that instead. I've uncommented that code for now to see what happens next round. Gimmetrow 02:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Sicko (film). Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not delete an NPOV dispute tag while there is a NPOV dispute pending. Thank you. THF 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I left the guy a note about calling good faith edits vandalism. He however removed the message. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page requests[edit]

With regards to the main page request for Aston villa; looking at Arsenal F.C.'s main page pic i saw it wasn't neccessarily an action shot.(although i do now notice it is quite an old main page article) Would this image be appropriate? it shows history of Villa, European Cup, etc and is equivalent to Arsenal F.C's celebratory shot, albeit not a current team picture though. thanks for your consideration. Woodym555 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Have anything for August 27? That's the first day of classes at Penn State, so putting this on the main page that day would be great, especially since it will be the first day of classes in the 100th year of the program.

As for the lead, I'll do what I can, but it might be easier to just increase the length of the text in the FA box. --Spangineerws (háblame) 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Size of FAs[edit]

Hi Raul. Long time, eh? Anyway, there's a few of us trying to move Donald Bradman to FA status. A cursory glance at the article reveals a problem; the man was massively notable for approx 60 years, so the article's massive. We've started hoiking material into daughter articles and ruthlessly editing out anything remotely extraneous, but I'm still concerned over the detail of WP:SIZE as it applies to FAs -what exactly should we be aiming for? Also, the "size" of the article is presumably increased by images, and this is richly illustrated. Is there a size criterion that excludes images? Sorry, that's a bit of a ramble, but any help would be gratefully received. Let's keep the conversation here (unless you're going to point to an existing thread), if you don't mind. --Dweller 09:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be most grateful for a reply... I do understand you're busy. --Dweller 10:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not Raul, but if you read WP:SIZE it does not include images, tables, or reference lists. It does seem large, even so, yes. Part of the problem is that the sections that have daughter articles don't seem as condensed as they could be, still being many paragraphs in the main article. Could "1930 tour of England" be a daughter article? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule. Generally, though, size-related objections include only readable text, excluding images, references, citations, 'etc. If memory serves, objections don't usually start until after 60kb or 70kb of readable prose. Raul654 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Yikes. So we've a long way to go. Any recent promotions of very large articles? --Dweller 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Moderation request[edit]

Raul, your input on a discussion in the Featured Article candidate's talk page regarding image sizing would be greatly appreciated. Though I seem to be disagreeing with a majority, I believe I am in the right IAW WP:MoS. I am willing to acquiesce to your opinion, though, if I am in the wrong. Again, any help & guidance would be greatly appreciated. BQZip01 talk 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sarah Knauss.jpg)[edit]


Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah Knauss.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia - 17 August...[edit]

Hi Raul

Sorry to pester you, but you did suggest a few weeks back I ask you closer to the date to put Indonesia as the articel of the day for 17 August - ie, Indonesia's national day and most important holiday.

Who does the summary? As one of 3 principal contributors to that article, I can put a summary together if you'd like.

Cheers. --Merbabu 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul - an update - I've actually made a 166-word summary of the article here if you want to use it. I simply used the sentences in the lead and cut down on the detail - please modify it if need be. thanks --Merbabu 08:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Beagle (TFA Aug 10 2007)[edit]

I've changed some of the punctuation in the lead of Beagle. I think it enhances readability; could you incorporate those changes into the TFA blurb? -- Super Aardvark 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:John Walker Lindh.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:John Walker Lindh.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Hey mark, what up homeslice? --CableModem^^ 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Spirit Airlines[edit]

Hello Raul, it seems User:Diemacher, now blocked, has been making several odd claims and edits regarding this article and its contents, many of these claims countering the official airline website's information, and has recently been attempting to substitute cet official information for his own with little or no sourcing, which violates original research guidelines. After an edit war with User:Sox23 which got them both blocked (though Sox23 has been unblocked since) regarding the validity of his edits, the user came in as an anon and has apparently made claims to be the airline CEO (possibly B. Ben Baldanza) and has supposedly made legal threats through User:David Fuchs, which was the blocking administrator. Regardless of his threats, the claims Diemacher/anon has made concerning the edits and reversions done by Sox23 (as being incorrect and libelous), as well all of his corrections to the article do basically counter almost everything stated on the airline's official website which is our only true source for everything stated in the article, so unless Diemacher/anon is actually the CEO and he suddenly makes some sort of official statement regarding this, or actually updates the website, then I think we shouldn't validate his edits through the original research rules, but I'm contacting you for a bit of outside intervention for this seeing as I have been an active editor to the article. Currently the article still stands as edited by Diemacher until further notice, and there's small discussion regarding what should be done about the edits and steps taken in this entire ordeal. Also, some users are questioning the blocking of Sox23 as having been done in bad faith. Sooo... that's the entire situation. How should this be handled appropriately? Should we revert the article back to pre-Diemacher status, or leave it as edited by the user? and what of the anon's claims and possible future changes outside blocked IPs? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your actions on this case. In the case of an anonymous editor on the internet (regardless of who he claims to be) making claims that contract the official website, we defer to the official website. If he continues with the legal threats, block him. Raul654 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack and incivility[edit]

I think that this goes over the top [24] and that your administrator status does not grant you the right to rant against me like this. I'll answer to your series of non sequiturs and other sophisms soon enough. --Childhood's End 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to that page that removed my comment. In the future, do not remove comments from other. And it's not rant to collect your asinine comments and point out how they differ from reality - and that every word you write is a lie, including "and" and "the" Raul654 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I see there's no way I will bring you to reason and civility. Failing an apology, I'll bring it to the admins noticeboard (not that I want to or expect much, but I must by principle). --Childhood's End 13:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You should be apologizing to all the people on talk:Global warming and related pages whose time is wasted replying to your constant stream of specious comments. You will get none from me. Raul654 13:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of AN, I've started a thread there Raul654 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

I think it might be worth trying some informal mediation first. I can imagine being a lone dissenting voice must be frustrating. Give it a chance? --Dweller 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My experience with mediation (as both participant and arbitrator having to clean up the mess afterward) has been uniformly negative. Furthermore, I think it has no chance of success in this case because, to be frank, Childhoodend's actions have made it quite clear that he is not editing in good faith. He is a POV warrior through-and-through, and mediation is not going to fix that.
Also, for the record, he is not acting alone. There is an informal group of anti-science (primarily anti-global warming) POV warriors who mutually support each other. This group includes (but is not limited to): Childhoodsend, Iceage77, Rameses/Britannia (proven sockpuppets), Rossnixon, UBeR (although Raymond Arritt holds out some hope for him), Mnyakko, RonCram, Oren0, and a few others. Raul654 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Shame. POV warring is very difficult to unpick, one man's POV warring is another man's balancing an article, lol. Good luck with it, whatever. Hope no-one ends up blocked. --Dweller 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Except when confronted with the fact that his statements do not match reality (as reported by reliable sources such as the NY Times, the Washington Post, Greenpeace, 'etc), Childhoodend simply attacks the sources. And as far as hoping no one gets blocked - blocking problem users is the best way to deal with them. Far better than the alternative - letting them continue to edit, burn out good users, 'etc. I've been here long enough that I've seen the results of unchecked trolling and it ain't pretty. Raul654 15:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree, I'm doubtful mediation will be very useful in this instance. I also agree with you that CE deserves a ban (and probably a number of the rest) although given how messy any such attempt is likely to get, I don't think I'll be joining. But good good luck Nil Einne 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"...reliable sources such as the NY Times...Greenpeace...'" known liberal leaning organizations. I'm not giving a blanket "I don't think so" to these sources, but they are known as liberal leaning publications. That said, if the KKK says the sky is blue, they might be right and I'll handle each instance accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Friend, I've left a response at AN for you. Regards, Navou banter 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've taken your advice. Raul654 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page image[edit]

Thanks for your note. I was a little peeved last night, but I'm not soured at all. Overall, I was delighted to get the painting on the main page, and the helpful edits it brought outweighted the few instances of vandalism and all the main page talk hassel. I have no regrets, and I appreciated the opportunity. Ceoil 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture help[edit]

Hi, I emailed you earlier about help with uploading a picture. I did that before I knew you were on OTRS (I knew you were an admin, that's all). Anyway I saw that you had an account on metawiki OTRS, and was wondering if you could look at the pic I uploaded and the email I sent to The subject heading for the email is: Re: Glenn Greenwald portrait and license permission. Added link for URL of photo on commons

The relevant pic on commons is: here

The page I wanted to add it to on is: Glenn_Greenwald

I'm hoping you can look at the email I sent to permissions and verify that I have the appropriate consent and add to the permissions section, of the uploaded image, a ticketid. Or in the alternative, let me know if anything is lacking. Thanks in advance for any assistance. R. Baley 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. . .R. Baley 05:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Raul, please ping my email. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have one set in your preferences (so I couldn't use email-this-user) and from a quick check I don't have your email in my address book. Raul654 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. I set up a separate account for Wikipedia stuff. Raymond Arritt 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again - This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users. Raul654 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, see what you mean. Now it should be fixed. Kinda weird; I assumed it was working as someone managed to email me anyway and that's a brand-new purpose-specific address. Raymond Arritt 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Sent. Raul654 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased procedure[edit]

I think that the whole process in voting for the selection of FA in the WP:TFA/R is biased. I don't like the procedure of placing only five articles for date requests. Atleast all the article that want to show up on the main page may request for a date, which is within the 30 days from the date of request. Hope, u will change the procedure. Thanks. Smile, as a smile costs nothing. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I set up the date requests system on TFA/R like that so as to prevent me from being swamped with requests. (The list itself, which is nigh-useless now, is currently running around 130) At the moment, those 5 slots are doled out on a first-come-first-serve basis, which is perfectly far - anyone can take it, provided they show up at the right moment. If you can think of a better system for arbitrating between conflicting requests that doesn't involve me being swamped, I'm all ears. Raul654 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NYC meeting reminder[edit]

You asked for it, so here it is: your reminder for the NYC meeting in Central Park August 12 Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. The weather should be all right. Flew in from Orlando last Wednesday so I should know. Avb 04:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 9/11 Content summary[edit]

Please adhere to WP:BRD and discuss reversions on the talk page. Per WP:MOS#FILMS, a content summary should be 400-700 words long, and this one is 1200 words long. THF 15:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 and Little Man by David Shankbone


I was wondering when you were going to show this article on the main page? It's been there for a while (And probably other have been there longer), doesn't your main page selection go on time of being featured or requested? If it goes on topic, then I'm sure you haven't had a fossil dino-bird on the main page for age eh? :) Anyway, just some answers would suffice, but I'd ratehr you took care of those ahead of me first - wouldn't want to try an jump the line. Anyway, cheers, :) Spawn Man 07:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! :) Spawn Man 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FL requests[edit]

Is there a page where one came nominate a Featured lists be on the featured contents page? I see the page for requesting a FA, but not a FL.--Ccson 14:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No - featured lists don't go on the main page. The reason is that a list doesn't really have the content to retain viewer's attention for very long - it isn't sticky content Raul654 15:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Mark - can you help in trying to establish some kind of "press credentials" for Wikimedia so that we can more easily gain access to events? I know Wikinews has such an accreditation system, but they strongly refuse to issue such credentials to anyone who doesn't work on Wikinews (they are pretty unceremonious in telling non-Wikinewsies to bug off). It would make it a lot easier for us to work on getting images. I'd be happy to try and set something up, or lend a hand in doing so, if need be. --David Shankbone 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to vouch for you, but I'm not sure who is in charge of the accreditation process for Wikinews. (1) Can you find that out for me? (2) At the moment I am utterly and completely swamped. If I don't get back to you soon, can you poke me again sometime after next Monday? [Or better yet, the week of the 27th, when I should (hopefully) be less busy.] Raul654 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes - there is no rush on this. More so, can we establish a separate program outside of Wikinews? Marinate on whether that is possible, and I'll bug you at the end of the month. I met with Stanley Aronowitz today and did his portrait. He is part of my Most Dangerous Professors series of photographs. --David Shankbone 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've poked Jimbo and Sandy about this. I'll let you know what I find out. Raul654 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Check your email, David. Raul654 01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Question concerning my FAC[edit]

I've been sitting on The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest for a couple reasons. I'll try to keep this brief. Most of the show's history is well documented, except for the early period of development under Peter Lawrence and Dick Sebast. This is also the most important period of development, since Lawrence (despite being fired) masterminded the ultimate product and primarily created it with Sebast. Most of the insider information from later material comes from Lance Falk, who handled continuity, wrote 9 episodes, and did other production stuff. But he only came in after Lawrence was fired, leaving this history sketchy.

I was able to contact Peter Lawrence, and in his first few e-mails he gave me a picture of what went on. Since July he's been busy writing for a television series, so he hasn't been able to respond to any further inquiries yet. That's why I've been waiting. I've also contacted Lance Falk to clarify a few other nebulous points in the show's evolution.

The problem is that this new information, despite being directly relevant to the subject, is going to have to be presented on my QuestFan website and thus be original research. Ordinarily, I'd try to sneak this through the FAC process in service of the ideal of more accurate and varied knowledge. I'm concerned, however, that on top of use of the writer's bible and Lance Falk's previous commentaries, the Lawrence material might be too much in the original research category and get a visible OPPOSE. That, coupled with waiting for more important Lawrence answers, has stalled work on the article. Do you have any advice for the problem of using their important commentary? Zeality 05:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Raul, about 2 hours ago, you removed 34 articles from FAC. I would really like to know why so I can determine whether or not to continue with the review of one or more of the said articles. Thanks. BQZip01 talk 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

16 of those were promoted, the rest were archived. Gimmebot should be along sooner or later to close all of those noms. Raul654 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Understood. — BQZip01 — talk 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I dealing with a sock-puppeteer?[edit]

Hi Raul! I was wondering if User:Mwmalone and User: is a sock-puppeteer. It began with these two edits in Thor (Marvel Comics) in defense of one another:

Some time later, I received a message on my User Talk Page, edited subsequently as one or the other user (disregard the edit by David, who was tagging the response as unsigned):

Now, someone just forgetting to sign in is one thing, but both users seem to have lengthy edits; moreover, the edits in Thor appear to be complimentary and supportive of one another, without clarification that they are the same person. While not really knowing what makes one user a sock and another not, I am not sure if this is a pattern that repeats elsewhere. Your input would be invaluable. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent checking reveals the aforementioned pattern. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:this edit - yes, is Mwmalone's logged-out IP. They are the same person. It's not sockpuppetry though - there's no rule saying you have to edit while logged in. Raul654 12:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


I just noticed your post on Gmaxwell's talkpage - if you want a geonotice, check out RFGN, the process for it. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, not necessary - I already told him in real life exactly what I need. Raul654 21:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BackupHDDVD[edit]

Why was this nomination closed before consensus was reached? The reasons for both oppose comments had been addressed and neither one could count towards consensus. Why wasn't the nomination kept open? Noclip 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I archived it because it had been on the FAC for a month and (at the time I archived it) it no support. But I'll tell you what - normally we tell people to wait a a few weeks nominating again. If you want, go ahead and renominate it now. Raul654 12:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting for spam blacklist[edit]

Requesting this link -- to be blacklisted. Has this ip :- and this Aysha2k6 repeated adding that link to this following articles Visa (document) and Country. It would be kind if that site is blacklisted at once. Thank You. --SkyWalker 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank You. :-) --SkyWalker 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia for 17 August - looks great, but...[edit]

Hi Raul. Thanks for putting Indonesia onto the front page for 17 August - the country's national day. The summary looks great, but another editor (User:Indon) and I have two suggestions:

  1. Do we really need to spend approx. 30 words listing its neighbouring countries when summaries are limited in word count? We've already said it is in South East Asia.
  2. I think it would it help to state in the summary that the 17th is its Independence celebrations (ie, that's why it's on the main page that day).

To make it easier, your complete summary page with my mods is here - changes I propose shown here.

hope you can help, kind regards --Merbabu 12:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the list of border countries. I don't think it's necessary to explicitly connect the article with the August 17 date. Raul654 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, OK. But many thanks for all the rest. Cheers. --Merbabu 12:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello Raul,

Normally, will not write nor ask anyone to look into a problem, but in this case I feel that I must. I believe that User:Beneaththelandslide has stepped out of line by continually adding what I consider insulting remarks to the following FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hispanic Americans in World War II and by making what I believe to be an anti-Hispanic remarks. I know that these things are to be expected and I have told the user in a nice way that he already cast his vote and opinion and that he should just let go, but he continues. However, with his behavior I'm afraid that he is attempting to disrupt the natural voting process and trying to influence oppose votes with his words and uncivil manner. Is there anyway that he can be told to "Stop". I don't want him to instigate a dispute. Thank you for listening. Tony the Marine 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand where both of you are coming from on this. A lot of what he's saying is inflammatory, however, some of what he says is constructive. Concentrate on the second and third sentences of his initial comment, which I consider to be constructive feedback: Gives disproportionate weight to what was, in terms of numbers and impact, a small minority. Singles out individuals to give a distorted view of the group's contribution to the war, therefore fails to give a neutral and broad view. I checked the article - it says "According to the National World War II Museum, between 250,000 and 500,000 Hispanic Americans served in the Armed Forces during WWII; the exact number is unknown.". While this might seem like a large number, to put this in context, the US had somewhere around 10 million men in uniform (give or take 2 million; I've seen 8 million and 12 million in print). So Hispanics made up 2 to 6.25 percent of the armed forces. Beneaththelandslide thinks that it's important that the article make this distinction, to put it in context, and I happen to think he's right about that part.
As for the second point be makes ("Singles out individuals to give a distorted view of the group's contribution to the war, therefore fails to give a neutral and broad view"), it might be useful for you to look at 100th Infantry Battalion (United States) and 442nd Regimental Combat Team to see how they handle the issue (if at all). Raul654 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Raul,

The article has gone through a complete overhaul and all of the reference issues of been taken care of. A. Yes, I do understand and I would like to place a porcentage in which it could compare with the total amount of U.S. soldiers which participated in the conflict. I could make a point and state that aprox. 2 to 6% of those who participated were Hispanics in acordance to the numbers provided by the U.S. Musuem of WW II, but then I will get the "We Want exact numbers" kind of thing, so what rephrasing would you suggest?

I dug out the number for you. According to the appendix (pg 803) in 'A Pictoral History of the United States Army' (Gene Gurney, 1966), the number of troops who served in the US army during World War II (from Dec 1 to August 1945) was 10,420,000. (The more oft-cited number, 11,260,000, would appear to be for Dec 1941 to December 1945.). Thus, the proportion was 2.39% to 4.79%. Beyond that, the museum states the number is unknown, so that's good enough for me. Raul654 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you Raul I have added the % and ref. Since I have added the amount 10,420,000-11,260,000, would it be alright to leave the estimated 250,000 t0 500,000? Tony the Marine 21:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

B. User:AnonEMouse, who is an experienced FAC editor and a neutral party (not Hispanic), vetted the entire article, checking references, material emphasized, and everything else. It was really hard for me to obtain information and come up with the article with what little I had to go on. I know that you understand this. Definitely my intentions are not to single out individuals to give a distorted view of the group's contribution to the war. The only people that have been singled out have been Hispanic Americans who accomplished extraordinary feats or whose participation made have made an impact. I myself I no idea of the contributions which Hispanic Americans made to the War until I wrote the article. If I were to concentrate only on the group per se, without including the personal accomplishemnts of some of the members of the group, then I believe that I would have failed in my goal of providing the best article possible. Take care. Tony the Marine 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Despret plea[edit]

can you PLEASE Change my name to "HIYO" please please please!!!!!!!!!!! Clonetroop125 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what WP:CHU is for. --Deskana (banana) 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Responding on users talk page so as to not annoy Raul with new message bars. --Deskana (banana) 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Taken care of by Andrevan. Raul654 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


At FAC and FAR talks, I've called for volunteers to act, informally, in the role of disinterested closers of Featured Sound Candidate nominations. There's a backlog and no one seems to be doing it. Tony 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates to my watchlist, although I can't make any promises how often I'll be along to close nominations. Raul654 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

HIMDIME 2[edit]

Raul, I've lengthened the lead and updated old links and access dates, so this one is ready to go as far as I can tell. Let me know if the lead still needs to be longer. Like I said, it'd be great if it could be featured August 27, but that's obviously up to you. Thanks! --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 12:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Moon not selected for the 28th[edit]

Any particular reason why? Buc 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My edit to the An Inconvenient Truth article[edit]

I saw you speedily reverted my edit on the An Inconvenient Truth article. I'm trying to get a discussion going about this over on the talk page of the article. Please come over and participate in the discussion as I believe your input would be helpful. Thanks! Elhector 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on that talk page. Raul654 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrids on the front page[edit]

I see you've scheduled Plug-in hybrid for this month. There are two independent Japanese automobile industry journalists who say Toyota is going to introduce their plug-in at the Tokyo Motor Show which starts on October 26th. I think it would be so much more effective if the appearance on the main page was coincident with that Toyota announcement. Would that be okay instead? ←BenB4 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see User:SmthManly did that. I guess I should ask him instead? ←BenB4 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

SmthManly tags talk pages for the dates I choose. I'm in Florida with an extremely slow dial up right now, so I'll look into this Monday or Tuesday. Raul654 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have taken plug-in hybrid off the queue and put something else in its place. If you want plug-in hybrid featured on October 26th, remind me about 10 days beforehand. Raul654 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem with photos[edit]

Hey Raul - User:Nandesuka has taken issues with photos of mine that have been on pubic hair, glans penis and Frenulum of prepuce of penis (the last article User:WJBScribe put on the photo). He has reverted Glans penis four times since 7:00 last time, when there is some Talk page consensus to use the photos, and they've been up there for over a month. Then he canvassed User:Jakew to join him in an edit war over the issue, so now the two are tag-teaming reverting. --David Shankbone 15:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

David's message implies that I have violated 3RR. I have not. I have removed some of David's images, notably those that are of poor visual quality, that improperly isolate their subject, those that detract from the articles they are in, and those that are only of tangential relevance to the article they were placed in. Images of David's that are relevant and of high quality (for example, his fine picture in Scrotum) I have left alone. All of these articles suffer from the constant addition of many, many images by people who want to exhibit images that they appear in (or that they have taken -- I'm aware that David is not his own model). Cleaning out the worse images is nothing more than standard editing. David should take this in stride, and accept that all material submitted to Wikipedia is edited mercilessly. I suggest that he is too close to the source material, as its creator, to evaluate its quality dispassionately. Nandesuka 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's being taken in stride, dear Nandesuka, perhaps you should take it in stride that there is disagreement, and specifically on Pubic hair there is consensus here to use the image. You are taking your opinion and you are canvassing friends to back it up, friends who have never edited these articles before, and asking them to join you in a revert war. Perhaps you are not taking this whole thing in stride, and trying to discount my opinion simply because I took the photographs has no basis in policy or guideline, just your opinion. And this personal attack doesn't make you look like you are taking this in stride or handling the issue maturely. --David Shankbone 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I redacted that. What can I say, I get snippy when people start publically accusing me of "violating 3RR" when I haven't. Nandesuka 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read your own edit summaries as a good lesson in what causes people to get snippy. A little less snarky priggishness and a little more good faith would be welcome, User:Nandesuka. I see no reason for us to be locking horns, and your edits summaries are what got my goat, as the case may be. That, and you canvassing your friends. And relying on old consensus that was trumped by new consensus. --David Shankbone 16:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As with the above thread, I'll look into this on Monday or Tuesday. Raul654 16:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

August 19, 2007 featured article[edit]

I've removed a broken section link from tomorrow's featured article blurb, though I'm not sure if it should be removed completely or replaced with Architecture of Windows NT#Executive, as I don't know whether or not we normally remove section links from the blurbs. Please take a look, if you can. --- RockMFR 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Raul654 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about a FAC[edit]

Hi Raul654, recently you restarted a FAC candidate see here. Having already completed the comments raised by the users before it was restarted, the FAC is now getting virtually zero constructive comments. Should I just wait until it gets some comments? Davnel03 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure that nothing further can be done to address comments raised prior to the nomination being restarted, then yes - all you can do is wait for further comments. Raul654 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Report of 1800[edit]

Thanks for digging this up for the main page earlier this week. Hope everything is well. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. All is well :) Raul654 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

TFA archive images[edit]

Hi Raul. I noticed a thread at WP:AN about images in the TFA archives (see WP:AN#Non-free images in project space), and that prompted me to do another sweep through the TFA archives for old TFA blurbs with redlinks. The results (nearly finished as at time of writing) are at: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Images in TFA archives (redux). I'm also thinking of making lists of blurbs without images, and those with non-free images, but that will come later.

I also noticed this IfD, when investigating the redlink Image:Yom Kippur War 2.jpg. When searching for free images, I suggested Image:1973 Yom Kippur War - Golan heights theater.jpg to replace it in the old blurb. I also looked on Commons, and found a few pics that may or may not be of use: Image:GolanHeights-tank.jpg, Image:HN-Egyptian-123K-TB-1.jpg, Image:Mig-21-Algérie-Guerre-kippour-1973.jpg.

Finally, I noticed that the blurb pic for an upcoming TFA is marked as copyright, and raised the issue here. The painting may or may not be copyright, so you may wish to use the statue pic instead. Carcharoth 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fac question[edit]

Hi Raul. How long does an FAC usually take? I've nominated Ronald Reagan six or seven times, all of which have failed, but this time (the current one) I think might work, for we have 10 supports and really one one serious objection, so I was just wondering how long it would take. Thanks, Happyme22 21:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

5 days is usually the minimum amount of time I'll leave something on FAC. There is no upper limit, but I'd say 5-15 days is the usual amount of time for a FAC to stay open. Raul654 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Happyme22 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive issue[edit]

I just nom'd Harry S. Truman for FAC. It has two previous FACs. This one: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/Archive1 doesn't have the archive tags on it, so I thought I'd let you know as I don't want to goof it up.Rlevse 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Older files weren't tagged; I'll check that you got everything else right and move things around if I need to. I do that on every FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Raul - I am having an issue with User:Nandesuka once again. He is edit warring on Pubic hair while we are trying to reach consensus. Generally the argument that sexual acts are illustrated, but the body is photographed has won the day on various articles; hence my series of photos of the body (which is only an exceptionally small part of my portfolio). On pubic hair my photo replaced a bizarre and oddly colored male photo to compliment the current female photo. It was discussed on the Talk page, and consensus was reached. Now, two months later, Nandesuka wants the photo down, not replaced. He is currently edit warring, and trying to intone the lame argument that I should "butt out" since I have a COI (an argument that has never held any water, and is typically used so that an editor gets his way). The photo is --once again-- being discussed. Right now we have Nandesuka, who is against it, Geogre, who wants no photographs, only paintings, me, who wants the photo, and Nick Michael, who in the previous consensus voted for the photo. He has been adding witty remarks to the discussion for now, but since he previously voted to include the photo I feel somewhat safe in saying he is not against its inclusion. Based on that, Nandesuka is trying to take the photo down saying that consensus has been reached against the photo. This is admin behavior? Could you provide any assistance in this hairy situation and perhaps have a word with him? --David Shankbone 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At no time did I ever suggest that David should "butt out," so I don't understand why he puts those words in quotation marks. I did, however, say that I believe obdurately reverting his own works of art into an article is probably a conflict of interest. Kind regards, Nandesuka 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You are edit warring and you are making up policy and guideline when you can't support your own point of view with either. Act like an admin. I don't know why he keeps linking to WP:COI when he can't quote from it to support himself. --David Shankbone 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a rehashing of the age old debate at clitoris, autofellatio, et al. The policy Wikipedia-wide is to include "tasteful" photographs. David is one of our best photographers, and it's certainly NOT a conflict of interest for him to want to keep his photographs in the article. A conflict of interest occurs when someone is editing on a topic that they have a fiscal interest in (e.g, they get paid by an organization and then edit that organization's article in a clearly biased way). Raul654 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I have never once maintained that it is inappropriate for there to be photographs on this article, and have absolutely no puritanical motives here. My point is that I (and several other people) feel the photo is a technically poor photo that detracts from the article. David disagrees with that assessment, but obviously he is very attached to his photos. I feel that makes him a poor judge of their quality. David may be one of our best photographers, but even a great photographer can take a lousy photo. This is one of them. David being a great photographer should in no way protect his work from merciless editing. Nandesuka 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mark, Nandesuka is still edit warring over this image. What is wrong with this guy? Instead of allowing the discussion take place, trying to come to consensus, and then making a decision, he keeps ripping it off the page. It seems pretty personal. I relented at glans penis about the photo, and it was taken down. Why can't this guy act like an admin and not a teenager and allow us to discuss it instead of edit war? It's daily. He knows it's contentious, and he doesn't care - this is an admin? Where's the recall? Some of us are acting like adults and discussing it--which may take more than two days--to figure out which is the best and should be used. Now he is putting the least good photo of them all up there. Help? It's getting tiresome to have him make unilateral decisions when editors are involved working it out. --David Shankbone 13:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to get into a dispute on this page, because it's not appropriate, but I am compelled to point out that at the same time David says I am "not allowing the discussion take place", he is edit warring to remove and then, when that failed, inappropriately refactor into an obscure place my comments on the talk page. Pots and kettles, indeed. Nandesuka 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Mark, I am just going to bring this up on the admin noticeboard. I'll supply diffs there. --David Shankbone 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hold your horses. Raul654 14:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page with what I consider to be base principles. I think the debate should focus solely on the merits of David's photograph versus any other photographs we have that could replace it. I've protected the article to stop the revert warring. It appears there's also a revert war going on on the talk page, but I can't figure that one out (so I'm going to avoid it and hope it goes away). Raul654 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh[edit]

Hello Raul—first, I'd like to thank you for deciding to make this a TFA. Secondly, Nigel and I feel that the summary currently at WP:TFA/R is more appropriate and of higher quality than the one currently on queue. I've gone ahead and changed the text to the TFA/R one, but if you prefer the first version over the other let us know. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes: The ikiroid & I went to some trouble to make the WP:TFA/R more accessible to the general readership (as we imagine it!) than the slightly more technical lead section of the article itself. The text on WP:TFA/R had remained stable for at least a couple of months until you changed it recently. Apart from the presentational aspect I've mentioned, using the lead resulted in two dead links (since they were internal to the article, rather than being wiki-links). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you've changed the main page blurb. I've gone ahead and tweaked a few things you changed, but it looks good to me now. Raul654 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

... & to me too. Thanks for your help & support, Raul. The article certainly seems to have attracted some attention. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark :-)[edit]

Hey, I appreciate the message! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking Mathew[edit]

I have issues with your offer of unblocking User:Matthew, as he slighted my username on a different talk page. I have been waiting for this chicken to come home and roost. Rather than offer to him to stop personally attacking a single user, make the offer for everyone he has offended. Otherwise let the block stand. 24 hours is hardly any amount of time, and he has been blocked numerous times before under his previous username. He is very abrasive -Nodekeeper 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize this was the case. Looking into it now. Raul654 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yikes [25][26]. You weren't kidding. Raul654 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Embarassing, but true story...[edit]

... I tried to log into Wiktionary. Tried what I thought was my password. Didn't let me in. So then I asked Tim Starling to help out, and he reset my password and sent it to my gmail account...

Then I remembered why I couldn't login. Some time ago somebody impersonated me on Wikitionary. I asked Jimbo for help, he got GerardM to block the account... which is cool. I had forgotten about this. Very embarassing!

However, Tim says that apparently the best way of fixing this is to rename the account. A beuracrat needs to do that, are you such a beast? Sorry, for one well versed in Wikipedia, I can admin and write articles, that's about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you. You want one of these guys Raul654 12:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Peroxisome[edit]

Hello. As the blocking admin, you may want to contribute to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Block review of Peroxisome. Best, Sandstein 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

POV list "attacks"[edit]

I understand your position, and if the page is deleted, I expect you to stop making edits like this and this. Like Ben Hocking, I think that such comments are in some ways even worse than CE's subpage. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Without sounding like a prick, I presume you haven't forgotten to do this weeks FAC rounds?? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't forgotten - I simply haven't had the time this week. Tomorrow is my last day at my internship, and I've been very busy moving out of my office and wrapping up a tech report summarizing what I've been doing for the last 6 months. It hasn't left a lot of time for the FAC. I'll be doing a big round of archiving tomorrow night after I get home or Saturday in the late morning/early afternoon.


In accordance with suggestions at the Community Sanction Noticeboard, I have agreed to assist and mentor User:NCdave. Just wanted to let you know. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, I believe your block of NCDave is inappropriate and violates WP:BP. I think an unblock is in order. You are clearly in dispute with NCDave as shown by your edits on the Steve Milloy article, some of which directly involve things NCDave has contributed or argued for. --Theblog 17:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not blocked him. I did close the CSN thread and ban him from Milloy and related articles, per the nearly unanimous support from others there. Raul654 17:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I got block and ban confused. I do feel your judgement of when to close a CSN thread and ban of someone you are in conflict with is inappropriate, however there is apparently no rule against it. --Theblog 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Just a reminder[edit]

I just want to remind and request you to show the article Lage Raho Munna Bhai on September 01, on the Main Page. That is the first anniversary of the film and the first film from India to get featured. Hope you will fulfill my wish. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway for selecting the article on the main page. Amartyabag TALK2ME 09:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Another FAC question[edit]

Sorry to bother you again, Raul, but the article Ronald Reagan, which I nominated, has been removed along with a few others from the FAC page. On the talk page, however, it says that it is still a current featured article candidate and a bot will update its status, but one hasn't. Do you have any answers for a guy new to FAC (me)? Best, Happyme22 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I promoted it Raul654 20:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope[edit]

Regarding the FAC, i thought that all of the requests had been acted upon. B.D.Mills's problem (3 words) had been fixed as had User:Folks at 137's more extensive problems. He had also given it a copyedit which meant that Tony supported it. The disussion on his (folks) talk page and on mine would suggest that all requests had been taken care of and all problems fixed. All other votes were support. What is the specific reasoning behind it's failure? Is there a chance you could take another look? Thanks in advance Woodym555 20:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I didn't have much of a review in this, but I gotta say I am confused as well. All issues seem to be addressed and in a timely manner too. — BQZip01 — talk 22:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I must admit to being puzzled myself. I think Tony's last oppose frivolous; but the phrasing he objected to is not in the article. I see no other unanswered objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Raul? — BQZip01 — talk 05:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for restarting it, to be honest, i was just about to myself. I suppose it would have been hard/tedious to reverse the decision. I will await any comments on the nom. Thanks again. Woodym555 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Concur, thanks Raul! — BQZip01 — talk 08:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on FAC[edit]

Thank you for promoting Orion (mythology).

I have been left with some definite impressions of the system. I'm sure you've heard the responses of disgruntled article promoters before; but would you be interested in another batch? I will sleep on it, and probably write them in about 24 hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any constructive criticism you have (as well as suggestions for improvement) would be welcome. Raul654 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC numbers[edit]

I'm curious, which is it, either more articles are getting nom'd for FA on the FAC page or you're having trouble keeping up. Which is it? Just curious, you're doing a fine job.Rlevse 19:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Both - articles are being nominated at an ever-increasing greater rate, and I have recently had less time to archive the FAC. Raul654 02:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Things that are not surprising[edit]

I just created another humor page; this time, for things that shouldn't be that surprsing, such as the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, or the fact that vandals get blocked. I'm looking for more entries, which is why I mention it to you. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Article with a young subject[edit]

I’ve just got the article James Milner up to GA status and I hope to ultimately get it to FA status. But what worries me is that the subject is very young and therefore the article is likely to need a lot of updates over the next few years.

Would this affect it’s chance if I were to make it a FAC?

Would it be better to wait before nominating and if so how long? Buc 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see this as a problem. In the past, there have been some nominations that were obviously premature - Beslan school hostage crisis (nominated the week of the crisis, before the perpetrators' names were known), Virginia tech massacre (nominated 2 or 3 weeks after the shooting) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (nominated the same month it came out). My feeling from those cases was that it was made clear to the author(s) to wait weeks to months, and once things had settled down, come back and renominate it. With a case like this, where realistically the article won't be finished until he retires (assuming nothing important happens to him post-retirement), I think it's reasonable to nominate the article in its current shape, rather than waiting years. Raul654 02:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gunnhild Mother of Kings[edit]

Hi Raul, I'm sure you get a lot of messages from people questioning your decisions on whether or not to promote FAC's, so I'm sorry to bug you. (I'm sure making these decisions is a thankless task, so on a sidenote I'd like to thank you for doing it.) I was wondering why you decided to promote the Gunnhild Mother of Kings article. If WP:FAC was a vote (which it shouldn't be and I hope it's not seen as such), the FAC should've been failed, since a 3-2 majority for support hardly constitutes consensus, although I'll admit that it was unclear, whether the grounds for the first objection have been taken care of. Since FAC is not a vote, one should look at the reasoning behind the supports and objections and one of the message went as far as to question the necessity of inline references, while another was based on the assumption that the problems with article would be taken care of. These supports can hardly be considered "actionable". What I especially wanted to know, however, is why you did not consider my objection to the article's promotion actionable. Certainly, WP:RS is one of Wikipedia's most important "guidelines" and sources needs to satisfy it for the article to meet WP:V. So IMHO the article was promoted to FA, despiting not conforming to one of Wikipedia's "core content policies". So I'd just like to get your take on this.--Carabinieri 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your objection - A good portion of the footnotes cite the various sagas she played a role in. As the article admits, these are generally unreliable making a detailed biography of her life difficult. - is, frankly, unconvincing. Of course an article about a tenth century figure is going to use less than perfectly reliable sources -- pretty much *all* the sources from that period are less than reliable. The same could be said about Beowulf, Odysseus from Homer's Odyssey, Thucydides's histories, etc etc. It's pretty much a rule of the game that when you go back that far, the sources become inherently unreliable, and you can't fault the article for that. Raul654 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But a lot of scientists and so on have evaluated these unreliable sources to make the most accurate possible guess about what went on. Such works by modern-day academics should be used to create Wikipedia articles. Using the primary sources from back then is Original research, since the Wikipedian would be the one taking over the scientists' job of evaluating the primary sources. --Carabinieri 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to open a can of worms[edit]

Hey Mark. I'm not going to pursue this because I simply don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but I'm just curious: THF keeps inserting stuff from his employer on pages. Here's just two examples on World Health Organization and John Stossel. This is why THF constantly finds himself embroiled in COI charges and fights, and even though it is consistently pointed out that it is problematic to insert either his own work or that of his employer American Enterprise Institute, he still does it. Is there nothing wrong with this? Just curious. --David Shankbone 13:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It really infuriates THF that I even ask a question about his edits. He has suggested that he is going to go to ArbCom about me, which is fine; I don't think he'll do it though. The above question he is so upset over was more out of curiosity than my desire to launch a crusade. But I would be glad for an ArbCom review of the totality of his edits. Currently he is trying to insert on the Sicko page one guy's criticism of how the WHO compiles statistics of country rankings. The author of the article makes one reference in half a sentence, which boils down to 'Michael Moore uses these in Sicko.' All of a sudden, this is a notable criticism of Sicko (because Moore uses the World Health Organization and a couple of people don't like those stats even though everyone uses them). This is the stuff we contend with daily on Sicko, efforts to not talk about the film, but about the World Health Organization's stats and why they aren't cool. --David Shankbone 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Note that once again David misleadingly confuses a one-line suggestion on a talk page with "inserting stuff on pages." It's hard to believe that that mistake is in good faith, given that he participated in the drafting of the COI guideline language permitting such talk-page suggestions. I've self-reverted that Talk:John Stossel suggestion of an EL of a publicly-available webcast where Stossel gives a lengthy speech rather than waste time defending such a trivial suggestion. I've opened up a COI/N request for comment on my entirely appropriate World Health Organization edit, where again David omits relevant context such as that he told me to make the edit. Can I ask you to remind David about WP:HARASS and the prohibition against "undue focus" on editors? Every time I try to resolve this peacably, he says "Take it Arbcom," and it seems unfair to not give him a chance to comply with Wikipedia policy by having a third party warn him. THF 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There is really no issue with asking for the opinion of a highly-regarded admin. Guess what THF? It'll probably happen again - you have about five different fights going on today alone. And for the record, I told him to insert Stossel's criticism on the WHO page, and that I would back it up. This highlights 1. THF's on-going efforts to make the Sicko page a battleground over libertarian ideas by inserting critiques that only make brief mention of Moore and are critiques of the WHO (THF has yet to acquiesce on the Talk:Sicko page), 2. disruptive editing by opening a COIN over a simple question here, thus again wasting everyone's time with his anti-Moore crusade; 3. instead of putting Stossel on the WHO, the person he vehemently defends on Sicko, despite Stossel's irrelevance to the film, he puts on his co-worker. --David Shankbone 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The record reflects that David is again misrepresenting the facts: he claims I did not put Stossel on the WHO page, and I did attempt to do so. And he knows he is misrepresenting the facts, because he saw the history of my edits described at COI/N, where he left a lengthy diatribe in response. This violates WP:HARASS for a user to repeatedly bring false accusations against me, and I wish precedent on the subject would be followed. THF 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Oh, good grief, THF, you get so tiresome always playing the hapless victim. What "you know" is that I checked one edit you made that coincided around the time a discussion over the same topic at Talk:Sicko, and that's all you know. You know what would have been a better way to handle this, instead of the constant wikilinks to policies and guidelines you yourself don't follow? You could have left a note on my Talk page, in a WP:AGF fashion and said, "Hey, I already tried to put Stossel on, but it was removed. Since it was your suggestion, can you help?" Or, what about when I suggested it on Talk:Sicko? I guess it never occurred to you. --David Shankbone 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that I have just warned both the combatants that they're both over the line and in danger of mutual assured blockage. Disengagement preferred and recommended. Film at 11. Georgewilliamherbert 03:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really engaging. Look at my edits for the day. I wrote an article, worked on photographs, and did clean-up stuff. I thought with THF closing his self-COI this was over. Then his message ranting. --David Shankbone 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)