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


Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year![edit]

May God bless you! From Amandajm (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Attalus head.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Attalus head.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. BJBot (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi Raul.

Can you delete this page Teddy bear effect?

This article is an hoax. We've got the same page on (here and its deletion request is pending here). This page does not cite references nor anything. If you look on google you can find out that all pages that are talking about this supposed "Teddy bear effect" have Wikipedia has reference. On google ..we've only 64 results, many by wikipedia' mirrors and other are citing wikipedia as reference, but there are no references on psychology websites or books. I hope you can delete this page/hoax.


ByeBye!:)--DrugoNOT (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

TFA Jan 1/08[edit]

Hi Raul,
Thank you for selecting Ulysses (poem) for TFA, Jan 1. When I saw this, I decided to spruce up the article's lead a bit, and I've posted a new TFA lead on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 1, 2008. Could you please move this over to the protected project page? It's slightly longer, but not much. New Year's Day seems special--are you looking at the poem as thematically appropriate to "fresh starts" and "resolutions" in the new year? Or is this just coincidence? :) –Outriggr § 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season - but with this full bag! -- Cat chi? 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello, Raul654. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your block of User:GusChiggins21. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GusChiggins21 blocked for edit warring by involved admin. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. --Rjd0060 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello Raul654, I am aware that you are the featured article director and an administrator, and I was wondering if you could clarify this, can wikipedian(s) oppose a list, featured list status merely because is isn't "long enough". It does not state so, in the featured list criteria, however there argument is based on the following two statements, "A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" (from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates) and "The featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia" (from Wikipedia:Featured lists).

I was wondering, if there is a requirement (in length) that featured lists must be - however it does not say so, in the featured list criteria. And if they are able to oppose it because, they "have a taste in long lists?" I believe, a statement clarifying that the length does not matter for featured lists, should be included into the criteria, as this has happened before, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nation of Ulysses discography/archive1.

Also, it was raised by User:Colin: "This band simply hasn't done enough or been written-about enough to generate enough encyclopedic content for featured status." However, I believe, "It is not due to a band success or number of releases, which makes their discography a featured list, but the referenced well-written, well-formatted article itself."

The featured list candidate discussion is at, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Harry and the Potters discography, I would greatly appreciate you to clarify this mess up. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Election condolences[edit]

Oh no!

Sorry you didn't get reelected. You were one of the best. Let the consolation be that you seem to be at the head of Jimbo's list of alternates to fill in any vacancies. Now we just have to poison one of the sitting arbitrators ... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, AnonEMouse. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

remove request[edit]

Is it ok if I remove Io (moon) from the request page? Buc (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 31, 2007[edit]

Need to fix the spelling in the very first sentence where it says Chick-fil-A Peach Powl.. that should be Bowl, not Powl. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

IceKarma got it. Raul654 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Super-duper environmental hot-current TFA proposal[edit]

Just thought of this - the Japanese are not going ahead with killing Humpbacks but will take a quota of 50 Fin Whales this season. Fairly topical at the moment. My only involvement with this FA was was sprucing it up a bit - it hasn't been on the main page and Clayoquot got permission for a really cool pic in the taxobox....Didn't nom at TFA as there is no particluar day and not sure how long topic will stay hot....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll schedule it. Just to make sure all the i's are dotted, have him forward the permission email to permissions at wikimedia dot org, and let me know what the subject line of the email is (so I can search for it and find it). I can then tag the image as OTRS approved. Raul654 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave a note on User:Clayoquot's page as I am not sure the exact process that was done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I got Casliber's message. I sent the email to the permissions@... address a while ago; the ticket number is #2007072010005388. I got the impression that the photographer would be pleased to have her work at the main page, so please don't hesitate to email her or contact me if anything needs to be confirmed. By the way, I'm a "her" not a "him" :) Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
D'oh! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Raul, I'm running through FAC now, but after I finish, would you mind looking at Marskell's FAC (Battle of Musa Qala), Ceoil's FAC (Las Meninas), and I'm still leaving Western Chalukya architecture and Józef Piłsudski to you. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I would not like to make any FAC decisions in the coming weeks. Can you please take over until further notice? Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'll take over. I'll do my next batch of promotions on Sunday, including the ones you mentioned (I'm currently travelling with a slow dial up and won't get back until that afternoon) Raul654 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I am willing to do the job for a 2 week trial. I have recently had a nomination approved so I have some idea about FA's. I am observant, diplomatic, and have the big picture in mind (WP improvement and not to discourage editors). If selected, I would like to limit it to one area at first, such as new FAC's only or FA review. Archtransit (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I'll wait for Sandy to get back. Raul654 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take some time off, Raul; I hope it's only about a week. I'm sorry to leave you with the work, but I need to find restored energy and joy in editing. Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need, and come back refreshed. Raul654 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fnlayson and I have been hard at work at the Boeing 747 article which has just been granted FA status! I would like it to be on the main page on September 30, 2008, the 40th anniversary of the rollout of the monumental aircraft. I've seen complaints that the request page fills up fast (but it's not full at all now). Any advice for placement, let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to remember to do it in August.

Come September 29, 2008, I'm planning to add a sentence to the introduction mentioning the rollout on September 30 so people will notice it. Archtransit (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Put a note on the requests page (at the appropriate time). If it looks like I'm going to schedule the date soon and you haven't been able to use the requests page, then drop a note here. Raul654 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season[edit]

A secret request[edit]

Raul: I know this is not supposed to be done, so let's keep this hush hush, but would it be possible to feature the Bruno Maddox article on the main page sometime soon, on any day of your choosing? Only possible motive would be to illustrate the difficult career of a literary writer.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

5th December[edit]

Hi Raul - I see you have decided to put Prince's Palace of Monaco on the main page on the 5th Jan. That is great and I was truly pleased but would you consider changing it for Queluz National Palace. While I was the chief contributor to both pages, Queluz is in Wikipedia terms a very much more important page as it was the result of a great multi-national team effort. One of the things I have been keen to encourage since I came here. While I could be called the leader of the pack not since the writing of Sanssouci have I been involved in such a truly good natured effort. It was amazing - from the complete lack of ownership issues from the primary author to an editor risking eviction to take photographs, numerous to copy-editers and advisors. One could say the page was written in a week as the result of a mass pile-on. So putting Queluz on the main page would encourage a lot more competent mainspace writers to repeat the experience than the Monaco Palace, which can always go on at sometime in the future. It really would give a lot of people a lot of pleasure to see it there who have perhaps never been involved in a main page article before. as you know it is hardly a new thrill for me. Thanks. Giano (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It is a really good example of Wikipedia at its best and as it ought to be always. It will be fantastic to see it there. Giano (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi Raul. I thought you should see the thread that's developing here. Your input would, of course, be valuable. Happy New Year. --Dweller (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • New link; I blanked my talk page while I'm forced to deal with The Other Situation, which is taking all of my holiday time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hyperion cover.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hyperion 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 the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hirohito article[edit]

Hi. I answerd your message on my own talk page, as I always do. Švitrigaila (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission[edit]

He Raul. I think the new contact page is a great idea. I was just wondering though, if it might be a good idea to point to a FAQ or something on our image policy? Common issues I have seen when requesting photos are:

Q: "why does wikipedia not allow a non-commercial licens"
A: "freedom != gratis"

And other things like imagesize, imagequality, EXIF attribution etc.... These same questions might still be a problem for people who have already reached this contact page. What do you think? --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep that page a simple as possible. To that end, I would like to avoid loading it with unnecessary discussion or links. Raul654 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why i suggested pointing to the FAQ. I'm not saying "include the FAQ" :D --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
How do we find the images that got submitted? (I asked that on the talk page, but no responses yet.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What I know about this kind of stuff is that such emailsubmissions are dealt with by m:OTRS volunteers. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case of that particular queue, the only people who have access right now are the OTRS admins and me. But I'm happy to see others tend to it, provided they have the requisite understanding of copyright and a modicum of tact. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TFA 10 January[edit]

The article scheduled for 10 January 2008 is now listed at FAR. Gimmetrow 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with it on Sunday when I'm no longer traveling. Raul654 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy McAleer FAC[edit]

Hi Raul654,

I just wanted to alert you to a situation that has developed on the Jimmy McAleer FAC. Early on, a reviewer opposed the article's promotion on the ground that it contained POV material. Three other reviewers challenged this assertion, arguing that the piece was well referenced and included no language that qualified as POV. The article now has the support of five reviewers. The opposed reviewer has failed to revisit the article. Similarly, this reviewer has not responded to a message confirming that the article was revised. I consulted another reviewer about the best way to proceed. This reviewer suggested that I "make the situation known." Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul, The opposed reviewer on the Jimmy McAleer FAC apparently has a history of "hit-and-run" reviews. Until now, I have never encountered a reviewer who presented a list of actionable concerns and then closed with a request (demand, really) that the nominator send the article to the GAC. In this case, the reviewer's critique (yet to be revisited) was challenged by three other reviewers. Is there a policy in place to deal with such negligent reviewers? I suspect they are a source of frustration to everyone involved in the FAC process. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Palazzo Pitti[edit]

Happy New Year Raul.

This article is one of Giano's, currently at FAR here. The review has been relatively tame, but is split. OK, I'm being a total coward. Kept or removed, I'm sure I'll catch hell for this one. On the one hand, it is well written and Giano will tell you it's accurate. On the other, with a single intext citation, it in no way resembles current successful FACs. (Unless you want to argue there isn't a single thing in it likely to be challenged.)

I don't want to close it. If it's kept, it would amount to a new precedent and a form of grandfathering, which was rejected in early '05. People will call it a double standard. If it's removed, Giano and others will be angry. I don't want another FA drama, so advice would be appreciated. Marskell (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Date holding[edit]

Is there a way to keep a date open for main page requests? I just got my first FA (Godsmack) and I would like it featured on the main page on August 25, 2008, as it will be the ten year anniversery of the band's debut album. Is there a way I can keep that date open for home page? And if so how will I get it on the main page requests page if there is a limit of five articles? Replie on my talk page please. Thank you,

Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Emperor Naming[edit]

I saw your comment on AN about the naming of Hirohito, and followed up on it here Talk:Hirohito#Proposed_article_page_MOVE, since previous debates were spread over several pages, with few participants, and it seems like User:Švitrigaila is a rather firm believer in the Showa name, I'm thinking a content RFC might be in order. I've never filed one, so I'm wondering if you could point me to a completed one that I could use as a model (best practice)? Watching here, thanks. MBisanz talk 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Swedish emigration[edit]

I made a comment concerning the mainpage blurb for Swedish emigration to the United States at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Swedish emigration. Thought I'd give you a heads up in case you hadn't noticed that thread.

Peter Isotalo 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with this tomorrow or the day after. Raul654 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your threat on my talk page[edit]

I polietley suggest that you try engaging in reasoned discussion with people with whom you disagree, rather than attack their motives and make threats. Doing so will help you be more persuasive, and better conform to Wikipedia policy.

Now, that being said, I invite you to challenge me on the mertits of the concerns I have expressed about the langugage of "scientific consensus" in various Wikipedia entries.

My recent edits (such as here) are essential in making our articles conform to Wikipeida's laudable "neutral point of view" policy. While the claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming is widely reported by many sources, it is not universally accepted. It is not Wikipedia's business to decide on behalf of readers which theories and opinions are right and which ones are wrong. To illustrate the distinction I am making, I urge editors to consider the example of the article on scientific consensus on global warming. In contrast to the article we are editing, the article "scientific consensus on global warming" appropriately reports specifically which individuals and which groups claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming; it does not make the claim itself. (For instance, the article states the "IPCC Third Assessment Report ... issued a joint statement ... [declaring the] IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science." Again, the Wikipedia article itself does not declare the theory of man-made global warming the "scientific consensus; it merely reports the views of certain groups that have done so.) I have no problem with reporting the authorities that have asserted there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. However, a Wikipedia article by itself should not make that assertion per policy. The Noosphere (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I do not believe for a second that you're new here. Second, we get deniers (or their sockpuppets) here all the time attempting to water down the language in our global warming articles, and/or to fill them with pseduoscientific nonsense manufactured by the oil industry. I leave it to William M. Connelly, Raymond Arritt, et al to debunk that. I step in when one of the never-ending string of deniers/sockpuppets they have to deal with becomes excessively disruptive, and in this case that's you. You've already recieved numerous warnings (which you promptly deleted from your talk page), but you will receive no more. If you do not immediately discontinue your disruptive behavior, I will block you. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh??????????? I'm just a college student from Florida. I'm not a part of some conspiracy by the oil companies to deny global warming on Wikipedia. (At least that's what I think I read from what you're implying.) If my views on global warming are so stupid and I'm such a dupe of the oil companies, why not respond to the merits of my comments? That should be easy. After all, if you're right, demonstrating why some dupe like me is wrong should be even easier than making threats and making up conspiracies. The Noosphere (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
(a) You misinterpret what I wrote. Global warming is a topic around which swirls much disinformation, created by oil companies (and the scientists they fund, and the think tanks that promote their research, etc).
(b) Yes, your views on global warming are very wrong. Although it is not our job to explain to you (to your satisfaction) exactly why your views and understanding are wrong, others here have taken considerable time to explain to you what you are mistaken about. Apparently it was a great waste of time, because you continue to disrupt the GW articles. Raul654 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The Noosphere[edit]

He's now on User:Friday's radar as well. Best to let an absolutely, totally uninvolved admin like her deal with him so there will be no question of the block sticking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Friday offered me some constructive criticism, and I accept that. From my brief impression of him/her, he/she strikes me as fair-minded and ethical. The Noosphere (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Hey there. You OK? --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine Raul654 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Happy to help with any FAC issues you may have piled up in Sandy's absence. I know you have a lot on your considerable plate. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Wow. Good job. Corvus cornixtalk 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside FAC[edit]

Why did you shut down the FAC discussion for University of California, Riverside after just five days? I think that was far, far too short in this case. Tony1 raised some 1a concerns, but when you removed it from the FAC list, I was in the middle of thoroughly copyediting the article, with the goal of going beyond Tony1's specific concerns. Other (minor) concerns are being actively addressed by me and Amerique. Did you think the FAC wasn't generating enough discussion or attention? Or do you think the nomination was too premature, or that there are problems that haven't been addressed by objectors? szyslak 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not demanding that you reopen the FAC discussion. I figure only the most extreme circumstances would merit such an action. I'll just continue doing my copyediting thing, and send it back to FAC whenever it's become truly "brilliant prose". szyslak 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not contesting the closure either, but it happened so suddenly I thought the GimmieBot was responsible. If I may say so, UCR article has undergone tremendous improvement in five days, and I don't see the reason for shutting it down before any other comments or criticisms could be made. Ameriquedialectics 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul[edit]

I hope we will get to know more about each other in the future. I think we have certain atributes in common. I will advice later when it is tm,e for us to have a chat. But if you need me to show you where we going, I am your shining star to destiny! Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Attempting to address the issues with Illinois’s FAC has proven to be both difficult and frustrating because the commenters are dragging the length and the notability of the incompleted battleship into the FAC discussion, neither of which ought to be issues for the FAC -- length is explicitly penned as a non-issue, and arguments on the notability point should be taken to the notability page or addressed with an afd. In any case I do appreciate your intervention in the article (though I must say I am sorry to see it has come to this), and I am trying to address the issues brought up by the oppose voters when such objects cite things that can be fixed. In particular, BQZip01's objection list has been greatly appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN friendly poke[edit]

Hello Raul! Sorry to bother you, but it seems like people (myself included) would appreciate some 'crat input on the latest WP:BN thread. Just thought you'd like to know. :) Happy editing! Best, Keilanatalk(recall) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture[edit]

I noticed your post on Gianno II's talk page. Before anyone decides to renominate this article in a hurry, let me point out that the article has major outstanding problems of cohesion and coherence, and by that I don't mean organization of sections. I mean problems of flow of prose and more importantly flow of information in prose. If you give me ten minutes, I'll pick out two paragraphs in the article and annotate them on the talk page of the article. I'm sure, once I point out the problems, user:Dineshkannambadi will try to fix them as best as he can, but I guarantee you that I will then find two more paragraphs and do the same, and two more ... Coherence (which includes logic, time order in paragraphs, etc.) takes time. Give me ten minutes, and I'll post something on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see Talk:Western_Chalukya_architecture#Clarity.2C_Cohesion_and_Coherence. Sorry, it took 20. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Update Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant[edit]

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

Is that editor a sock of a banned user? I noticed you are reverting his edits on sight, and without summary, so I was curious. Bellwether BC 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've caught 3 of his socks in as many minutes. I don't know if it's a previously encountered sockpuppeteer or a new one, but I'm shooting on sight. Raul654 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FA Process[edit]

A brief questions that you may be able to address in regards to Introduction to Evolution FA attempt. The page has become a bit messy; owed somewhat to my inexperience so I created a well organized list of concerns on Talk:Introduction to evolution and attempted to address them. They are specifically numbered with a plea for commentary. Does this constitute a good faith effort for following up on criticisms since it is not on the FA page? There was a bold notification on the FA page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution as well as messages posted on their user page. If you look at Item 9 and 11 on the discussion page, there is a plea for specifics so that I can address the rather vague criticisms. I assume it is a common problem for people to drop in, oppose, then never return? Maybe its not a brief question! Try again. Does conversation on the discussion page of the article factor into the process of determining "If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements". Sorry, newbie here its just frustration when you get this; and no follow-up, after adding an addition 40+ citations.

Oppose: there are unreferenced paragraphs. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] --Random Replicator (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

--Random Replicator (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly two opposes came from "professional voters" both average 3-4 opposes in 30 minutes are less; accounting for a new found career of opposing / supporting articles. In one case the contribution page is an endless list of Featured Article reviews since Christmas. I'm working my butt off to address concerns and getting machine-gunned by drive-by shooters. Should I be specific or would you automatically note such things in the closing process? Sorry to be a nuisance --- no doubt it is even more frustrating on your end. Just point me to a policy! Cheers. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


I Cas Liber, hereby award Raul654 the Flaming Joel-wiki for raising our collective consciousness for work on a Featured Article highlighted by the Übermuse Billy Joel in his great song We Didn't Start the Fire...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Day (printer)[edit]

I expect you de-scheduled it because it is on FAR. Fair enough. User: BuddingJournalist and I had got it ready for its big day, though, and I think it's in FA shape. I hope it can be put back on the front-page list soon. qp10qp (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an update that Marskell has now closed the FAR. BuddingJournalist 15:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, very good. Raul654 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture[edit]

Hi Raul. I have a bit of a situation here. Giano was doing a fine job copy editing the article (for which I am thankful) until Fowler's post that he (Fowler) and Mattisse should re-write it, once Giano is finished. This has become a de-moralizer (understandably so) for Giano who is now reluctant to go further with the copy edits (understandably so). This I feel is a sort of unique intimidation on the part of Fowler, who at this point seems to have re-conciled to keeping out of the FAC discussion, after being warned by an admin to stop taking stabs at me. How do I deal with this situation. Too much work has gone into this article, which seems to be almost "there". I understand, anyone has the right to contribute to an article, but not with the attitude that Fowler has shown. Please help.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I have said nowhere that I plan to rewrite it. Please see user:Mattisse's post on my talk page here. And, no I am not "re-conciled to keeping out of the FAC discussion" (implied) as a result of user:Nishkid64's warning on my talk page (see here). He, in fact, is encouraging me there (and elsewhere) to be bold and copy-edit the article myself, an enterprise for which I lack both the time and the interest. I have withdrawn from the discussion simply because, after reading user:Kiyarr's post, I have lost interest in this candidacy, and have consequently changed my "strong oppose" to "abstain." As for the article being "almost there," please reread my first post in the second FA review, especially the paragraph I provide there as an example. Any article that after forty days as an FAC has a paragraph like that, does not, in my opinion, meet criterion 1 (a), not even remotely. I do believe that a rewrite by user:Mattisse is the quickest and surest way of fixing the outstanding problems, but my suggestion to that effect is not meant to be intimidating, "unique"-ly or otherwise. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
PS I have now changed my vote to Strong Support. Please see my post in the FAC. Best wishes to user:Dineshkannambadi. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul. I am concerned that a discussion that has nothing to do with the FAC or the topic at hand is on-going on this FAC page between Dwarf Kirlston and Random Replicator. This is an unnecessary distraction for prosepective reviewers and may actually throw them off the topic. I request your permission to delete their discussion which seems to be dwelling on "validity of the FA process and its loop holes", which IMO should be taken elsewhere.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work dealing with Scibaby/Obedium, your work as a CheckUser, and as Featured Article Director, and being a great Wikipedian! Solumeiras talk 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You may wish to list about Obedium/Scibaby at User:Solumeiras/vandalismwatch/Obedium POV editing, just to document it for users!

Main page request:[edit]

When am I allowed to ask that André Kertész be featured on the main page for July 2, his birthday? I see the FA main page requests page hasn't changed at all - I've been watching it and the requests page is full again as soon as a spot opens. I'm on too infrequently to be able to sit by and wait for a spot to open. To be frank, I thought you were going to sort the whole process out? You have my honest respect as an editor, but for goodness sake, the requests page is inadequate. This will be the 5th month I have been asking for the process to be changed. You kepe saying you'll change it, but nothing's been done. Regards, Spawn Man (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can put a request on the requests page anytime within the month preceding the date you want to request. So, for a July 2 request, you can request it starting on June 2 (as soon as a slot opens up). I'll tell you what - if July 2 is approaching and you haven't been able to get in a request on the requests page, drop a note here and I'll see what I can do (the purpose of the requests page was, FWIW, to avoid just that, but I'll make an exception for you). Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Raul; I have a hard time trying to revert vandalism before anyone else let alone one of 5 hotly constested spots for main page request... I do sincerly hope that you can come to some kind of solution to the main problems with the system. Anyway, I know that you're just an editor like me, so sorry if I dumped the issue on you. Sincerly, Spawn Man (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw your idea and commented on the link you provided. On another note, if I'd seen this page earlier, I would have listed the article I mention above there - instead of waiting until 30 days before the date, could I list it there instead? Just a thought...? Also, if you need any help with the FA request system, I'm willing to help. I use that feature a lot and I want it to work perfectly. I think a trial for this new proposal of yours would be good, but I think it may need further additions for it to work perfectly. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom FARC review[edit]

Can someone please explain what is wrong with the referencing of the F-4 Phantom article? All of the print references have references yet User:SandyGeorgia claims the fact that references do not have publishers as a pretext to have the article delisted.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like one of the biggest problem is that it has lots of "citation needed" tags. Raul654 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment from User:SandyGeorgia specifically referred to publishers of references. This remains unexplainedNigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
She may have made a mistake. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Mistakes are certainly a possibility all things considered. I just looked in there, and I see Marskell has commented and has things in hand. There are still quite a few other problems with that article. I'll be traveling beginning Monday; I'll have sporadic internet connections here and there for a week, and hope to return refreshed and renewed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI Gangtok[edit]

This article is schedules for the main page on 14 January 2008, but I suspect somebody will throw it up for review between now and then. It has few to no references, and although I'm not a FA participant, I don't think it meets the requirements. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FA long range requests for main page[edit]

Hello. I hope that the long range requests page has just as much weight in deciding which FA is featured on which date as the regular requests page? Happyme22 (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for the response. *sigh* I guess I'm going to just have to constanly watch the page for an opening because I'm hell-bent on getting Ronald Reagan for the anniversary of his birthday, February 6. Thanks Raul, Happyme22 (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it was a lot of work to get a controversial article like that up to FA status. That's something I certainly don't want to discourage, so don't worry about it - I'll take care of it. Raul654 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


A user is quoting an edit summary of your here Talk:Hirohito#Categories_on_redirects. I've given the standard policy reply, but given that you probably wrote the policy at some point, I'm figuring you can give a better explanation. MBisanz talk 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed them for the same reasons as you quoted from Wikipedia:Redirect - it makes no sense to have the same article listed twice (under two different names) on the category page. Raul654 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TFA - Jack Sheppard[edit]

I noticed that Jack Sheppard is up for TFA on 20 January. The first sentence of the lead is unfortunately grammatically incorrect. I fixed it in the article itself but the teaser for the main page is still wrong (here). I can't fix that because I am not an administrator. The sentence reads: Jack Sheppard was a notorious English robber, burglar and thief of early 18th century London. It should read: Jack Sheppard was a notorious English robber, burglar and thief of early 18th-century London. If you or someone with the power could change this, grammar nerds like myself would appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Please Stop the Madness[edit]

If you are the FA Director at present. Please intervene of the Introduction to evolution FA attempt Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. The raging of one individual is destroying a years worth of effort. It has gone from a spark to a full raging fire and is making a mockery of this process. The names of some very excellent editors are being drug through the mud here. Can't you throw some water on this fire?????? --Random Replicator (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Madness resolved --Random Replicator (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

open proxies[edit]

I haven't paid much attention to this discussion (so i'm not involved), but it looks more like you standing alone against a consensus you disagree with, than a real lack of consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. —Random832 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the discussion there is very confused, to the point where it's difficult to tell what the discussion is about anymore. Mercury seems to support all measures of weaking existing policy. On reading the actual changes to the blocking policy pages [1] there's nothing there that's particularly objectionable -- a year block on a Tor IP (as opposed to an indef) is tolerable, I suppose. (Not a step in the right direction, mind you, but not likely to greatly undermine efforts to block socks) It's the other insanity that has been discussed there - like limiting to week long blocks, or allowing username registration. And since the discussion there is confused, it's not exactly clear what he's claiming consensus for. Raul654 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There are really a few discussions going on on that page. One is the block length, which is as you've described above (to not block longer than necessary). Another is about the wider issue of letting Tor users to edit at all (for example those in China). Many people think that would be a desirable thing in general. Some think that softblocks are the answer - something that I and many other admins disagree with. I think Mercury is claiming a consensus for the discussion about limiting the indef-blocks - he mentioned that a year is OK by him, I that's the consensus position. That they shouldn't generally be more than a year except in the case of longer term abuse. I think he may also claim consensus that we would like Chinese editors to edit, but nobody has agreed on a solution to that problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct, I really only see a consensus that we not do the indef blocks. Everything else, I don't see anything solid developing right now, but I could be wrong about that part. M-ercury at 22:08, January 13, 2008


I have a feeling that our friend may be back as User:Cameta, User:Epiphaross, and/or User:Frenstad, and perhaps a couple of others that I can't recall at the moment. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. I was just in the process of running checkuser. Raul654 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Another sock?

User:Frenstad's edits have a well-known smell... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I ran as thorough a checkuser as I could. I only found one other account that might be Fred, but the connection is tenuous. As for the other accounts Raymond named, I can't see any socking there. But his behavior is clearly that of a sock. Raul654 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Also please check your email. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy (Old) New Year![edit]

Fireworks in monterrey.jpg

Two weeks too late, you say? Not in the Julian calendar!
Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

You were the blocking admin, so I defer to you:[edit]

See [2]. I'm sure you can handle this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

also see User talk:Alleya17... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another one of these Scibaby rangeblock casualties[edit]

Unblock request at User talk: Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Raul, I thought I'd do up an article on the success of FA in 2007 for the Wikipedia:Signpost. I started with a simple analysis of the stats at User:Marskell/Sandbox. Conclusion: the jump in 2007 is less startling than it appears; production has actually been increasing at a steady rate year-over-year.

Any dazzling quotes? It's a little dry at the moment, with only numbers. Marskell (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Russia FAC - restart?[edit]

Raul, I wanted to check with you whether you would agree that this FAC nomination be restarted. It appears to have become sidetracked which may be the reason why there hasn't been any unique comments or support/oppose votes for 15 days. Furthermore, there was a big revision mid way through the nomination (removing the politicized issues) which was the main source of concern.--Miyokan (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Encuse me for possibly intruding, but I believe, in common with user:Wilanthule, as per the comments at the bottom of the Russia FAC, that this has severe POV problems and is not of FA quality. I would advise (a) a comprehensive re-write of the sections dealing with modern issues - which I've tried to work with user:Miyokan in the past, without success - and (b) possible examination of article length, though I'm not certain this is a problem. In any case I do not believe restarting the FAC at the moment is best. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me Buckshot but your opinion is already noted in the FAC, this is a rude intrusion and another attempt to derail the FAC (you voted twice on the FAC).--Miyokan (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism (re: your comments on my talk page)[edit]

I'm not yet sure what was going on, but apparently my account was being used by someone. I have now changed the password and will monitor my account activity closely. ike9898 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I was wondering if you have any insight into this and a related problem I am experiencing. My Yahoo account was also compromised last night. I am fairly savvy about using strong passwords and I store them behind encryption using Password Safe. Now I am panicing wondering what else may have been compromised. I didn't understand the thing you wrote about my password being posted on Something Awful (which I am not familiar with). My old password doesn't seem to be posted there now, but my user name is. ike9898 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please re-sysop me? Although I'm still not sure how my account was compromised, I've spent the last two hours changing every password I have and scanning my computers for spyware, etc. Sorry for the trouble; shouldn't happen again. ike9898 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ike9898 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2008[edit]

See the talk page for why I simply removed the state seal rather than reverting back to the initial sketch. Thoughts? - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Full birth/death dates on TFA?[edit]

Can you clarify at WP:TFA/R. There are two bio blurbs missing full birth/death dates, but there is also some confusion as to whether it is common practice or not to state the full birth/death dates in the blurb for WP:TFA. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

No apologies needed[edit]

The process is huge, Raul. You've done an enormous amount for it and earned immense respect around here. That you've become an absentee landlord to certain parts of it is totally understandable given the size (and sharing roles is a good thing, from a Wiki perspective).

More importantly for the future we need to tackle this issue regarding the articles in question (or "patch" of FAs, as I'm calling it). If you comment on that thread early, it will help set the tone. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry for not answering last night. I was away. However, my message was to check your e-mail. :-D Miranda 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains[edit]

Could you please close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains. Thank you, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 05:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the next batch of promotions tomorrow night. Raul654 (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Went to see Cloverfield tonight (didn't know I was going until this afternoon). Will do promotions tomorrow after the TRASH tourney. Raul654 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi Mark. Any chance you could re-sysop me? Not being able to press the "block" button is getting reeeeeeal annoying. Thanks! Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Under what circumstances were you desysopped? Raul654 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I volunteered! No worries -- Rdsmith4 did it. Thanks. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
All right. Have fun with the buttons back ;) Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are very powerful and have much common sense[edit]

Oh Raul, may I have one of your common sense bricks so that I may have as much common sense as you? -- (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I had to stop by seeing this headline. Raul's power has been whispered about in caves from Tora Bora to Timbuktu. But do remember: "he does not accept bribes. Many editors attempt to flatter him. It is futile. He already knows he has dark good looks, a strong chiselled jaw, and a fine physique." Marskell (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC promotions[edit]

Raul, I'm still in the mountains, tying up a phone line on a slow dialup when no one needs the phone. I fly Monday, and should be "back in the saddle" by Tuesday, the 22nd. I'm sorry to leave you with so much work, Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack, sorry about that. Tried to get in a few before I drive to the airport. I'll stop completely then, as I was just trying to prune the list, and find pr/archiving from this connection very frustrating. I'll catch up on Tuesday. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Louis Slotin[edit]

Could you remove Louis Slotin from being TFA on January 23, 2008? There were some outstanding FAC comments that I still need to work on, and I don't want the article featured on the Main Page when there are still issues that need to be fixed. Instead, could you choose Stede Bonnet? I previously requested this last month, but you didn't choose it. Thanks. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sound list[edit]

Hi Raul. I stumbled across the Wikipedia Sound List recently. You seem to have been the lead editor there. Good work.

I added a column for "Performer." I also inserted "play" icons at the end of each row. Plus I put a "to do" list at the top of the discussion page. And, I added a couple categories at the bottom.

I was thinking about spending a considerable amount of time to fill in all the Performers in the new column I created. Can you tell me if this would be a waste of my time? It would be a waste of my time if, for example, editing the Sound List may soon become automated, or if the list itself may soon be replaced with some better type of list, et cetera. Please let me know if you think this will be a waste of my time. If not, then I may do it (or pay some high school kid to do it). It will be very time-consuming. Thanks in advance.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the lead editor. For all intents and purposes - the only editor ;)
There's really no way to automate the generation of the list itself -- you need to know intristinic information about the file that we do not have an automated way of gathering.
The list has two big flaws - it really should use a template to generate entries (rather than being coded long-ways in mediawiki, which makes reading it difficult). It's also woefully incomplete. Raul654 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Here is a small subset of the songs that need to be added to it:

Johann Jacob Froberger - Tombeau.ogg Jean Perrichon - Volte.ogg Dietrich Ewald von Grotthus - Rondo in C.ogg Caspar Ferdinand Fischer - Prelude and Chaconne.ogg Carl Phillipe Emanuel Bach - Freie Fantasie, F minor.ogg Vincent Persechetti - Serenade for Flute and Harp.ogg Tibor Harsanyi - 3 Pieces for Flute & Piano - No 1.ogg Tibor Harsanyi - 3 Pieces for Flute & Piano - No 1 and 2.ogg Cesar Franck - Sonata in A, 3rd movement.ogg Cesar Franck - Sonata in A, 2nd movement.ogg Cesar Franck - Sonata in A, 1st movement.ogg Nikolaos Skalkottas - Sonate Concertante - 3rd movement.ogg Nikolaos Skalkottas - Sonate Concertante - 2nd movement.ogg Nikolaos Skalkottas - Sonate Concertante - 1st movement.ogg Marcel Farago - Bassoon Pieces.ogg Jules Demersseman - Introduction and Polanaise.ogg James Waterson - Souvenir de Donizetti.ogg Carl Almenräder - Bassoon Pieces.ogg Armin Schibler - Bassoon pieces.ogg Anton Reicha - Variations for Bassooon.ogg Robert Rønnes - Trio for 3 Bassoons.ogg Pierre Max Dubois - Sonatine for 2 Bassoons.ogg Eugene Bozza - Duettino for 2 Bassoons.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Sonata in E minor - Adagio-ma-non-tanto.ogg Handel - Sonata in E minor - Grave.ogg Handel - Sonata in E minor - Allegro.ogg Handel - Sonata in E minor - Allegro (2).ogg Handel - Sonata in E minor - Adagio.ogg Saint-Saens - Rondo-Capriccioso.ogg L. Sarason - Piano Sonata - Slow and Espressivo.ogg L. Sarason - Piano Sonata - Scherzo.ogg L. Sarason - Piano Sonata - Allegro.ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations.ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (6).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (5).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (4).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (3).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (2).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (1).ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Prelude in G minor.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Fugue in G minor.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Sarabande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Prelude.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Gigue.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Gavotte.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Courante.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Allemande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Chaconne for violin alone.ogg Mozart - 5th Concerto, 1st movement (Allegro aperto).ogg Liszt Totentanz.ogg Maurice Ravel - Valses Nobles et Sentimentales, movements 6, 7 and 8.ogg Maurice Ravel - Valses Nobles et Sentimentales, movements 3, 4 and 5.ogg Maurice Ravel - Valses Nobles et Sentimentales, movements 1 and 2.ogg Maurice Ravel - Serenade Grotesque.ogg Maurice Ravel - Pavane pour une Infante Defunte.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - Une barque sur l'Ocean d'un rythme souple.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - Oiseaux tristes.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - Noctuelles.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - La Valee des cloches.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - Alborado del Gracioso.ogg Moritz Moszkowsky - Concerto 1, 3rd movement.ogg Moritz Moszkowsky - Concerto 1, 2nd movement.ogg Moritz Moszkowsky - Concerto 1, 1st movement.ogg Frederick Chopin - Concerto 2 in F minor, 3rd movement.ogg Frederick Chopin - Concerto 2 in F minor, 2nd movement.ogg Frederick Chopin - Concerto 2 in F minor, 1st movement.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 3rd movement.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 2nd movement.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 1st movement.ogg Edvard Grieg - Concerto in A minor, 3rd movement.ogg Edvard Grieg - Concerto in A minor, 2nd movement.ogg Edvard Grieg - Concerto in A minor, 1st movement.ogg Robert Schumann - Fantasie - Sempre Fantasticamente ed Appassionatamente.ogg Robert Schumann - Fantasie - Moderato, Sempre energico.ogg Robert Schumann - Fantasie - Lento sostenuto Sempre piano.ogg Bach-Busoni - Nun komm der Hieden Hieland.ogg Johann Jacob Froberger - Tombeau.ogg Jean Perrichon - Volte.ogg Dietrich Ewald von Grotthus - Rondo in C.ogg Caspar Ferdinand Fischer - Prelude and Chaconne.ogg Carl Phillipe Emanuel Bach - Freie Fantasie, F minor.ogg Antonio de Cabezon - Duuiensela.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Six Moments Musicaux - No 3, B minor.ogg Henri Dutilleux - Piano Sonata - Lied.ogg Franz Liszt - 1st piano concerto, 2nd movement.ogg Franz Liszt - 1st piano concerto, 1st movement.ogg Frederic Chopin - Andante Spianato & Grand Polonaise Brillante.ogg Beethoven Piano Concerto No.4 in G Major - Andante con moto.ogg Beethoven Piano Concerto No.4 in G Major - Allegro non troppo.ogg Bach-Busoni - Chorale - Nun freut euch, liebe Christen.ogg Igor Stravinsky - 3 Pieces for Clarinet Alone.ogg Thomas Forbes Walmisley - Sonatine for Oboe and Piano.ogg Antonio Pasculli - Gran Concerto.ogg Maurice Ravel - La Valse.ogg Carl Nielsen - Präludium.ogg Carl Nielsen - Menuetto.ogg Carl Nielsen - Allegro ben moderato.ogg Wilhelm Friedemann Bach - Polonaise 4 and 5.ogg Scarlatti - Tocatta 3.ogg Podbielski - Praeludium.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Praeludium A minor.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Capriccio Departure of Brother.ogg Johann Jakob Froberger - Tocatta and Suite in A minor.ogg Henry Purcell - Tocatta Amajor.ogg Girolamo Frescobaldi - Toccata 3.ogg Giovanni Picchi - Polish and Hungarian Dance.ogg George Frideric Handel - Fantasias 8,12 and Carillon.ogg George Frideric Handel - Fantasias 8,12 and Carillon.ogg Bernardo Pasquini - Tocatta with Cuckoo Scherzo.ogg Anton Murchauser - Hail Little Jesus.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Toccatina.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Hens and Cocks.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Air and Variations.ogg Adriano Banchieri - The Battle.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Hens and Cocks.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Air and Variations.ogg Adriano Banchieri - The Battle.ogg Frederic Chopin - Nocturne Eb major Opus 9, number 2.ogg Frederic Chopin - Fantasy Impromptu Opus 66.ogg Frederic Chopin - Etude, F minor no opus.ogg Frederic Chopin - Etude, Db major no opus.ogg Frederic Chopin - Etude, Ab major no opus.ogg Frederic Chopin - Ballade Ab major Opus 47.ogg Franz Liszt - Un Sospiro Etude, Db Major.ogg Franz Liszt - Second Hungarian Rhapsody.ogg Franz Liszt - Liebestraum, Ab Major.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 11Efuge Bbmaj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 10Epre Bb.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 09Efuge Dmin.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 08Epre Dmin.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 07Efuge Dmaj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 06Epre Dmaj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 05Efuge cmin.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 04Epre cmin.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 03Efuge maj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 02Epre cmaj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 20EGigue.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 19EBouree1and2.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 18ESarabande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 17EDouble2.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 16EDouble1.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 15ECourante2.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 14ECourante1.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 13EAllemande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 12EPrelude.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Fantasy - C minor.ogg Michel Blavet - Sonata in B minor.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Partita for flute alone.ogg Johann Joachim Quantz - Sonata Concertate in D.ogg Jacques Hotteterre - Suite in D.ogg Georg Philipp Telemann - Sonata in E minor.ogg Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach - Sonata in G major.ogg Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach - Sonata in Bb major.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - VI (Gigue).ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - V Bourrée.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - IV (Sarabande).ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - III Courante.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - II Allemande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - I Präludium; Presto.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 998 - III Allegro.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 998 - II Fuge.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 998 - I Prelude.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 997 - Lute Suite No. 2 in C minor - IV Gigue.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 997 - Lute Suite No. 2 in C minor - III Sarabande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 997 - Lute Suite No. 2 in C minor - II Fuge.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 997 - Lute Suite No. 2 in C minor - I Prelude.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Italian Concerto - F Major - Presto.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Italian Concerto - F Major - Andante.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Italian Concerto - F Major - 1st movement.ogg Johann Jakob Froberger - Lamentation - C Major.ogg Johann Jakob Froberger - Fantasy - e minor.ogg Giovanni Battista Pescetti - Presto - c minor.ogg Giovanni Battista Pescetti - Allegretto - C Major.ogg Domenico Zipoli - Largo - b minor.ogg Domenico Zipoli - Gavotte - b minor.ogg Domenico Scarlatti - Presto - E Major.ogg Domenico Scarlatti - Allegretto - D minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - g sharp minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - G Flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - f minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - F Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - e minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - D Flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - c sharp minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - c minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - b minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - a minor (2).ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - a minor (1).ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - A flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - G Flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - f minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - F Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - E Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - e flat minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - E Flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - c sharp minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - c minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - C Major (2).ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - C Major (1).ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - A flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - a minor.ogg Louis Spohr - Zwiegesang.ogg Louis Spohr - Wiegenlied.ogg Louis Spohr - Wach auf!.ogg Louis Spohr - Sei Still Mein Herz.ogg Louis Spohr - Sehnsucht.ogg Louis Spohr - Das Heimliche Lied.ogg Pierre Gaveaux - Polcca from the opera 'Le Trompeur Trompe'.ogg Giacomo Meyerbeer - Hirtenlied.ogg Franz Schubert - Der Hirt auf dem Felsen.ogg Gustavo Becerra - String Quartet No. 4, 4th movement - Allegro.ogg Gustavo Becerra - String Quartet No. 4, 3rd movement - Allegro.ogg Gustavo Becerra - String Quartet No. 4, 2nd movement - Andante.ogg Gustavo Becerra - String Quartet No. 4, 1st movement - Allegro.ogg Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov - Bumblebee.ogg Modest Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition, movement 3.ogg Modest Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition, movement 2.ogg Modest Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition, movement 1.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (3).ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (2).ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (1).ogg Johannes Brahms - Sonata in F minor, 4th movement.ogg Johannes Brahms - Sonata in F minor, 3rd movement.ogg Johannes Brahms - Sonata in F minor, 2nd movement.ogg Johannes Brahms - Sonata in F minor, 1st movement.ogg Camille Saint-Saens - Sonata for bassoon with piano accompaniment (opus 168).ogg Mozart - Bassoon Concerto in Bb major - Rondo Tempo di Menuetto.ogg Mozart - Bassoon Concerto in Bb major - Andante ma adagio.ogg Mozart - Bassoon Concerto in Bb major - Allegro.ogg Gustav Mahler - Trombone Solo from 3rd Symphony, 1st movement.ogg Gardell Simons - Novelette, for Trombone and Band.ogg Donal Michaisky - Concertino in Re, for Trombone and Band.ogg Arthur Pryor - Blue Bells of Scotland, for Trombone and Band.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 8 Allegro.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 7 Scherzo.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 6 Andante.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 5 Moderato.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 4 Allegretto.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 3 Menuetto.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 2 Andante.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 1 Moderato.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 3 in F major, movement 3.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 3 in F major, movement 2.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 3 in F major, movement 1.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 2 in D minor, movement 3.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 2 in D minor, movement 2.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 2 in D minor, movement 1.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 1 in Bb major, movement 3.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 1 in Bb major, movement 2.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 1 in Bb major, movement 1.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in G major (opus 30), movement 3.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in G major (opus 30), movement 2.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in G major (opus 30), movement 1.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in A major (opus 47), movement 3.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in A major (opus 47), movement 2.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in A major (opus 47), movement 1.ogg Beethoven - Piano sonata in C minor (opus 111), movement 1.ogg Beethoven - Piano sonata in C minor (opus 111), movement 2.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (07) Selig sind die Toten.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (06) Denn wir haben hie keine bleibende Statt.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (05) Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (04) Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (03) Herr, lehre doch mich.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (02) Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (01) Selig sind, die da Leid tragen.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (06) Denn wir haben hie keine bleibende Statt.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (05) Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (04) Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (03) Herr, lehre doch mich.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (02) Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (01) Selig sind, die da Leid tragen.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (07) Selig sind die Toten.ogg

(Mental note - the above list omits the recently added Beethoven symphonies from Musopen). Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note - it's worth bearing in mind the actual purpose of that list, which is to make sure that each relavant article (composer, article, etc) has a copy of the song. That's why I made it in the first place. The fact that it makes a really great download page is secondary. Raul654 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a quick reply, and a big reply too. Thanks. I think that one of the problems here is that few editors are aware of the list. Therefore, I just added it to the music template. Seems to me that this list can potentially act as a huge, wonderful, free jukebox. Once more people realize that, more pople will help expand the list, don't you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I was able to post the above list so quickly because I already had it in a text file in my hard drive -- I've been meaning to get around to updating the sound list for some time now.
As far as generating interest -- I've spent four years trying to drum up more interest in freely licensed full length classical music. Unfortunately, my attempts failed - I'm still effectively the only one who does it. The classical music wikiproject was not interested, (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_5#Need_help.21Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_3#I_could_use_some_helpWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_2#Raulbot.2C_and_the_music_list) So I really had given up trying to interest others.
The sound list was featured on digg a while back - . It got 1600 diggs, which is IMO very impressive. Raul654 (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I was also thinking of changing the title. Sound/List is not good PR. Something like "List of free music" would turn more heads.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added all of those new ogg files that you posted above. So, the list is now a bit longer. I didn't fill in all the info about each piece that needs to be inserted. If you want to plaster another list of ogg files here, I'd be glad to add them to the list. Do you mind if I change the name of the list to "List of free music"?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I've posted some questions about this sound list at the Wikimedia Village Pump.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I don't like the idea to move that page to the article namespace, nor do I particularly like linking to it from the article namespace. As I said, the purpose of the page was to make sure each song was posted in its composers' and relavant song article (as well as performer). It was never meant for general consumption, although that's what it has turned out to be. And I'm happy with that, as long as it doesn't lose its original purpose. (2) I just got permission from Aaron Dunn at Musopen to upload the rest of their music. So I'll be uploading another 140 full length classical music recordings soon. I'd appreciate help getting them into articles and onto the sound list. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to help. If you list the ogg files like you did above (either here or at my talk page), then I'll add them to the sound list. Also, feel free to give me more info about the files you listed above plus the 140 new files (e.g. I guess you will be the "original submitter" for the 140 new files, but was Magnus the original submitter for all the ones listed above?).
Regarding "article namespace", I'm not 100% clear about what that means. Are "lists" considered to be in the article namespace? My concern was to modify the title so that it has the words "free music" in the title, and I don't really care if it's in the article namespace or not. "Sound/list" doesn't seem very descriptive, seeing as how there are lots of sounds that are not music. It's no big deal, but if you suggest a more descriptive title (with the word "music" in it) then I'd be glad to change it. Cheers.
P.S. Note that Magnus has responded at the Wikimedia Village Pump. I don't know how to implement his suggestion, but maybe you do?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It requires someone with access to the tool server who knows SQL. I suggest you drop a note on User:Bryan's talk page asking him to take a look at that thread. Raul654 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I have mixed feelings about wikiprojects, I think this would be an appropriate time to start one - wikipedia:wikiproject free music. The purposes would be:

  1. Obtaining permission for free music
  2. Uploading it (and tagging it)
  3. Making sure it gets added to respective articles
  4. Making sure related articles (song, composer, performer, etc) have articles if notable enough
  5. Cataloging it
  6. Having a central place to discuss issues related to the above.
  7. Getting people interested in doing this as well (instead of the current system where I'm basically doing it all by myself)

What do you think? Raul654 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure this sounds like a fun project. I don't know that I'll be able to devote much of my own time, but I could try to get others involved. I would be most interested in adding to the list, and in trying to fill the blank spots in the list. Plus I would like to agitate for technical improvements to enable picking several works from the list to play one after the other (instead of having to pick one work at a time). And installation of a volume control icon would be nice (plus better title for the list). You've done great work here, and I think this could become a very popular destination.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created the wikiproject. I'll drop a note on the relavant wikiprojects to let them know. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For everything[edit]

I have to admit, it was difficult to find an appropriate barnstar to reflect your work, but I do want you to know that your work is appreciated. And you don't ever seem to burn out. :)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For diligent contribution to the project in the way of coordination of FA material, and overall editing; I award you the "Tireless Contributor Barnstar" Mercury at 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding TFA[edit]

Hi, I'm having a go at trying to put the main page as CSS, but currently there's an extra div always at the end of the intro paragraph of the TFA pages breaking it. I'm wondering why it's there? (Please reply here, it'll be easier for me to find) - (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem at WP:FAC[edit]

Raul, I think there's a problem at WP:FAC with the number of transcluded pages/templates. I think the overall size of the page is preventing the page from correctly transcluding the final FAC discussion (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sweet Escape (song)). Just thought you'd want to know. Cheers, Caknuck (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the number of templates, we have breached Wikipedia:Template limits. I think one of the troubles is the Yes check.svg Done templates. Woody (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am home and preparing to dig in tomorrow. I could not load the FAC page effectively from a dialup. Tony1 has long suggested we outlaw those silly "Done" templates (I personally hate them). Perhaps now we have a good reason to be done with them? Raul and I edit conflicted yesterday when I went in just to quickly archive a few so the page would load correctly. The template problem was most irritating, causing the articles at the bottom of the list not to show, and resulting in a horrificly slow load time for the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have anything particularly against the checkmark itself (I think simply saying so in text is good enough), but the fact that it can prevent the page from loading is a good reason to deprecate their use on the FAC, IMO. Also, I'm going to do another round of promotions tonight. Raul654 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Once I catch up, I'll raise it on FAC talk. There are lot of dead links in the current FAC noms (per the checker in the page header). I was going to go through and flag them, since no one has been doing that. Glad you're promoting tonight; don't know how the page got so full again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You could get a bot to use "subst:" to kill the templates but leave the appearance. Only downside (and it is a big one) is that the page gets littered with markup code. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about path to FA for a current DYK[edit]

On 19 January, I undertook a major expansion project on Victoriatown. It's currently a DYK, and I was wondering if you could advise on whether it's even a real candidate for FA status, given the paucity of references available. I've currently found one print book and one really great online article, plus I'm using a couple of refs regarding a book that was set in the village. What are the chances that such an article could ever reach FA status. There are some truly beautiful photographs that I found on Flickr, and worked with the author to include in the article. There are several more great ones that I could include when I expand it further. My question is whether it even has a real chance to be FA, with the current state of the references? Regards -- Bellwether BC 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Should I raise this question elsewhere? Or is it even an appropriate question? -- Bellwether BC 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • For reasons described here, I avoid saying "article X cannot become a featured article" because as soon as I do, people will stop working on article X (and articles like it). If the references are reliable, and the text in the article is written from them, then I don't think it should be a problem if there aren't a whole lot of them. Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I understand. My only real question regarding the issue was with regard to whether an FA needed to have X number of separate references. Right now, I can only come up with perhaps 3 or 4, tops. More could turn up, but they certainly haven't yet, and it's not from a lack of looking. Thanks for your response, and I'll keep in mind the link you posted before bringing similar questions here. Regards, -- Bellwether BC 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


You are indeed correct. Have just confirmed. I still however believe GimmeBot's counting of WP:GA is out though. Centyreplycontribs – 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You want the job then? Gimmetrow 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific basis for my username[edit]

I love it, thanks for the link(s). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Wow, I apologize profusely. I did not know that you had written a response to me and instead I've been getting upset over at the FAC requests page. Thanks Raul! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


The tally is correct, but Alpha Kappa Alpha didn't get added to the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA[edit]

Please see User talk:Raul654#Louis_Slotin. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was getting to that. Raul654 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Compound adjectives are a weakness of wikipedia[edit]

I hate to mention this again, but the teaser for Stede Bonnet has a missing hyphen. Currently, the first sentence for TFA reads: Stede Bonnet was an early 18th century Barbadian pirate, sometimes called the "the gentleman pirate" because he was a moderately wealthy landowner before turning to a life of crime. - It should read "early 18th-century Barbadian pirate". I have fixed the article, but I cannot fix the teaser, as I am not an administrator. Awadewit | talk 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this in passing, so I fixed it. You could also use {{edit protected}} on the talk page of the TFA blurb if Raul isn't around, or indeed in advance if the pages are now not protected and allowed to become protected by cascading instead. BTW, Raul, I noticed that no articles have been selected for the 24th or later, yet. I thought you did them further in advance than that? Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth beat me to it. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Restarted nominations on FAC[edit]

Hi, I noticed you'd restarted the Somerset nomination on FAC (along with several others). Does this mean that the previous expressions of support no longer count? & I need to ask those reviewers to visit again?— Rod talk 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing) is void. If it's still valid (and presumably that's true of all the supports), they need to be restated. Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 stats[edit]

FYI, [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 6[edit]

You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
January 2008

Time: January 26th, 5:00 PM
Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut

(view/edit this template)

You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Genesis vandal back again[edit]

User:Tial join, User:Mseas, User:Ghaor and User:Kautl. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Will look into this later tonight or tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Just a friendly note that Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow is looking a bit bare. Hope all is good. Woody (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm going to sit down tonight, promote another batch from the FAC, and then schedule at least enough articles to make it through the weekend. Raul654 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thought you would have it covered. Just a little reminder. ;) Woody (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Feeling guilty for leaving Raul up the creek this month SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
We all need a holiday sometime Sandy, you deserved one!
As a sidenote, was there a discussion regarding good article stars on articles? Woody (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's been nixed a gazillion times. I don't remember where. Gimmetrow probably knows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Same IP also added an FA star to a stub. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion -- Dispatches[edit]

I'd be happy to add a section like that. A lot of users have mentioned that they're interested in us covering user contributions in more depth, but I just haven't been able to find anyone who can cover something long-term. If you think you can find someone who would be willing to do it for a while, that sounds great to me. Ral315 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wicked (musical)[edit]

Hi Raul. I noticed that Wicked was not promoted to FA. I agree with that result because I think the writing could still be smoothed out here and there, but I think the article has come a long way, and I wonder if you could drop a few notes on the article's talk page regarding the issues that you still see there? This is the WP:MUSICALS (musical theatre) project's first important FA project, and it would be nice if it got good comments that might guide us in the future. A number of the musical theatre project's most active editors are working on the article, and your comments would help them to improve many other articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thespis (opera)[edit]

BTW, is the Thespis article scheduled for the main page? It's an extremely well researched and, I think, well-written article (though I say it who shouldn't) and I think it would showcase Wikipedia's best quality articles very well. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Main page request[edit]

29th of Jan - Victoria Cross The award was established 29th January 1856 Image:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.png. Buc (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to make this request here because the request page is full. Buc (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


You got mail. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's something fishy going on there. Raul654 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought. Thanks. Grateful for any advice / intervention / whatever's appropriate. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Check my contribs. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What a bag of goodies! Thanks for your efforts. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is when recursive checkuser would be really nice. Everyone go and vote here Raul654 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet templates[edit]

I think you want {{sockpuppet|Kdbuffalo|confirmed}} instead of {{sockpuppet|Kdbuffalo|confirmed=yes}}. Jehochman Talk 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Raul654 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
All done now. Woody (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kdbuffalo? Woody (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To tell the truth - it's quite clear from the technical evidence that they are sockpuppets of each other. Determining the sockmaster is a different story - two of the socks I found had previously been identified as socks of certain sockmasters -- truewitness as a sock of User:Its Pytch.. Hon, and Happy Couple2 of Kdbuffalo. It really could be either. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think, given that those socks turned up at the discussions listed on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (5th), I will just tag them as Buffalos. Is that ok? Woody (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm the editor who filed VacuousPoet 1-5, should I, in the future, use Kdbuffalo as the master? Thanks for helping out here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Feb 18th[edit]

Hey, since only five articles can appear on the requests page I thought I'd drop you a line to request that Bobby Robson be considered for main page featured article on February 18th. It will be the day of his 75th birthday. Let me know if you need me to do more, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jules Demersseman[edit]

I have just completed the translation of the article you requested from the German Wiki. If you'd like, you can add categories, since I don't like to do that part. Enjoy! Scbarry (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Binky The WonderSkull?[edit]

Hi Raul, I was wondering about this. . .(link to ? at WMC's page). I couldn't see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry. I assume there's something I can't find, but could you re-check this block? This account dates back to March 2006. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I also had a look and cannot see obvious signs of sock/ --BozMo talk 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser evidence is very conclusive. Binky The WonderSkull, MRN, and Will381976 edit from the same IPs on the same topic. This same IP was used by Wedjj, and other IPs they have used were also used by other Scibaby socks on GW articlces. There is also additional checkuser evidence but I cannot comment on it. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't think s/he was able to edit with such restraint. Every indication I had seen was that they couldn't help themselves. It's a little troubling (if I were one to be troubled). Thanks for clearing it up, R. Baley (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The original message I posted follows (orginally posted here [5])
I'm here on behalf of Binky The WonderSkull. You have apparently blocked Binky as being a sock puppet of Scibaby. Why is this? A check of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser told nothing about Scibaby's case. Binky claims no knowledge of who Scibaby is, nor has any idea why you believed them to be the same person and to have abused this priviledge (it's not against Wikipedia policy to have more than one user name as long as its not abused, so I'm assuming you believe there was abuse). Could it be because of a shared IP address? I do know that sometimes users share an address, possibly because they use the same computer at school, a dorm, coffee house, library or even home--more than one person from the same house may be an editor--or even because they are given the same IP by an Internet service such as AoL. Some users also use a service that substitutes an IP to make it more difficult for hackers and others to steal from or corrupt their computer (and, in the case of anyone editing from nations such as China, protect them from their own government's effort to stop freedom of the press). Or is it because they've edited similar articles? That could simply be a matter of similar interests--in the admittedly relatively few edits I've made here, I've ran into the same users over and over again. Whether one of these is the reason Binky was blocked or not, I don't know. But I do ask you to reconsider, and also to see if anyone else may have been blocked who is not a sock puppet. Thank you for your kind assistance. Reverend Loveshade (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If you'll check here on the history of admin William M. Connolley[6] you'll see the comment:
FWIW, I too can't see any obvious reason to suspect a problem William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, there are several reasons why different editors may have the same IP, as stated above. Furthermore, even if the same editor uses different names, this is not against Wikipedia policy, and is not considered sock puppetry. As it says in Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry, "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden." It is, however, acceptable to have more than one account under different names. "Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternative accounts. An alternative account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits.
"There are limited acceptable uses for alternative accounts, and a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternative account may result in being blocked from editing."
You have apparently blocked several users, and as far as I can see have not stated a single violation of Wikipedia policy. Would you want to be blocked with no stated evidence? I think you owe them an explanation as soon as possible. Thank you. Reverend Loveshade (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi RL, those sock provisions are for users in good standing. As far as I'm aware, Scibaby is indef banned, and any efforts to sock around that will be met with indef blocks on accounts used to further those ends. If BTWS is actually a different user (and everyone knows that CU is not magic -pending the latest findings on admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson, for example) he should submit private evidence to that effect, to both ArbCom and Raul. He should also make a convincing public statement (on his own talk page) as to his own innocence that does not reveal private info.
I anticipate that this is my last comment on the subject, and have only made it on the off chance (indeed, unlikely at this point, since Raul has double checked) that BTWS is who s/he says, and not Scibaby. That is, perhaps there is mitigating information out there that has not been submitted/considered. R. Baley (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


You recently blocked this user indefinitely as a sock of the Genesis vandal/Tile join. He has appealed the block using {{unblock}}. I presume you verified it using checkuser therefore I am not going to unblock him myself, but you might want to drop over there and see what he's saying. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely see what he's saying. His edit history doesn't include any edits to Evolution; he seems to have other interests, and his username doesn't look like Tile join's pattern. And he says he's been editing from a public computer. Mangojuicetalk 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Gee thanks! That means a lot, especially coming from you.

With these episodes you set them up, do the interview, produce it and post online and then.....nothing. There's very little in the way of feed back to see if it's being well received, ignored, suggestions etc. I fly blind to a certain degree in guessing what works well.

I want to be able to contribute to the community but I just can't seem to get my act together to write FAs or things like that. So I'm trying to make my niche, make my contribution, by humanising the community. Because of the way we interact on-wiki/IRC/message board it's very easy to forget there are real people at the other end of the keyboard. I hope that these interviews go some way to ameliorating that. It might make people more Civil too... maybe.

Best, Witty Lama 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Philly meetup postponed[edit]

I'm sorry to have to do this but there's only four people signed up to come, and most of the regulars (e.g. Evrik, ike9898, etc) can't even come. I let the person from WHYY know via email. Maybe it's just that we're having them so often that people don't care as much anymore, or maybe it's because there was no announcement at the top of the page, I don't know. I'll wait a month or so and then start the voting for the date again (might as well keep the location). Hopefully I'll get more of a response than now. --TexasDex 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All right. FWIW, I was definitely planning on coming. Raul654 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirtysomething (TV series)[edit]

Dear Raul654, There is a problem with the Thirtysomething (TV series). The name was chosen as "thirtysomething" not "Thirtysomething." WP: MOSTM state that it should be always capital when it's a Proper noun even if it was accepted "officially." I object that rule and changed it, because it was causing too many problems. I saw back-and-forth discussions about it on the talk page from a year-ago. The majority agreed with it being lowercase. I changed everything in the article that said it capitalized -- from "Thirtysomething" to "thirtysomething." But, there is a problem I can't fix, the title. I tried changing it and it said that it was typed the same and it didn't work. So I tried typing "thirtysomething (TV Series)" instead of "thirtysomething (TV series)." I was thinking maybe Wikipedia would pick "t" up and then I would of just changed "(TV Series)" back to "(TV series). But, it came out like this --> "Thirtysomething (TV Series)" so I had to change it back. Do you know why it isn't working? AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem someone reverted the edit on WP: MOSTM. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey ATC, how are you? Raul is pretty busy, so maybe I can help you on my talk page? I think Wiki articles have to start with a cap, even when the actual word doesn't; I had the same issue with the song by Nirvana, "tourette's". I don't think there's anything you can do about it, although correcting it within the article is the right thing to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of two FAC's[edit]

Will you please remove the Shawn Michaels and WWE FAC. I forgot to discuss it with WP:PW before I nominated it, Thanks!!! Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do those now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Happyme22[edit]

Hi Raul. I know that I am a new user and that Happyme22 has two articles that are being used as FA's, however, I have reviewed the standards for FAs before reviewing the history of the Nancy Reagan article as well as Happyme22's talk page, and with the history editors who have supported the maintenance of the article as it stands.

In all places, as you can see, there is a good deal of questioning his Non NOPV and possible bias in the writing of these articles and the editor's decisions.

As a new user, I do not know how to proceed but am suggesting that there is potential for an abuse of Wikipedia's guidelines here (especially with Ronald Reagan's bio coming up fast as an FA). Could you please advise me how to proceed?

Thank you so much. (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the talk page and the article edit history, and see no problems. I did find this significant personal attack on Happyme22. By the way, Ronald Reagan took an almost record seven FACs to reach featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out, SandyGeorgia. I have apologized to Happyme22 on the discussion page of the nancy Reagan article, and my apology was accepted. I would be happy to apologize to you as well, which you will find on your talk page.

Nancy Reagan Article[edit]

Raul654, Moving on to the issue at hand, I have gone through the Nancy Reagan article and have found MANY examples of a writing style and editing work that has been done in a clear and documented Non NPOV, despite the almost record FACs. My points have been clarified on the Nancy Reagan discussion page and I am eager to make necessary changes before the Ronald Reagan article is a FA. Feel free to comment on that discussion page, and/or please advise me how to proceed in this difficult and frustrating matter. Thank you again. (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion : "four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions." made on the talk pages of 7 editors by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is incorrect, insulting, and way out of line. Tvoz |talk 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul, this inference was first made by Tvoz on my talk page here. My responses here indicate and document that my statements were not out of line or inappropriate. In fact, I still believe Tvoz's -and the other editors mentioned- are attempting to use Wikipedia policy and procedure to influence editing and opinions about the POV of this article. My goal still remains to bring the article to a more NPOV reading. (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Very. I reverted a vandal on Dec. 25th,[7] last edit before that was a trivial correction in October,[8] and I haven't even entered an opinion on IP's concerns. Apparently IP is upset at those who supported the article at FAC, although it's already been on mainpage without major issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As I have mentioned to SandyGeorgia previously, neither of those edits were made by me. The first edit is not my IP, and the second was a simple grammar which the reply was "ugh" before a revert. (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, in fact, entered opinions 5 times on my talk page, not to mention the hugely inappropriate comment here, to which Tvoz replied -on my talk page but with no consequence to SandyGeorgia - here. And there have been numerous opinions from SandyGeorgia on the Nancy Reagan discussion page. (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Before it is stated that there were no major issues with this article when it was mainpaged, please be aware that ClueBot reverted 5 possible cases of vandalism to the article between Nov 1 and Dec 23 2007, but reverted no less than 17 possible cases of vandalism on the single day it was FA...and more since then. Also please note this comment from SandyGeorgia stating "Mainpage day always makes me very uncomfortable; it's just painful to watch any article go through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Raul, please note that a MedCab request is in process for the article in question (re: editorial ownership, codes of conduct, lack of reasonable consensus building, and so on) here. I hadn't the time to complete it the last few days but appreciate everybody's patience. I am awaiting advice from Doug here. Thanks again for your time and patience. (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm very busy over the next day or two (changing jobs). Will look into this over the weekend. Raul654 (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I intend to finish the MedCab request very late tonight. Good luck in the new position, and thanks again. (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
With two article edits since October (I had more in ref cleanup during the first FAC, 28 article edits in total), a grand total of 5 talk page edits, and one FAC support, I won't be getting involved in that situation or mediation. I'm simply not a factor on that article, any more than any other FAC. I can't imagine how my time would be spent if I had to mediate every FAC Support or Object I've entered. Having reviewed the talk page, I still don't know what IP wants to mediate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The only connection I have to this article is that I participated in the FAC discussions as a previously uninvolved editor and did a small amount editing of it at that time - 16 edits - to try to help satisfy some problems that I and others observed. Happyme22 was cooperative, the FAC process went a few rounds, and most of my concerns were satisfied by the time it received FA status. Since then I kept it on my watchlist but made no edits on or about it until I noticed this personal attack on Happyme22 and then, looking further, noticed this much more egregious earlier personal attack by the same IP - his first edit under this IP address. The second relevant edit by this IP (his 4th edit, still before saying anything on Nancy Reagan or its talk page) was to file a Wikiquette complaint against Happyme which was at best ironic, given the personal attacks the IP had made on Happyme. The complaint was rejected. It would appear, then, that this IP picked up where another IP (perhaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - see similarity of edit summary before that IP was blocked) or some other username left off. Only then did the IP make numerous posts on the article Talk page: a few of them were accepted, some were rejected, and most were discussed to the best of our ability given the volumes that were posted. There was no collusion or "teaming together" - we discussed and reached consensus on a few changes. One editor from the FAC (Karanacs) who was inappropriately canvassed by the IP (along with six other editors) came to the IP user's talk page to say that s/he thought the complaints were not justified. Discussions are going on among three editors other than the IP about one very small matter, but in no way should it jeopardize the FA status of the piece. When this started the article had not substantially changed since its elevation to FAC other than a few additions and tweaks - I believe it is still NPOV and worthy of its FA status, and see no reason for any mediation, nor do I intend to participate in it. Tvoz |talk 08:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Your (and SandyGeorgia's) non-participation in mediation is certainly ok. As far as I can tell there is a dispute resolution process and I have followed it appropriately, and there are further steps to take. (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen a Wikipedia mediation that accomplished anything worthwhile. (Not denying there may have been successful cases at some point in history.) I support Tvoz in declining to participate in a process that is virtually guaranteed to be a colossal waste of time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Manos" The Hands of Fate[edit]

Just wanted to know if you think "Manos" The Hands of Fate could be put up for TFA on the 30th, seeing as you scheduled the date before I got a chance to put it on the request page. It's the 15 anniversary of the MST3K airing, and it has been waiting longer than Motorhead. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sakuhei Fujiw(h)ara[edit]

I'm a novice at Wikipedia, so apologies if I make any faux pas, but I'd like to give this a go. I hope this is the right place to talk about it. I'm also not a meteorologist. If I have a go at translating, could I ask you for advice along the way? For example, presumably it's not necessary to translate the whole page, half of which is a list of his publications.

Concerning the spelling, I'd go for Fujiwara, which would be the standard contemporary transliteration. Meteorologists may disagree, but he doesn't seem famous enough to justify what seems to be an old-fashioned transliteration (with only 600 hits on Google).

--Rsm77 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 31st[edit]

I don't know if you've seen what happened to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2008 on your watchlist, but I'm certain you should feel honored. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution[edit]

Hey, Raul. Not sure if you're around, but I thought I'd summarize for you the situation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution, in case you want to weigh in or close it yourself. It has 12 supports and 5 8 opposes, one a very strong oppose based on accuracy and three from editors who haven't revisited in a very long time. There's a summary here, and a summary of the outstanding concerns at the end of the FAC (search on Summarizing). Amaltheus (talk · contribs) has made numerous very good suggestions and changes; he's noticeably upset about the state of the article and has felt dismissed and mistreated in the process. He's made valuable contributions and suggestions throughout,[9][10][11] and he says that the article is not yet accurate. It's not clear to me how significant the remaining issues are in terms of accuracy or how easily/quickly they could be addressed if the parties communicated well. I asked TimVickers (talk · contribs) to review several days ago, but he hasn't weighed in (he's usually prompt, so I suspect he's not going to).[12] Consensus is well within promote territory; I've let it go several days and tried to get the parties talking to each other again (with limited success), hoping the remaining issues could be resolved without ill will. A restart doesn't make sense, because the issues and positions are clear and it's really only one substantial, significant, oppose. If you want to handle it yourself, that would be welcome, or if not, I'll deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Too tired to deal with this tonight. Will look into this tomorrow or Tuesday. Raul654 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
OK; in the meantime, they're firing at each other again SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Update, a new Oppose from Tony, comprehensive. In terms of stability, over 700 article edits made since the FAC started, and full talk page archive and ongoing discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice anyway Raul, but it's at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination). It will probably be no consensus kept, but a substantial number of people don't believe it should exist. I would oppose it on 1e, at the moment. Marskell (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm. Someone should probably look at what's occurring on Amaltheus's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, as you know Raul, is not an untroubling editor, but the harassment he's received for daring to oppose this article has been egregious, ongoing and quite unacceptable. I would deal with the most recent harrassment myself, but have been in recent conflict with the relevant editor (not to mention Amaltheus himself, who seemed to resent a recent intervention on his behalf) and therefore will not involve myself directly. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me from reviewing his contribs that Amaltheus started off with only helpful and accurate suggestions; I believe the first post I linked above was his first on the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These are slightly inaccurate descriptions. Although Amaltheus has made some good suggestions, and is clearly highly educated and intelligent, he has been sometimes extremely difficult to work with. Two editors who were handling the edits related to the FA quit Wikipedia because of his badgering and uncivil uncooperative behavior (User: Random Replicator, who even had his page and account deleted, and User: Wassupwestcoast is on a long break). Several others, including myself, distanced themselves from the article and talk pages and FA pages rather than participate and be the target of more invective and hostility from Amaltheus.

The bottom line with Amaltheus' complaints is that they are either (1) often vague and poorly explained, so that it is difficult to know how to implement them, and he sometimes declines to give specific examples or sample text or edits that can demonstrate what the problem is and (2) his edits often involve an effort to take an introductory article and make it as advanced and complicated as the main evolution article, or moreso, obviating the reason for its existence. When this "sophistication creep" occurs over many cycles, the article ceases to be accessible and meet its original reason for existence, as explained by User: Tim Vickers: [13].

I have not intended to harass him, but engage him in friendly conversation, given that he has successfully driven off all others involved in this FA attempt except for SandyGeorgia. I will confess to being frustrated when I found out that our main workhorses on the project, Random Replicator and Wassupwestcoast had been driven to quitting, mainly because of interactions with Amaltheus, and I wanted to discuss the situation with him. However, he began blanking my additions to his talk page, so I eventually realized that I should just leave him alone, which I did.

I did not follow the situation in detail before last night, since I had been avoiding the page for weeks because of fear of confrontation and further difficulties with Amaltheus, but I would be surprised if I found any evidence where he was treated in any hostile or dismissive manner leading up to the defection of the two other main editors he was involved with. I would have to see the evidence for myself, but I would be extremely surprised if Amaltheus was harassed in any way by the others working with him on Introduction to evolution. --Filll (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

my experience at Intro to evol[edit]

I'm breaking my wiki-break to document my experience at the Introduction to evolution page. My first interaction with Amaltheus (talk · contribs) was cordial enough on the Talk:Introduction to evolution under the the sub-heading ‘#8 Line by Line Veto --- use of text books’.

All of my first interaction can be seen at this diff

  • 22:59 7 Jan

no edit summary

Then, Amaltheus inntroduces the infamous ‘sex’ dispute. S/he doesn’t drop it, ever, from now on.

The argument begins under the sub-heading ‘Wording’ on 10 Jan. Amaltheus escalates from “so you should mention sex somewhere” to “Sex is not an "overcomplication." It is essential.” to “Sex is MANDATORY.” & “…and omitting it is a serious error.”

At this point, user Random Replicator finds the emphasis funny (as I do). And, Amaltheus is told by several editors that it simply is not correct. Sex is not necessary for evolution. Sex itself evolved. And, it is probably inadvisable to mention sex in an article targeted at children.

Now, Amatheus starts to claim a personal attack.

“I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above, and the attempt to find multiple contradictory reasons to dismiss me by first saying I'm making it to complex, and now I'm dismissing bacteria (I had left out prokaryotes to respect the tone of the existing article and its emphasis on eukrayotes), and I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force. “

From now on, Amatheus claims he is being personally attacked.

All of the sex discussion can be seen at this diff.

  • 4:50 12 Jan

I've dropped the idea, no need to use this page to attack me

Nine mintues later, Amaltheus registers an 'Oppose' at the FA page and emphasizes 'personal attack'.

  • 4:59 12 Jan

object if the writers need personal attacks to support their ideas it will be a problem on the main page and probably inaccurate

Later that day, I reach out to Amaltheus and welcome him

  • 20:02 12 Jan

welcome and be bold

It is spurned.


  • 16:26 13 Jan, Random Replicator was alarmed enough to post a message on Raul's talk page

Please Please Stop the Madness

From then on, I am constantly accussed of personally attacking Amaltheus. Just cast your eye down my talk archive for Jan: see User talk:Wassupwestcoast/Archive to January 2008.

Of course, I'm not the only editor who was attacked but Amaltheus sure didn't like me. I barely interacted with him. You can check the diffs on his talk page. But the whole experience is so miserable, that I'm not returning to the project until March and I won't ever return to the evolution pages. I'm going to enjoy myself when I get back. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

me too[edit]

If it helps I can provide diffs for all this - though it is time-consuming to do so because it happened across several pages, including some unlikely places, in a confusing manner - and it probably wouldn't help much anyway. For the moment, I'll confine myself to a brief description. My experience is like that of others. Coming back after a few days away I made a comment on the row that had broken out at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution, said that Amaltheus's "strong oppose" to FA status seemed to be based more on an apparent sense of being hurt/rejected by other editors than any substantive objections to the article itself, suggested that as far as I could see it was a "nitpicking" objection, and asked Amaltheus to restate the core of his objections to the FA status. The response was a pretty meaningless "what part of what I said don't you understand?" I went to his talk page and asked in a friendly way to have it explained, and was rebuffed with a quite unwarranted accusation that I was getting personal. I tried again to engage with Amaltheus and find out how he thought the article should be improved, but met with increasingly intemperate rejections and accusations of personal attacks. Throughout, Amaltheus has been incredibly quick to take offence at the slightest perceived slight. Others (including, briefly, myself) have fallen into the trap of responding to his personal attacks - but it is very striking that Amaltheus is the only one who has had difficulty working with this group of editors in over a year, and striking how quickly he escalated a minor disagreement over content and style to an all-out war with anyone who dared to question him, let alone disagree with him. Is Amaltheus the only one in step? In over three years of involvement with WP I have never seen anything like the torrent of abuse that has come from that source. Snalwibma (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks so much for the link! I really enjoy reading the history articles and when it come to somthing I don't know about I ask and read all about it! I specialize in the areas of Texas history,early america, and I am currently studing the civil war. Thanks so much and keep up the good work! I am new to the community so if I make a mistake I am really sorry! If you need to send me somthing like the link please put it on my page!Historybuffc13 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Troll[edit]

User:Raul654 I would like you to take a look at this Talk:Troll_(Internet)#Wikipedia_Troll. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TFA Long range request[edit]

Hope you don't mind a drive by question: just want to know whether or not you pay any attention to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests? Ta. Carre (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this correct?[edit]

Raul, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations says, "Archives are organized by nomination date. Thus a discussion that took place, for example, from May 27 to June 3 would be in the May archive." Is that correct? I've been archiving according to the month the nomination closes, since that's how we keep stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. It should say they are organized by nomination closure date. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, done (don't know why the next poster took emoticons off of some of my earlier posts, maybe I use them too often). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You might think this is funny[edit]

Aside from him being annoying and having a final warning for disruption, he did make this funny edit. I think you might enjoy it :P Yamakiri TC § 01-29-2008 • 23:10:40

Very amusing :) Raul654 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User rename[edit]

Hey, I requested to change my username. Before I knew to do that I moved the page on my own and goofed it up. I feel like a huge fool. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't pretty, but I managed to stitch back together the page histories, and rename you correctly. Raul654 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for the screw up. On my userpage I don't know how to get rid of or move the REDIRECT thing or the Template:Userpage from it, do you? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Leave the redirect in place - your signature is the problem. Go to "My preference" and restore the default settings. That is to say, make sure "Raw signature" is unchecked and set signature to "Burningclean". Raul654 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I got it. When is the next batch of FAs going through? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 05:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not planning on doing any archiving for the next few days. Sandy might. Raul654 (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
With seven supports and four objections, would the article be promoted? The Alice in Chains FAC has been going on for a long time, and I think it is almost done with. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 06:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't speculate on these things. Raul654 (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FA, retards and an expert[edit]

Fowler&fowler is a new breed, a rare specimen, what not even a Dbachmann can make. Don't you see how he is being treated in the FA process? [14]. [15]. I don't know know if he loves being called a troll by retards but I would like to know if WP naturally abhors scholarship. (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please be a bit more descriptive. Pointing me to a talk page that is (literally) 25 printed pages long isn't all that helpful to me.
Anyway, Fowler&Fowler makes an interesting point (about Obama not being an "African-American" in the cultural sense). But as the others there, I object to any attempts to modify the article to distinguish this point. "African-American" has a pretty clear english meaning, and others have pointed out that attempting to differentiate the African-American in the cultural sense from the common usage of the word is POV pushing. Raul654 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained[edit]

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Raul, who ya callin' a sockpuppet[edit]

Raul, my account is User:IthinkIwannaLeia. I registered it from Wookiepedia. I am currently at a public library and am unable to edit pages when I am logged in. I get a message saying I am a sockpuppet of User:Coach wears a skirt. I don't know who this is.

Well I can tell you, I am not a sock puppet. This is my primary account, and I am a responsible user of Wookie and Wiki. At first I assumed that it was the IP address of the Library that was being blocked, but I realized I could edit a page when I was not logged in. I can only assume that it is infact my account that is being blocked. (I have no other accounts, so I can not tell if it happens when anyone logs in at this IP.

I hope you can help me reactivate my account. I would also like to know how my name came up linked to this Coach wears a skirt. I do not think that my account has been compromised or hacked, but you never know. Since I cant log in here, please contact me or reactivate my account and on my talk page explain what happened. thanks. --IthinkIwannaLeia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. One note: I never used a public computer--I used my laptop and connected through the Libraries wireless. If it was an IP thing at the library, don't you think you should have blocked the IP and not my account name? I don't really know how it works, and I know you have a difficult (and unpaid, right?) job, so I won't give you a hard time. No harm done. Thanks for the fix. Happy wiking IthinkIwannaLeia (talk)

Front page criticism[edit]

Although I have no problem with today's front-page featured article, I have been reading some off-wiki criticism, and I wonder: Has there ever been a proposal to limit the articles appearing on the front page by some kind of an importance or relevance criterion? If so, could you please point me to it so I can see the resulting comments? MilesAgain (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi and many thanks for your interest and your suggestion. I've dropped a line at the Signpost. Let's see how it goes! Students are still a little shy about editing. I'm working on encouraging them... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests - 2/4[edit]

FYI, 2/4 request(s) were there before 2/9. If the request + alternate request is an issue, Interstate 355 is essentially withdrawn due to lack of support. —Rob (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gus Chiggins (again, I know!)[edit]

Since you are the admin that has had the most, uh, familiarity with this editor, I thought I would come to you. Gus is currently bringing up a frivolous RFC because he "doesn't like" the use of the word incorrect when describing the views of Duane Gish. Check it out on the talk page, its intriguing. It's basically the same general behavior as before, but on a new article. Should I just go ahead and move this to the Incidents noticeboard and let the community deal with him? Baegis (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene (2005)[edit]

I thought I'd bring this to your attention if you were unaware.

There seemed to be an edit war that was developing right on the FAR page over Hurricane Irene (2005) and its status as a featured article. It was between the nominator Nergaal and Hurricanehink. There edits they were both doing to the pages were both hard to follow. Now the discussion seems to be removed from the FAR page but still the template is on the discussion page (when I last checked). I'm personally not involved in the situation and do not have any knowledge of the area so I decided to stay out. Just letting you know. If you could tell me the outcome on my talkpage I'd be greatly appreciated Medos (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Marskell closed it as a keep. Titoxd (talk · contribs) hasn't been back to Wiki since December 13. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PR stats at FAS[edit]

Raul, no one seems to know what to do with the PR column at WP:FAS;[16] do you know anything about that number, or should we drop it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Raul, I'm not sure how I should handle immediate re-nominations when issues weren't addressed; I don't want to get into a tug-of-war with nominators by removing premature subsequent noms.[17][18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Raul, I believe I've never asked you to look in on anything related to a FARC before, but could I ask you to take a look at my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blackface and possibly also look in on what's been going on in the article? I feel like a lot of people want this de-featured not because of any deficiency in the article (there are some deficiencies, mostly related to citation; several of us are trying to address those), but because they really don't like us having an article about white appropriation of black culture. There has been some pretty hostile attitude on the talk page and in the form of edits that try to lop large chunks out of the article. It has made working on fixing it a pretty miserable experience. I don't particularly think there is anything that you can do, but I want to call your attention to what is going on, because eventually you will have to evaluate the opinions about whether to keep this article featured, and I think there may be people participating the process whose issues have little to do with the quality of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment on the review. It won't be closed while you continue to work. Marskell (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost suggestion[edit]

Just a little blub about Wikipedia:Image renaming would be a good idea. Ive been testing on commons with no issues and thought that would benifit from it. so any help in spreading the word would be welcome. βcommand 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I'm trying to help out at the Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten article, regarding the Gonzo image (Image:Img146.jpg). Dicklyon suggested that I should bug the uploader, but I'm completely unsure of how production differs from copyright, or any of the fine details regarding image use in WP. So I was wondering what you'd advise, or whether you could fix this problem more rapidly than I. Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about TFA[edit]

Hi. I'm hoping to get Melodifestivalen onto the Main Page in March, but there's an outstanding request for proofread on it. I think that most of the problems were ironed out during the candidacy and just after. Is that likely to be a sticking point on the TFA requests page? Should I be worried? Thanks, and all the best. Chwech 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley FA[edit]

Seven days and six hours is the quickest I have ever seen a FAC closed. What gives? I was making progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Three opposes, seven days is a standard close; five days with a lot of support or oppose are also typical closes, and there always have been many of those. As soon as you've addressed the issues, you can re-nominate (I see you're reviewing with Karanacs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page[edit]

Hey Mark, there's a conversation going on at Talk:Main Page right now, it started out as a job application by an [[Special:Contributions/ |anonymous IP]] for the position of Today's Featured Article Director. That evolved into a discussion concerning the validity of the role itself, with a few, including myself, advocating the current system, and others, including the anonymous IP, advocating a possible unspecified change. The anonymous IP has just stated the lack of a comment from yourself. Can you do me a favour and way in? Pay attention to my response from the anonymous IP's comment (quoted below) when you do so as well please.

Conspicuous silence from the boy himself on this matter. Does he fear for his position of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No, its quite the opposite I guarantee it. If he feared for what you refer to as a position of power, he'd be here arguing his case. Raul has many responsibility's here at Wikipedia, and he doesn't want to get in the way of the community deciding if its working or not. I could ask him here to comment if you'd like, but he frequents this page regularly and I guarantee he's aware of this conversation. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance Mark. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already replied there. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, whenever your ready though, and if you want to, (don't feel obliged), could you add your position on the topic at hand? Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Long range TFA requests[edit]

Hey Raul - How do I request that an FA not be placed on the main page for a specified time period? For example, I'd like to have oxygen be the TFA for August 1st but the request page is only for items that are a month out and that type of article is likely to be randomly selected for TFA before that. I ask because you don't seem to look at the long range request page (why you don't bewilders me since it seems like a great resource vs having to research and decide all on your own). --mav (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page request[edit]

Since yet again the limit of five has been hit on the normal request page, and since my previous request received no response here, I'm politely requesting once more that Bobby Robson be considered for main page inclusion on February 18, his 75th birthday. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Action potential[edit]

Please consider Wikipedia:Featured article review/Action potential. This is a highly technical article, drawn out of textbooks, which, as far as I can judge, it appears to represent accurately. It was originally brought to FA for only having five footnotes; it is now being opposed for using hyphens instead of emdashes.

I have no part in the article, except emending the footnotes in response to the original complaint, which also quibbled that they were in different formats.

Is this really what FA is intended to be? Shouldn't we be considering content and readability?

Counting footnotes, and treating WP:MOS as gospel are easy, and lazy, things to do. Evaluating prose, especially in a field not one's own, is more difficult; and this is not my field either. Evaluting content is very difficult. Precisely for this reason, we should not permit the trivial forms of evaluation to drive out the substantive, as bad money drives out good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds[edit]

I noticed that you have participated in Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Genesis vandal again[edit]

User:Uuger, only one account so far. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vduer, User:Bdaay and User:Rcuub today, but only three accounts this time. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A few more this evening User:Pydan and User:Hriow. We've fully-protected the page until you can sweep out the sleeper accounts and IP block. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock-auto request[edit]

A user that has been caught in an autoblock is requesting an unblock. Since you handled the original block, perhaps you could review and see if an unblock is appropriate or not. See User talk: Thanks. 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an autoblock, it's a rangeblock. - Revolving Bugbear 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All quiet here[edit]

Sure has been quiet here :-) I know you've been awfully busy with the job change, so please let me know when you have time to review a new FAC award idea that's been bouncing around; I don't want it to move forward without checking with you. Nothing urgent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC recusal for you[edit]

I'm going to recuse at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company and let you handle it; it has Support, but I'm just not comfortable passing it, although you may be. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was resourced, so I've struck my oppose. Since I recused, probably should still leave it to you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Farrell[edit]

He hate it.

Since when does Mike Farrell get to write in an OTRS ticket and say he hates a high quality photo of him that is not ultra-touched up, and it gets taken down and replaced with an ultra-touched up 9KB Mike Farrell shot? If he wants to release a high-quality, Michelle Merkin-esque photo of himself for GFDL, great. But since when do notables get to write in and simply ask that work we invest in obtaining GFDL high-quality images can be taken down simply because they don't like the way they looked that day, or whatever? Is celebrity vanity really going to be what dictates our media? David Shankbone 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

IP is asking to be unblocked, and I'm afraid I don't quite understand the original block reason. - Revolving Bugbear 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That IP has been used by several user:Raspor socks - Showerrug, BobLMartin, Patonq, and Hignit - and nobody else. Leave it blocked. Raul654 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is suspicious too. I've done most of the Raspor RfCU's. Something fishy going on around here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:VacuousPoet[edit]

This user is asking for an unblock and a review of the sock allegations against him. He has asked for you by name if that means anything. It seems strange to be asking for an unblock after a year out. Woody (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it. There are at least 5 different RfSS's for this guy. About the only reason to review it is to make the block even more permanent, but since it already is, enough said.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody still needs to review the block and close the template. CAT:UNB is actually quite full at the moment. Woody (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems strange to be asking for an unblock after a year out. - It makes absolutely perfect sense to me. You wait for all the checkuser data to expire, and then ask for the block to be reviewed. I'll look into this more, but frankly I'm inclined to call this one in favor of the duck test. Raul654 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I simply asked you as he has specifically asked for you to review it. I know nothing about it though I am happy to decline the unblock, just thought I would ask you first. Woody (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why he thinks I'm friends with him. I've done just about every Sockpuppet and RfCU against the him, his puppeteer User:Kdbuffalo, and every sockpuppet that has shown up. This guy is bad news. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see no evidence linking VacuousPoet to Kdbuffalo based on the one IP currently in the system, but that's not saying much. Raul654 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was about a year ago when we found him. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mehola Junction bombing[edit]

See Talk:Mehola Junction bombing. -- (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


I wasn't fishing, but I won't say no!!!. I think the one with the most global appeal would be Barn Swallow. Thank you for the offer, it's probably the only Valentine Day present I'll get. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hi. A little back, after a Talk page discussion, I placed this graph on Global Warming with "Relative weight of warming/cooling radiative forcing components as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" as the description, and I had given some thought to have the description clear and brief for non-experts. But that was later changed by UBeR (while I was blocked) to "The radiative forcing in 2005 relative to 1750 as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," but I think this description is not as informative, if not being outright cryptic, for a typical user of Wikipedia articles for this type of subject. I had created a new Talk page section proposing changing the wording back to its original, and asked for comments. Only UBeR responded a couple of days later with just I like my wording, actually. I asked him to explain that but he didn't and after a couple of more days, I finally changed the wording back to the original. He then almost immediately reverted me. I reverted back and explained on his talk page how he had ample opportunity to comment before hand but didn't. But he only reverted again, and appears not to want to get into a serious discussion. I have to avoid even a hint of getting into a revert war (which he knows all about), so I'm just requesting some other GW regulars to stop by and offer an opinion on the wording if they have one. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Raymond and/or WMC should decide this one. Raul654 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Also notice Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Featherfin squeaker?[edit]

You got it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jourdy288 (talkcontribs) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese photo submissions[edit]

Re:this - if there's a desire, I might be able to push through a Japanese translation for that page (and get someone who speaks it to handle the tickets). Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure! They are fairly major celebrities in Japan and potentially so elsewhere so I think it would be of benefit to do as you suggest. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

TFA for 19 Feb[edit]

Hi Raul,

I just noticed that Battle of the Gebora is scheduled for TFA on 19 Feb (thanks to Epbr123 for nominating it!). Just a small comment on the main-page blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 19, 2008 – I'm not sure if that's what's going to actually appear – there's a word missing:

"... sent a large Spanish army to raise the siege of important fortress town of Badajoz."

Needs a "the" between "siege of" and "important"

Ta. Carré (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Soult could probably do with being linked. Sorry to be a pain. Carré (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Tsk, and hopefully the last one – the article had a typo in it (how embarrassing), which I only spotted thanks to the main page blurb – the "Bajadoz" in the last sentence should be "Badajoz". Have fixed the article. Carré (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Done all. Woody (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that Woody; I'll leave Raul's busy talk page alone now, and start practising on the "revert" button :) Carré (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page requests[edit]

Hello Raul. Strikes me that this process isn't working well as far as it goes. The limit of five requests is always reached so it's impossible to complete a request the way you'd like it. Back in January I asked for Bobby Robson to be considered on February 18 as it's his 75th birthday, once again I asked earlier this month (still on this page) and yet I got no response. Today I discovered you'd selected a 1998 tropical cyclone which struck in September of that year. How disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I still think the request process is a bit wonky but I'm grateful for your change of heart. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(e/c):Thanks for changing that Raul, I am sure that FOOTY is proud to have an article as the TFA. I have gone round and fixed the links to Isis to link to Hurricane Isis (1998) instead of Hurricane Isis. I assumed that is what you wanted? Woody (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Chelsea F.C. has been requested for 6 days after this and has been a FA for longer. Buc (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not March 14, the anniversary of their founding? Either way, lets not badger Raul anymore, I am sure he hates it all already. Not everyone can have the mainpage date that they request, I certainly haven't. Woody (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Or move Bobby R to another date. Buc (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:TFA/R is actually working fairly well in gathering feedback, and a thoughtful culture has developed there to give a good look at requests—I think, in part, because it's small. So I don't have a problem with five. It just needs to move a little faster. If the throughput increased (posting obviously supported articles quickly, for instance) we'd have less wonkiness. Marskell (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what would help move it faster is if once Raul had decided if he was going to comply with a request, he removed it to make room for another. Like in this case, if Raul could confirm if he was going to put Chelsea F.C. on the MP or not it could then be removed. Buc (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think it's working well enough; it might help to remove requests that don't garner support faster, to make room for new requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TFA - March 30th[edit]

Hi Raul. I was wondering whether you were willing to put the December to Dismember (2006) article as the TFA on March 30th. My reasoning for it possibly being on this date is being the biggest wrestling event on the year, WrestleMania XXIV takes place on that date, and I feel it would be very appropriate for December to Dismember (2006) to be on the front page on that date. If you accept the request, I believe you would not able to put the infobox image on the front page due to Wikipedia's image policy, therefore could you put this image which is also in the article on instead? Regards. D.M.N. (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any response? D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you not respond to your comments by accident, or simply ignore them? D.M.N. (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Elmer Robinson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Elmer Robinson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Foundation cover.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Foundation 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 the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pleasure island.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pleasure island.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Free music project[edit]

Thankyou very much. Free music is very important to me so I enjoy helping to add it to Wikipedia. Graham87 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

yum kippur war[edit]

I have made changes to yum kippur war page. Last time you reverted those changes, although they have a cited source. What is the reason? User:midwestEditor —Preceding comment was added at 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Like to take care of this[edit]

You were the blocking admin. Thought you might like a heads up on this unblock request: User talk: Later. 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC reminder[edit]

Two left for you:

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Raul, a FAC tutorial is going to run in a few weeks; I raised some questions on the talk page, at User talk:Yannismarou/Signpost tutorial - Getting an article to featured article status. Can you look when you have a chance? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Clivia miniata1.jpg[edit]

What a nice photo! I thought it exceptional! B110 communicate (that means talk) 05:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool movie too. Basketball110 what famous people say 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) Raul654 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Raul, I don't know the ChrisO story; can you add a paragraph? User:Karanacs/DispatchHappyMe SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you Raul for the idea of including me in the Feb. 18 Signpost Dispatch. I'm thrilled that my edits have been recognized and I'm happy to have contributed thusfar, as I will continue to do. I also didn't get a chance to thank you, yet again, for accommodating me on the Ronald Reagan TFA for Feb. 6. Hopefully we will cross paths soon again! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Can we please unblock this? It is creating an excessive amount of unblock requests. John Reaves 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have narrowed the block range from /16 to the relevant /18. Assuming legitimate users are distributed evenly throughout the subnets, this should cut down the number of unblock requests by a factor of 4. Raul654 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The "About Might" User[edit]

Thank you for removing the abusive edit on my talk page by "About Might". Also, thanks for the revert on the "Project Steve" page. While Glenn Branch does edit the page, the COI issue was discussed some time ago and settled. For myself, I will note so far as I recall (and the edit history supports this), I've never edited the "Project Steve" article, contrary to the claim by "About Might". --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you as well, as the primary author of the Project Steve page. I have no COI issues with the NCSE or Project Steve and I am not a meat puppet for them.--Filll (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

See User talk:The Elders. It seems he has been caught up in the block of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which was blocked as it was used by Raspor. Can the block be set to anon-only? Your input would be appreciated, thanks. Woody (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So there's a legit user on that IP? Hrm. All right, I'll switch it to anon-only/account creation blocked. Keep an eye on him, though - it could be Raspor. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, am a bit wary as all they have done is register then ask for an unblock. No contributions to judge them on yet. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to change my nick name[edit]

Hi! I think my nick name is very very long! I want to change it as Angelo only! Please change it for me! Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Angelo already exists, and has made a number of edits. Per the rules layed out at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations, you cannot have it. Raul654 (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to wake up![edit]

There you have it. It will be renamed soon enough. -- Cat chi? 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Is there some equivalent of the Contact page that can link to that, so it's not an orphan? Raul654 (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA[edit]

Hiya... I dunno if things are currently chaotic enough for you, so I thought I'd add to it. :P Heh, anyway, feel free to troutslap me, but I noticed in preparing for tomorrow's vandalism that there wasn't an entry for the next few days on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/February_2008, though there usually is. Anyway, cheers =) --slakrtalk / 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article dispatch workshop[edit]

I set up a basic shell (and archives) for coordinating the weekly dispatch at Wikipedia:Featured article dispatch workshop. The 25th is approaching! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list[edit]

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Melissa Baker photo[edit]

The photo that you added to Melissa Baker is copyrighted by the author ( ). I am actually communicating with him about releasing some photos for WP though. I was trying to get two other photos from the same shooting that are a little better for the encyclopedia though ( and (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware it's copyrighted - the author agreed to license it under a creative commons license (along with a number of other pics). Raul654 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been communicating with the author via flickr mail since Feb 17th and he just communicated this to me. However, he has not changed the licensing on flickr. Should I instruct him to do so?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Meh - having him update the Flikr license is not necessary for us, nor all that big a deal. If you want to ask him, sure, but it's not essential. Raul654 (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Why not throw out his arbcom restrictions? No wonder he does whatever he wants. RlevseTalk 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thundercats1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thundercats1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your unblock[edit]

The problem here is, ScienceApologist has already had shorter blocks. He's already been through Arbcom. By removing the reality of the situation from him - by endorsing that longer blocks will be retracted into trivial ones upon emailing - you are preventing him from recognizing his position and learning. What do you want -- drive him into a community ban instead?

Two arbcom clerks both agreed that 1/ a comment that "anyone believing in this is a moron or an absolute whacko" meets WP:NPA ("disparaging") and that 2/ those "believing" (and targetted) are not believers in the abstract, but editor-believers. The comment continued, "the perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern". I disagree. Gratuitous incivility to even those completely wrong, is our concern, if it is posted on the wiki.

I notice and acknowledge the circumstances that have been described by all sides at WP:AE. The problem is, SA has had a lot of rope. Lots of it. Other admins are trying to help him recognize "you just don't do that" without him hitting a ban (I tried myself in January before matters got busy here), which requires setting clear (and sometimes unpleasant) boundaries. As Rlevse commented, your untoward reduction basically makes that unnecessarily more difficult. WP:AE is a final stop where the only concern is breach of arbcom decisions. There more than anywhere, WP:BLOCK comes into play -- if there is disagreement, discuss it with the blocking admin.

I feel this was ill judged in an already difficult situation, and would ask that you take this well, and please consult more beforehand with the blocking admin themself, where circumstances may exist, before reduction in future.

Please bear in mind the real possibility that your actions may at times not always benefit the project as you'd wish, if they don't follow current communal norms and expectations, or respect others' approaches a little more.

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that, in the past, SA has indicated that he sees inappropriate comments and behavior, at least in some circumstances, as a strategy for gaining attention because, if he gets blocked, then people are forced to pay attention to what he says. Given this, all his actions and comments surrounding a block must be carefully scrutinized. - Revolving Bugbear 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The way to address that possibility is via discussion. The unblock here was (according to the unblocking admin) via forum shopping. A discussion was shortcut by solicitation to a third party admin's (probably) unwise decision. My comment, I feel, stands. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you, FT2. And I agree with these comments re discussion. - Revolving Bugbear 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
FT2's message explains why I blocked; this isnt about one unfortunate use of the word "moron" - it's how it was used, and that on inspection I found a pattern of SA using incivility as a tool to dominate discussion and control the article content. Arbcom has already dealt with this. Short blocks have already been tried and then lifted.
I'm not sure yet whether I want to take action against this unblock; not because you are an ex-arb - just that it is going to require more discussion before the block takes affect again, and more sympathetic people will be trying to keep SA unblocked, so it's going to be a huge time sink, for me, for SA, for others. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the block and don't support the unblock, for all the reasons stated above. In short, the unblock was a bad call. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the AE, SA has been given too many do-overs. This unblock is likely to encourages his uncivil behavior. Anthon01 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And the block is likely to see yet another content improving editor being removed from the project while rewarding those that provide nothing. Shot info (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Problematically, from an administrative viewpoint, so may long-term unrectified patterns of incivility and personal attack. No matter who by. That is a concern too. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the unblock took a lot of courage on Raul654's part. SA's violation was very trivial. Perhaps a more creative remedy is required in this particular users case. Perhaps he should be asked to avoid commenting on talk pages altogether and therefor communicate via wikimail accept to remind people to activate their emails. He is obviously very Knowledgeable about science and is thereby an asset to wikipedia. There is no rule that requires talk page participation is there ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talkcontribs) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, now this WNDL42 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking IP Range[edit]

Range used by SciBaby Your IP address is You recently blocked this I.P. Range. I'm going to assume SciBaby is a "bad user" and has messed up some articles. Just know that I'm in it, and had to make an account to get around it. Thanks! Xplosneer (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Template colors[edit]


See the WikiProject Kansas template at Talk:Fred Phelps... - ALLSTAR echo 08:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NM, I did it. - ALLSTAR echo 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Catechism.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Catechism.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe (featured article)[edit]

Hello, Mark! I'd just like to note that January 19, 2009 will be the 200th anniversary of Poe's birth, so I highly recommend saving the article to be featured on that date. —David Levy 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oliver FAC[edit]

Sandy indicated I might want to ping you about the Oliver Typewriter Company FAC. I understand you keep busy (to make a gross understatement), but have you had an opportunity to look into its closure? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb 25 dispatch[edit]

Wikipedia:FCDW/February 25, 2008, by Marskell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we use Wikipedia:FCDW/March 3, 2008 for April Fools, or we won't have enough time. I can give it a go if you don't have time, but I don't have a lot of background on the April Fools FAs (I do know where to look, so I can at least get it started). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks disrupting FAC[edit]

Raul, I know you're busy, so VirtualSteve may get to this before you, but where there's three, there may be more, not sure how your iterative tool works?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Raul, BIguyen got to it, all confirmed, and more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm most pleased to have you as our first contributor.[19]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arb on user page[edit]

Raul, I noticed that on your user page it still indicates you're an arbitrator. Have you considered modifying that to "ex" or "former" or removing it? Just a thought. Take care. RlevseTalk 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep - you're right. I've been meaning to give my userpage a facelift. Raul654 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Genesis vandal again[edit]

Could you do a sweep? User:Pyiid, User:Tteil, User:Pleuu, User:Wennj and User:Dcooh. I've fully-protected the evolution page for now. Thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A new account today to vandalise my talk page User:SiseneG. Don't I feel special. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This is becoming rather annoying - User:Kteey, User:Dyoes and User:Yuodd blocked today. All registered on the 22nd. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Taken care of. Raul654 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Raul, one of the problems with religious maniacs is that they just don't get bored. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the sock list, I think there's a good chance that Genesis Vandal/Tile Join is also Eir Witt, another prolific sockpuppeteer who shares an interest in blanking user pages, building up stockpiles of socks for future deployment, and usernames of a few random letters or two short random words. Also, one name you just caught as a Tile join sock, EiWitt, a vandal at Eir Witt's stomping grounds (Northwich Victoria F.C.), seems to me to be a giveaway. If so, it's an interesting division of sock labor, with one group set aside for Evolution, and one group set aside for Northwich Victoria F.C. J. Spencer (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are one and the same. Raul654 (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

March 5th is world Maths day[edit]

JSYK, March 5th is world maths day....but all the maths articles have been on the main page (d'oh!). Anyway, you may wanna have a think if any other article is sorta math-y ....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cas, check through the other cats (like physics) to see if there's a bio of someone who may also be mathy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Tricky....hmm....hows about .... Introduction to general relativity, or Technology of the Song Dynasty...god it's hard....gotta get off keyboard nowCasliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked computing and physics, and only come up with Louis Slotin. Have I not said before that Math and Psychology are weak links on Wiki (is there a connection)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Got a minute?[edit]

I think our old friend Obedium has decided to drop in for a visit. If you've got time, please have a look at User:Breaking the Silence. Thanks Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I've suspected a couple of others but this was the only one who was persistent enough to be a nuisance. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Action potential[edit]

I seem to have posted this one on your archive page by mistake. If, in fact, you archived it, do archive again without further comment.

Please consider Wikipedia:Featured article review/Action potential. This is a highly technical article, drawn out of textbooks, which, as far as I can judge, it appears to represent accurately. It was originally brought to FA for only having five footnotes; it is now being opposed for using hyphens instead of emdashes.

I have no part in the article, except emending the footnotes in response to the original complaint, which also quibbled that they were in different formats.

Is this really what FA is intended to be? Shouldn't we be considering content and readability?

Counting footnotes, and treating WP:MOS as gospel are easy, and lazy, things to do. Evaluating prose, especially in a field not one's own, is more difficult; and this is not my field either. Evaluting content is very difficult. Precisely for this reason, we should not permit the trivial forms of evaluation to drive out the substantive, as bad money drives out good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You input would be appreciated[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could weigh in on a discussion on the FAC talk page. It is an extension of a previous discussion that you started in December 07. Any comments or ideas would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Ridwan Gazi (talk · contribs)[edit]

I find the repeated removals of the images on the Muhammad article disruptive (and futile) as well, but I don't think your block of the above user was fair. After he removed the images one, you warned Ridwan to not remove the images at 20:24 (UTC). Ridwan, sometime during that same minute, removed an image again; it's impossible to tell whether he read the warning first. Then you blocked him, at 20:25 (UTC) for a week. Can't we be a little bit more reasonable by letting the current warning stand and blocking him if he continues (because at this point he certainly should have gotten the warning). -- tariqabjotu 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All right - I've shortened the block to time served. But if he does it again, I'm going to restore the full week. Raul654 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


You may want to review the unblock request at User talk:, falling under your year-long /16 rangeblock of "Range used by Scibaby". Bovlb (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard sock list[edit]

More genesis vandal socks - User:Ynist, User:Tocir, User:Loelt, User:Nraeg and User:Xeatc. Thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Genesis vandal. Woody (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
done. Woody (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Main Page image switch for Joseph Priestley[edit]

Priestley color.jpg

Hi Raul, there is now a color version of the Joseph Priestley portrait (pictured here) that would be suitable for the Main Page on March 1st. I checked with Awadewit and it is fine with her (see here), although it is too small for the article itself. I can make the change as an admin, but thought it best to check with you first. I also note the b&w version is protected on Commons, so I thought it best to ask. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and uploaded the picture on Wikipedia, protected it and made the change at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2008. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Raul654 (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello Raul. I can see on Image:Motorcade.jpg that you uploaded a genuine free pic and had to refert Wayfarers43 who had replaced it with a non free pic. He did the same on Commons: see here. Bradipus (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I guess it was you who reverted on Commons. Fine. Bradipus (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Red barnstar.png The Red Barnstar
One of the editors we could never replace, I hope a year and half's worth of stars can be made up in this one. David Shankbone 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I'm blocked from editing. Is there some mistake?[edit]

A page with my IP kept coming up saying I couldn't edit, although I can't seem to access it now so hopefully I can. I'm not very happy, I don't particularly like my IP being displayed for one which is why I have an account. :/ I also don't know what I'm supposed to have done wrong but I assume it's an error. I'm going to try editing now. Sarcastic Sid (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Block vs. SciBaby[edit]

Ouch. A /16? Think you might reconsider that into a softblock? That one seems to be getting some nasty collateral damage. — Coren (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

... Also this one. — Coren (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
...Alternately, consider joining unblock-en-l and watching CAT:RFU and handling all of the unblock requests that are coming from these blocks. John Reaves 07:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

revertion of article of true cross[edit]

Why did you revert the change that I made? I think that the reference to Crystians suits the article better than the reference to "tradittionally"? [20]-- (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage[edit]

Please take a look at the unblock request at User talk: Bovlb (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

IP edits[edit]

The Fat Man's talk page is getting Shankbone IP edits.[21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 4, 2008[edit]

FYI, see note re: 2 free-use images that could be used at that WP:TFA blurb. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


that's the label I've given to our experimental skypecast scheduled for March 4th 1am UTC (god knows what time that is for you - sorry!) - check out the page, because I've put a few details there (and been cheeky enough to note you down as a participant). I hope it works out for you to join - and I've got my fingers crossed for the technology too....

I'll be on IRC beforehand anyways to set it up etc. - and I look forward to it!

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for comment on the expelled page. I wasn't referring to the Constitution, I know that the Constitution exists to protect religon from the state, not the other way around. I was reffering to several rulings declaring creationism illegal to teach in the science classroom. Thank you for your support of the actual, undistorted interpretation of the Constitution. Saksjn (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the archive for section "does this have relevance to the fim?", which got of topic, you'll see why I tried to avoid the Constitution. Thanks. Could you possibly consider some kind of warning or discipline for the attacks that Angry Christian sent my way towards the end of the conversation, he's been getting quite abusive. Saksjn (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Typewriter Company[edit]

Raul, I know you've been swamped and it's been one fire after another lately, but OTC has been hanging around the bottom of the list with five Supports, all objections addressed since Feb. 13. The nominator has been patient; I'm wondering if there is a problem I'm not aware of? Everything else is on track, although I left Uncylopedia for you. Also, unless I hear differently from you, I'll go ahead and submit WP:FCDW/March 3, 2008 over to the Signpost, and then ping some WikiProjects to try to stir up interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've promoted Oliver and restarted Uncyc. Go ahead and submit it to the signpost. Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That was fast; thanks ! OOps. You moved OTC to archived instead of featured; should I adjust? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops! Yes, please. Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this while I was there.[22] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you guys are in the middle of straightening out what I was going to come gripe about. I'll check back later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited![edit]

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Chains[edit]

I would like for Alice in Chains to be TFA on March 21, that is the anniversary of the EP Sap. Can I somehow leave that date open? It is newly featured so it meets all criteria. I know only five pages are allowed at a time, so how do I make sure I can keep that day open? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an answer or a link explaining it? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Anything? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the short answer is no, there is no way to guarantee you get that spot. If there was a simple way of doing that, everybody would do it, and the requests queue would be swamped and all the dates for the forseeable future would be filled. The requests page is currently set up to allow requests on a first-come-first-serve basis Raul654 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching the page and it seems impossible to get mine in there. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for being part of the inaugural NotTheWikipediaWeekly - it's all online now and I know some folk are giving it a listen.. I'm looking forward to further feedback, and thank you again for your involvement! Privatemusings (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your TFA/R proposal[edit]

Hello Raul. Could I ask you to comment on this section? The original thread on your proposal kind of died and it would be good to restart discussions again and see if the community favours it or not. It looked like there were a significant number of people who were not happy with the current system and would have supported a test run of your proposal. It might be good if you could come up with a definition of "Very notable". --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight TFA[edit]

This article of mine recently passed at FAC. I was thinking it would be a neat trick to make it the TFA for St. Patrick's Day (Mar 17) what with the color and all. Wouldn't want the main page to get pinched! Anyway, let me know... Wrad (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What a nice idea! Also, Raul, we finally have a psychology featured article, Reactive attachment disorder. Lots of folks put their mitts into this one, towards the goal of finally having a decent psych article on Wiki. Hopefully when it appears on the main page, it will encourage more good psych content, rather than attracting a lot of "nutters" (a term recently posted to my talk page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ray's Rules[edit]

I have a list of 10 rules taped to a bookcase in my office. One is "don't waste your time arguing with an idiot." Apply liberally to affected areas. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! So true. Raul654 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that why you stopped talking to me?!?!?! -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


I started a discussion touching on your role as "Featured Article Director" here so I thought I would in fairness let you know. Call in your minions. NTK (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I guess you will be busy for awhile. When things have died down, please take another look at your TFA/R proposal. I think many would support it and it may help to calm nerves around TFA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As much fun as it might be to rehash the same conversations I had four years ago with that idiot Drbalaji md (see this and this) I have better things to do with my time. I'll stand by my previous comments on the matter. Raul654 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Let's see what we can do with what you have put down as a start. Maybe something will come out of it that will be acceptable. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I don't agree in the least with NTK's shrill demands to depose you, but I do believe the ESRB re-rating article was a very odd choice for a TFA. I'm sure you're aware that there has been a long discussion over at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests about how video games should be treated on the mainpage. In the light of the debate, I'm really surprised that you placed such an obscure article on the main page.
Peter Isotalo 15:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Raul, perhaps I have come across as "shrill" because you occupy the position (such as it is) of FAD and so my criticism of the process is perceived as something personal against you, other than your selection of TFAs. It's not. I understand from the two links you have provided that you don't like polling and that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But Wikipedia is supposed to operate on consensus, especially where editorial policy such as featured articles and the front page are concerned, and polls are one of the tools used for this purpose. Do you really feel that this poll (and that's what it is) on Wikipedia_talk:Today's featured article from August 2004 represents a current consensus to keep the process exactly as it is today and to give you ultimate and indefinite authority to serve this role? As I said elsewhere I think you've done a good job overall and you've obviously contributed and invested a lot into featured articles, but I am concerned that there is some founder's syndrome going on here. After all you concede that you have a small list of featured articles that won't go on the front page, but so far as I can determine it is not disclosed, nor the criteria for the list or how it may be modified. NTK (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I don't know how many Barnstars you've received in the past, but I'm sure it's not enough for the contributions you've made to this website and the function it tries to serve. Here's to hoping you remain in your position for as long as you can stomach the stress, constant criticism, and sometimes silly personal attacks that come your way. Please keep up the good work, I know I certainly couldn't do better. Guyinblack25 talk 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto, sheesh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Genesis vandal/Eir Witt again...[edit]

Hi Raul. This edit may be relevant to your interests. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion - Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

Having briefly discussed this request with Deskana and as we did not think this is a case where a lone bureaucrat should determine the outcome of the discussion, I have created a subpage to allow for bureaucrats to discuss the matter. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could review the RfB and express an opinion as to what outcome you believe is appropriate. WjBscribe 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

blinking text[edit]


Mark - I think I understand the context, but even so blinking text is a really, really bad idea. Can I buy you a virtual beer? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was being semi-facetious when I put that there - I know how evil the blink tag is (and I've threatened it on a couple of occasions). I almost expected to be reverted. :) I'll go put that section back now. But any ideas of how to make that section more obvious would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You could change the font, use boxes and change the background color every word or two, like MediaWiki:Uploadtext (no, wait, that'd be a bad idea too). I think I must need another beer. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You realize, now, that if he commits something like that in the future he can point at this diff and claim truthfully it's all your fault?  :-) — Coren (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming Respect[edit]

I put an entry on the discussion page of global warming today talking about warming on other planets. I even posted several articles that supported my claims. You replied:

It's getting to the point where not a single day goes by on this talk page that someone who doesn't understand basic science is quoting articles at us - which half the time don't support the claims - purporting to disprove global warming. Perhaps we need to tweak the rules for this page accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I please ask that you not be so disrespectful? All I did was offer a differing opinion. I am so sick of Global Warming Nazis saying that anyone who disagrees with GW is just some dumbass who doesn't understand science. I understand science, I've seen the hockey-stick graphs, I know what the greenhouse effect and CO2 is, and I'm not convinced, I'm sorry. I thought some information about warming happening on other planets would be relevant to the topic, and I suggested an update to the article. It was not necessary for you to reply the way you did. My main problem with Wikipedia is people like you, people who don't respect the opinions of anyone who is different than you. I didn't even suggest updating the article to fit my opinion, I offered some scientific articles to be appended to the article I thought were relevant to the topic. There was no reason for you to insult me and lump me into the sum of those who don't understand the basic science. I understand that Global Warming activists are geniuses who have all the answers, but can you please have a little bit of respect next time? (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see - you claim main made global warming is a "hoax", drop half-a-dozen articles on the talk page (half of which are already debunked in the FAQ and at least one - had you bothered to read it - which says the guy whose work it is describing is a crackpot at odds with the entire scientific community) and then get upset when people point out how empty your claims are. I'll tell you what - if you don't want to be so insulted, how about you just refrain from editing that talk page. Raul654 (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)