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


An outcome of civil pov pushing[edit]

A sad outcome as the result of pov pushing culminating in this collection of ludicrous allegations. . . dave souza, talk 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama at FAR again[edit]


Sorry if this is disallowed on Wikipedia but I was wondering if you don't put any featured articles related to Sports and recreation as I want to nominate the article, Trevor Linden for December 17, 2008. I want to nominate him on that date because that is when his jersey number, #16, is retired. Thanks and happy editing. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 04:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, that should probably be discussed over at WT:TFAR . I am aware of at least one editor who is planning to nominate one or two sports article between now and then. I suggest you discuss over there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi Raul, I wanted to apologise, It seems I was a bit out of line and harsh with my remark at ANI based on common gossip. I've withdrawn my remark. Sorry   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge FAR opened[edit]

Hey, you apparently have 280 edits in the Battle of the Bulge article, which has just been placed through a featured article review. Your input, if any, would be quite welcomed! Thank you. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand[edit]

Most of the account's entire history is incivility in edit summaries, and posts, combined with POV pushing.

Indef blocking seemed rather approriate at the very least, and a ban, would seem rather appropriate as well.

(Normally, I'd agree with AGK's points, but the editing gaps would seem to indicate this being a SPA, or at least a situation of socking.)

Am I missing something here? - jc37 00:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Raulbot and sound files from[edit]

I don't suppose you still have any of the documentation from these? Documentation requirements have been raised substantially, but the site no longer exists, meaning that I've been trying to contact the heads of the various MIT groups so that they could be used at featured sounds - with little success (Professor Cutter did try and help, but the people he forwarded my message on to never replied as of yet).

If you can help, please do =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The site said in big lettering that all the files were CC-BY(-SA?) licensed. Check the Wayback machine - it contains a copy of the pages (but not the files) as they existed at the time. Raul654 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Carcharoth has made a few suggestion in regards to my remark on ANI, I think its better late than never, I give you permission to remove my remark and your reply of course if you wish as it seems that this may be better than striking it out. Again, I stress that I am sorry.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about Weinberg reference[edit]

Hi there. You were the editor behind the FA for Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I believe you added the reference for [2] Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World At Arms, pg 866–868. Which edition is this from (year, etc)? [1] Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

1999 paperback edition. ISBN 0521558794 Raul654 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

TFA 23 September[edit]

I was wondering if you would comment on the discussion at the main page. (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan[edit]

Wikis Take Manhattan.png Wikis Take Manhattan

Next: Saturday September 27
This box: view  talk  edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.


WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

349 W. 12th St. #3
Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop


Check out:

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.



You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Usurp (courtesy notice)[edit]

I have resubmitted the Usurp minus your comment per the message behind Fruit of the poisonous tree. Please do not make me do it again. Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. You clearly do not understand the legal doctrine you are citing, in that there was no such wrongful search here
  2. You clearly do not understand the applicability of such legal doctrine to wikipedia, in that it has none
  3. You clearly do not understand how usurpation work. They are courtesy we extend to users in good standing, of which you are not one.
  4. I have restored my comment there, and if you re-remove it, I will block you. Raul654 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If I remove (withdraw and re-list) my request, that is my choice and my right as a user (its my request).
  • I would advise extreme caution in blocking me considering the nature of our recent run-in as it would be ill advised by any admin for obvious reasons.
  • Judging by the ammount of Usurps you do and the remark above, you may have forgotton how it works. Per userp page you "we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users". Good standing is not mentioned and well established.......well i think im well established.
  • I know the FOTPT does not apply here, but its message is what i was pointing out. that being since you are "the poisonous tree" (biased) any "fruit" (decision in regards to me) you grow will also be "poisonous" (biased). I hope this puts it into context.

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your own wiki-lawyering aside, yes, being a member in good standing is a requirement to be renamed. It is a courtesy, not a right, and it is a courtesy you are most certainly not deserving of.
Two admins have already commented on ANI that removing my denial a second time would be blockable, and not a single one has spoken up in your defense on that point. You do not have a right to remove and resubmit requests (in effect removing commentary you don't like) - that is gaming the system, and it is blockable.
The fact that you went out of your way to pick a fight with "an influential member of the community" (your own words) does not make my commentary about you or your behavior fruit of the poisoned tree. In fact, it is evidence of nothing but your own stupidity. Stupidity is not a defense of any kind. You must now live with the consequences of those ill-considered actions. Raul654 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Or make a new account and start again. Also, where is it written that "good standing" is a requirement. If you dont want to do it, dont.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has lots of unwritten rules. Among them is that we extend certain courtesies to users in good standing (including renaming and usurpations) and do not extend them to users who are not in good standing.
As for making a new account and starting over -- sure, you could do that. On the other hand, if you go back to your usual disruptive behavior, and someone with checkuser should happen to catch you, you can expect an indef block for both accounts. Have a nice day. Raul654 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Then un-written rules hehe, if rules are not written they do not exist in any valid state nor are enforceable . Yes, if I was persistently incivil on a new account, which is highly unlikely, thats understandable, however one would want a very very good reason to do such a check and not to do one in attempt to fish or ye could end up in very hot water. Just keep that in mind. Good standing, what makes a person in bad standing?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this usurpation request and made some comments at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#Prom3th3an → Promethean. Could take a look and reconsider your decision given my remarks and the fact that Prom3th3an is now the owner of the global account "Promethean" (which I think changes the picture somewhat)? Several users do seem rather unhappy with the manner in which you have approached the request. WJBscribe (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the WP:AN thread because it seemed prone to creating unnecessary drama. If there is a past block history, wouldn't it make sense to rename the user as requested, and add a note to their new block log, and redirect their old user pages. I think that would provide adequate transparency. Jehochman Talk 13:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The block log is automatically renamed to the new account ;).   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What the...[2]? Could you please take a break? Also, a heads up that I'm about to send you an email regarding a matter that happened on my userpage a few months that I hope you'll explain to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Raul, Since the request is now of a SUL nature (its an SUL usurp by principle), the 7 day waiting thing that is for non-sul usurps is waived. I and many others are waiting on your response.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Banned user not a banned user[edit]

User:Punctilius may of accidentally attempted to make a new account but he is and remains a active contributor to State of Fear... the rv you made of his based on his being banned was in fact a fully allowed edit and has raised no conterversy... what if any is your reasoning for the rv? --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing accidental about it. Punctilius was a sockpuppet of Scibaby, possibly the single most disruptive sockpuppeteer in Wikipedia history. He has used literally hundreds of accounts to disrupt and bias our articles on climate change. The fact that the edits were made by a banned user is sufficient reason in itself to rv any and all of Punctilius's edits. Raul654 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines[edit]


I noticed that this is going to be on the mainpage on 28th Sept. I'm not sure what the process is for updating the text that will be on the mainpage but could you change the wording of "the then Caretaker government of Bangladesh" to remove "then" as the caretaker government still is in control of Bangladesh.


PS: I'm thrilled that it's going to be on the mainpage having worked on it to take it to FA!

AA (talk) — 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. → AA (talk) — 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Two things. 1. Argument is a reasonably neutral term. You have an argument which has supports, which can be judged to be untrue or invalid, but a bad argument is still an argument. 2. I would appreciate you weighing in on the talk page, even if it is to disagree with me.--Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Heng/Shenzhou 7 question[edit]

Hi. I'm guessing that the featured article for 25 September, Zhang Heng, is in honor of the successful launch of Shenzhou 7 the same day. Just out of curiosity, do you ever have occasion to replace the featured article at the last minute? If the launch had not been successful, for example? Thanks. SeanWillard (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the chinese were planning a launch for that day - my choice of Heng had nothing to do with launch. (I picked it because we hadn't had a physics article in a while) It's actually pretty common for people to see some connection in the choice of the FA where none was intended. It's human nature to do that, and the tendency even has a name -- Apophenia Raul654 (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4[edit]

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo Replacement[edit]

I did replace it with a better photo. The photo was apparently removed. I guess I did not go through the proper channels for posting it. Hence why I asked you. Thank you for your help. Utkwes (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


I imagine you've already noticed User:Vextron. Familiar pattern. N p holmes (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Caught a new one today Raul654 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
And another Raul654 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Raul654/Featured Articles[edit]

I accidentally found this page while looking through some old deleted contributions. According to the deletion log, you deleted it in early November 2004 but didn't give a reason. Would you mind undeleting it and tagging it with {{historical}} or something? I'd do it myself but this isn't my userspace. It's linked to from an old talk archive, so people who go insanely deep into the bowels of Wikipedia like me might be curious about where this "further discussion" went. Graham87 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Should I link it somewhere in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've put the discussion back in the village pump archives as well. Graham87 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


This is by banned user Moulton. He has done this same thing at Wikiversity after he was blocked. We also had to block many of his IPs. I'm not great with knowing how to process check user information for Wikipedia, but we do have a list of IPs that Moulton has used after his block from Wikiversity in order to get around the block based on his posting style. What all will the CU system need to process this? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And the sig line goes back to Wikiversity. I'm mostly just talking about the list of IPs in general, and if they need to be watched to see if Moulton will try his rotating addition of text. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Note. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
On ANI by SB Johnny. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
All you need the RFCU for, in this case, is to tell you about the level of collateral damage a range block would cause. I can tell you that there's at least one regular editor besides moulton in the range, so if someone does decide to range block it, it should be anon-only/no account registration.
Also, there appears to be some sockpuppeting going on in the range. user:Martha_H_Hagaman_MD and several others were blocked by Alison for being socks. You might want to ask her for a better explanation of why she blocked them - it could be Moulton. Raul654 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Dear Raul and Sandy, after spending three months since the close of the last FAC improving this article with the help of several experienced editors, I have been encourged to bring this once again to FAC. Two new sections were added to the article as a result of comments from very experienced editors who offered their advice in that FAC and soon afterward. The article was trimmed twice, improved once again through another peer review, new scholarly sources were added and I have recently asked randomly selected peer reviewers as well as all those who voted or commented in the last FAC to come offer comments. Sandy offered this [3] comment yesterday. Because of her post, I would like to know up front if it is going to fail because of its size. I will not support the article for FA if it is not going to be allowed to be one of the largest articles on Wikipedia. I think the subject matter justifies a larger size per instructions at Wikipedia:Article size. The consensus of editors over the past 9 months with whom I have worked have only asked for more, not less content. The only people who have asked for less content are user:SandyGeorgia, User:Karanacs, User:Carlaude and User:Ling.Nut. Out of respect for them and because Sandy is the FA director's assistant, I have made every effort to keep the article as small as possible, even though they represent a minority of the page's editors. Please understand that it has been quite impossible to make the article a size that makes all people happy all of the time and I think that its present size is our best offer. Please let me know if it does not have a chance at FA because of this issue so we can all save each other the wasted time at FA. I would also like to leave you with a comment left on my talk page by an experienced peer reviewer I chose at random to come give me comments on this last peer review [4] Thanks in advance for you help in this matter. NancyHeise talk 18:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Article size is a consensus issue; it's up to reviewers. (I haven't asked for less content.) My role is only to present the data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make clear that in the last FAC, including the restart and not counting anyone twice, there were 54 different voters or commentators, 12 of those opposed the page and only one of those opposes was for article size [5]. Based on this and the comments I have fielded from the vast majority of editors over the last 9 months, the consensus of editors is fine with article size and unless someone brings that issue up, I don't think it helps me by having Sandy post such a comment on the page unless perhaps she is trying to help me because she already knows Raul will fail it because of size. I need to know if that is the case. NancyHeise talk 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 30, 2008[edit]

Hello Raul. I'm just letting you know that there's still a place holder in position for Tuesday's featured article. When you've got time could you get one sorted? Tulip mania seems to have a good amount of support.[6] Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Ryan check with you on scheduling this date ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Raul, I was bold and put one in because we were getting awfully close to 0:00 UTC. I simply took the one from the requests page that had a lot of support. I've popped a message on AN/I (here) just for a review of the situation because it's not my idea to start usurping the job that you do so well. I suspect you were going to get it ready, but I was just being cautious. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to sit down now and schedule some. I appreciate your caution, but the situation was well in hand. Raul654 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I wouldn't even start being concerned until it was 23:00 and Raul had nothing scheduled for the next day. Gimmetrow 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
To be fair Gimmetrow, I think 90 minutes before is pushing it a little bit to get it sorted. Perhaps it would be best to try and work to an unofficial one week deadline? It might stop us nervous admins from worrying! I respect that a date has never been missed, but this is the main page we're talking about. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah, there's really no need to worry. If Raul hadn't shown up (which would mean a serious emergency, which is why y'all scared me, I was thinking IRC knew something I didn't) anyone would have done just what you did, Ryan. And even if the mainpage was an hour late in shifting, the world will still turn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Before someone else says something - the date-related TFA subpage is used in various templates, so it needs something. In the worst case, if it came to it, any admin would copy the blurb from the previous day at 23:59. But it also doesn't take 90 minutes to select and form a new TFA blurb. Gimmetrow 23:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, actually, because of various uses of Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Tomorrow and Next DYK), it actually is semi-problematic when the TFA thing is not updated with less than 24 hours to go. It becomes impossible for T:DYK/N when it's not updated with less than 6 hours. (DYK is the one that adjusts to balance the Main Page). To help the people at DYK is there any reason that we can't have this updated at least 24 hours in advance? Obviously it's not a huge deal for DYK to adjust when you're running behind, but I can't think of any reason not to just select the TFA a day ahead of time, out of consideration for the other Main Page projects. --JayHenry (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Phaert Kut[edit]

Another Scibaby sock? I'm not sure if you're still retired from dealing with him, if so let me know and I'll open up a WP:RFCU on him. Oren0 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's scibaby, via and Raul654 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep your eye on user:Peakoil01 - there's something strange going on with the CU log. I'm sending an email to checkuser-l to get some other input. For the time being, I am not going to tag his page, but he could very well be another scibaby sock. Raul654 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could you put up a link for the basis for this change? I tried to find it but couldn't. This group of socks (Global0133, Peakoil10, 20, 30, 40, etc) is one I've been watching, and I just want to make sure everything is tidy and easy to find when we need it. Gb's been blocking them per DUCK each time they reappear. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal. Phaert Kut (the Scibaby sock) was registered from Environmentcrisis and Peakoil01 were registered (at the same minute) from (although there's some weird stuff surrounding Peakoil01's log entry that I'd rather not get into here). Phaert Kut is undoubtedly a scibaby sockpuppet. I concluded, based on the IP addresses, that the other two were his sockpuppets as well, but I could well be wrong about that. Raul654 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, is there a quick way to check Global10133 (talk · contribs) and socks, as they are behaviorally identical to Environmentalcrisis? NJGW (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pythagoras (talk · contribs) just made an edit just like the Global10133 group makes to Pickens Plan, and has had runins with WMC in the past. Thought you might be interested. NJGW (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's a sock. The account is 4 years old, and I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry in the checkuser data. But if he's acting like global10133 - that is to say, proxying for him - that's bannable all the same. Raul654 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
He may be the puppeteer of the Global10133 gang, including of Environmentalcrisis: Peakoil60 Peakoil50 Peakoil40 Peakoil30 Just The Facts Pythagoras Environmentcrisis... Do you mind looking into this (and doing what you feel is needed to Pythagoras) NJGW (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I opened an SSP report, just to organize all this Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pythagoras. Please have a look at it if you get a chance. NJGW (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hanna and Barbera - dual TFA's[edit]

Hey Raul. I have a proposal. I worked on both William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, nom'd them, and with lots of help from others, both are nor FA's. They are the animators of Tom and Jerry and Hanna-Barbera fame as you probably know. How about a dual TFA linking to both of them? I think this has not been done before and would be really cool. Thoughts? RlevseTalk 10:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A dual TFA has been suggested for the day of/after the presidential election. It's an interesting idea worth considering. Raul654 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll be watching. RlevseTalk 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Category: Re: Google Twin[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I will do what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianna Goldberg (talkcontribs)

Good luck :) Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology) FAR[edit]

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

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind closing Samuel Johnson?[edit]

Would you mind closing Samuel Johnson? Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I came here to ask exactly the same thing. Raul, it's been there for an embarrassingly long time and is sending a bad signal to nominators about duration on the list. I'll email you as well. Tony (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Raul, the issue there is that Mattisse (talk · contribs) is using the Johnson FAC to say I'm getting preferential treatment with an extra long running FAC, and has sidetracked other discussions at WT:FAC with this issue. Which brings me to why I'm here: Marskell has introduced what I consider to be an excellent idea, to resurrect Wikipedia:Excellent short articles, to deal with some recent issues at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear me, I'm going to ahve to take this page off my watchlist, if you're going to have this kind of subjectheader. How do you "close" a dead author, btw? Might you not want to say "close Samuel Johnson's FAC"? But I digress. Sandy, lemme know if I can do anything to help with ESA, that sounds like a fabulous idea. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Matisse must be a right idiot if he thinks having to deal with a FAC for an extra-long time is somehow something to be desired - has anyone pointed out to him the nonsensical nature of his concern? Perhaps if he looked at it properly, he'd be reassured. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
KC, thanks for cracking me up after a busy, hectic morning :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 :-) Glad someone appreciates my (sometimes odd and slightly macabre) wit. Delighted to have been of service to you! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
ah, but I have always appreciated your wit (albeit from afar, since we don't often frequent the same talk pages :-) Oops, sorry for taking over Raul's page; I wonder if he loves that orange bar as much as I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, now you have me blushing! In the spirit of mutual admiration, allow me to say that I have always stood in awe of you and Raul and all your work with FAs - people ask me how I can handle refereeing the contentious articles I tend to ride herd on, and I think, hey, they're calm backwaters compared to a normal FA discussion. What you do is so very important to the high regard in which Wikipedia is now held, and its increasing status as a well written and admired, not merely huge and all-encompassing, source. Kudos, in spades. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! (But I'm still trying to grow up and be like Raul, which roughly translates to, Learn To Shut My Big Mouth More Often ... old dog, new tricks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OMG, if you figure that one out, will you email me and tell me how? I could use a tip or two every now and then. I try to be humble and sweet... it keeps coming out sarcastic and pointed. *innocent look* I have a pure heart, honest! KillerChihuahua?!? 19:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Agree all round, especially with the well deserved eulogy to Sandy and Raul. Trust Sam will be closed in due course – serves him right for dissing Scotland :-/ dave souza, talk 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Moni3 would like to point out how often she shuts her fat mouth, but the pointing that out pretty much makes the pointing null. Now Moni wishes she had the last 45 seconds back... --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Me, figure out how to keep my mouth shut? Well, the options are spa for the day, theatre for the evening, or get on a plane. Oh, but even they have internet access these days ! Heck, I don't much care what Raul does with Sam. He's now got a fine article, the TS isn't misrepresented or attached to some awful wording like "suffered from", and Ottava has shown his capabilities and churned out oodles and gobs of new content. All is well in the world (well, except for that silly $700 billion business ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
"attached to some awful wording like 'suffered from'" Are you still upset about that? I said I was sorry. You keep grudges forever. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Grudge holding requires committing short-term incidents to long-term memory; I don't have that particular problem. Did you really do that? Well, everyone else did, so you blend in with the pack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A user has decided to edit war on the page, to make claims about misattributed sources, plagarism, and POV problems, and now demands mediation. I assume this falls under "unstable". Raul, I have started an ANI section here and I would like you to look it over or respond whenever if you happen to have the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, I have checked two of the assertions of the article, and found neither of them correctly or completely represents the source. I have tried to amend this, and been greeted with an array of novel claims on citation practice, duly listed at ANI.
One of them is an assertion by one of Johnson's biographers on the effect of his condition on his career. This passage was originally cited for something the biographer did not say; I have filed an RfC on the question of whether we should summarize what he did say; but you can find it more directly on Talk:Samuel Johnson#Request for comment.
The other issue is at Talk:Samuel Johnson#Johnson at Oxford. Another biographer, W. Jackson Bate, repeats three stories Johnson told about his laziness at Oxford; I would like to include any one of them, instead of a garbled version of two.

Do by all means close; the article could use a break. I checked two references, and found both wrong; I would not recommend promotion, although the article has clearly improved while at FAC. Bring it back sometime, and it can be improved further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Raul! You're allowing a lot of ill will to fester for reasons that no one at FA can fathom. The article has more than two dozen supports. PMA's concerns are of the exceedingly minor variety he likes to use to waste people's time. Marskell (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

They are evidence of bad writing and bad research. Two footnotes worth of text, chosen largely at random, differed quite seriously from their sources; how many others of the over a hundred footnotes are in the same case? I don't know, and neither does Marskell. There are too many FAs already that would make Wikipedia a laughing-stock if anybody knowledgeable read them; if FA is intended to mean "not glaringly incompetent, but with pretty punctuation", I should prefer to take it off the Main Page, and let Marskell play his meaningless game where it needn't embarrass the rest of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't had time yet to deal with your inaccurate, spurious and disruptive tagging of the article, PMA, and considering the number of months (years?) that you've been grinding an axe at FAC (and MOS), I haven't decided if it's even worth my time. (Marskell, what are you suggesting that Raul should do with an article on which PMA has placed an NPOV tag against consensus, research and based on his misread of one old source that cites a fringe theory from Oliver Sacks#Literary work, who is a Committee of One when it comes to Tourette syndrome research?) If you want to advance the disruption you've caused on the article, PMA, please do find one reputable recent peer review that agrees with Sacks. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read Talk:Samuel Johnson, and, for that matter, the FAC. When I arrived, the article stated Sacks' position as universal fact, much more strongly than the cited source, Robert DeMaria, does; that is actually one of the ways the article misrepresented DeMaria's position. (I kept a mention of it in intermediate edits because I assumed somebody wanted it.) Nor does the sentence I should like to add depend, in any way, on Sacks' theory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, the article said, Although TS caused problems in his private and public life, it lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy". DeMaria doubts that the condition can be meaningfully called TS, although it is probably similar, and does not think it proved (although he sees some evidence) that Johnson is one of the victims with "great verbal and vocal energy"; Sandy's objection to Sacks, IIUC, is that there are no such people. If so, I have at least removed a badly sourced claim Sandy thinks false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


take a look at this, where your name also appears, please: User_talk:Jennavecia#blanked_-_why.3F

Cesar Tort 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It was so long ago, I don't remember deleting that redirect, but it's not hard to figure out why I did it -- non-english redirects do not belong anywhere on english wikipedia except in the main namespace as alternative names for articles. Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR AN/I[edit]

Wikipedia talk:FA#Baby_Gender_Mentor[edit]

Hi, could you please give your opinion at the above thread? Sandy said she wanted your input before re-categorizing the FA in question. --Itub (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Two-Skydiving.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Two-Skydiving.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. OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Returned IP sockpuppet[edit]

Details here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ I mention it because it's one of yours. Edit: I meant that it's one of your blocks. Sorry about the ambiguity. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War[edit]

Excuse me, I am performing an edit war? I have cited my references for my edits, if only you had cared to read them at the bottom of the article. This article as it is right now is very biased; out of 60 notes in the article, 40 are cited to Rabinovich. I, along with other users am trying to add to the article several Egyptian sources, which as I say again are available at the end of the page, in the External Links extension. I have added another reference consisting of US documents on the war, mostly conversation between Henry Kissinger and Sichma Dinitz. Please discuss your opinions on the talk page. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to adding more information to the article, and using other sources. However, you need to include inline citations, and those citations need to support the claims you are adding. Adding a link at the bottom of your edits is not sufficient. And yes, you are edit warring - you've already violated the 3 revert rule. I am not going to block you, but I have protected the article in question. Raul654 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Is that it? Fine I'll add those "inline" citations, even though these are not books, these are research papers, and the third one is a conversation involving Sichma Dinitz, Mordechai Gur, Henry Kissinger, and Brent Scowcroft. If you will decrease the protection level of the article, I will add these citations. By the way, it would be better if you and others would state your opinions and/or requests on the talk page; it would actually get things going, as you can see. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
All right - I've lowered the protection level back to semi. Raul654 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added more citations. By the way, it was the initial 8,000 soldiers who had captured Bar Lev forts, so that had to be mentioned. In the campaign box, I have changed Israeli tank numbers from 1,500 to 2,300, as corresponds to the conversation between Dinitz, Gur and Kissinger on Oct 9. Also, that conversation was not on the phone; the document states it took place at the map room in the white house. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can I add pictures to the article from a blog? Sherif9282 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You see some the pictures I was hoping to add are so popular (can be found all over blogs, newspapers, magazines, etc...) and it is hard almost impossible to find their source. Sherif9282 (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then can I use pictures from books, or papers published in academies? Sherif9282 (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

CU records[edit]

Pls see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ as it's a matter you previously worked on. RlevseTalk 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied by email. Raul654 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

IP range[edit]

Must you block my ISP? I changed ISPs at the end of April and have had nothing but trouble, being unable to edit without being logged in because of Scibaby's sockpuppetry. dreddnott (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Until someone comes up with a more effective solution for dealing with him, no, you cannot edit from one of Scibaby's ranges while logged out. Raul654 (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnson revisited[edit]

Raul, can I please add my plea here that something be done with the Samuel Johnson FAC? This is causing all kinds of grief and making the entire FAC process look bad. 33 different editors have provided comments (31 have declared support or oppose) on the FAC. If that is not enough to determine consensus, then we might need to just scrap the whole process. It doesn't really matter anymore if it is promoted or archived, it just need to be closed somehow. Karanacs (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to add my voice to the crowd. Leaving the FAC open is just inviting more people to comment - I'm not sure why this particular article deserves so much more attention than all of the others. If there is something specific you are still waiting for in a review, perhaps you could let us know? I would be happy to help out, since the eighteenth century is a special interest of mine. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • And there are worse solutions than an interim withdrawal, clean-up, and renomination; let's have something intended as a proposed final text. I would have a look, and if the result then seems sound, I would be happy to support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe Karanacs wanted to point to you to the Samuel Johnson talk page which has an impressive list of reviewers supporting the article. I have not voted as I have little time to review it, but I am concerned about the impact of the non-action on the reputation of FA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
At least say what you intend to do; if you want to wait, what are you waiting for? We could then act accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The consensus for promotion (at 97%) is so absolutely overwhelming I am surprised nobody has invoked SNOW and done it themselves; I suspect that is out of deference to you, Raul. Marskell (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've promoted the article. Raul654 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good man. Ceoil sláinte 02:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for closing that, Raul; just another reminder that Sam has a 300th birthday next year (Sept 2009). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Check user question[edit]

Resolved: Solved at 3D Wikipedia meetup

Hello, Raul654. Can you please explain to me how this person popped up as this person? My email is on if that helps. Maybe the former hacked into the latter. Sorry to worry. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, Appraiser edited from the same IP range(s) as Kdbuffalo, but I concluded they weren't sock puppets, so I terminated the socks while letting him edit. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. One of my barnstars came from a Kdbuffalo account so I wondered if some of the others had an origin in common. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Resolved at a meetup in Minneapolis. While they aren't available to everyone, meetups are a wonderful vehicle for solving identity questions. Again thanks for your help, Raul654. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. I'd really like some help with an issue that has plagued Wikipedia for quite some time. If you're too busy in real life, just let me know.

I'll go straight to the point. You may consider the incident rather trivial, but it's implications aren't.

Do you believe that it is fair and effective for a group of 10 or so editors to effect a change in the way every single Wikipeia music articles are edited and constructed? Editors of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music feel that they have the right to discuss and change the way articles and templates under the project are set up, showing wanton disregard for the views of anyone else outside the project. They ignore the fact the changes they make to their templates affect all of Wikipedia, since we have to use these templates, and seem not to care that an increasing number of editors oppose the change.

A few days ago, the editors had a discussion amongst themselves (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Out_of_hand, Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre_field and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music) and concluded that it was o.k to remove the genre field from all infoboxes in the music articles (artist and album articles). Their rationale: it reduces edit warring. However, the genre field is extremely useful to these articles, and even if they are removed, there is nothing barring editors from changing any genre related info in the body of the article.

The point I'm trying to make is that it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, to have a group of editors — and such a small number at that— decide what goes and what stays in every music article. What we have is them saying is this:

"It is compulsory that you use our infobox in every music article. And since it is our infobox, a contingent of 15 editors have decided to control the way every article is set up. We get to decide what goes and what doesn't go in all of the articles regarding music on Wikipedia."

I really can not see the logic in this. Wikipedia should not be governed by these people. Is there any way you can help? Orane (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Disregard my post please. We're under discussion. Orane (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notification[edit]

ANI over your use of admin tools to bully over a content dispute:

Id already written it when I saw your own regarding "disruption". Jaimaster (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Common sense brick nomination[edit]

I think this message from thebainer has earned one. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat cabal[edit]

I don't know where it is. It's nowhere to be found. neuro(talk) 08:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Per our conversation, I'd be willing to take this up. I'm pretty active and with such a huge number of subscribers, I think it would be great to get it going again. Feel free to get a hold of me via IRC, email or my talk page. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#History_restore MBisanz talk 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me know[edit]

Hi Raul, I'm not watching the article, but if Jaimaster doesn't learn from all this and a warning, 0rr restriction or block is indeed called for, you can let me know and I'll do what needs to be done as a wholly uninvolved admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Raul, do you have any Dispatch ideas? Karanacs has put up a notice that she's swamped in real life, Marskell has put me off for a couple of weeks, Tony1 is busy delinking dates in all of Wiki's 2.5 million articles, Featured Lists just had a slot, Jbmurray has another class project involving multiple FAC-bound articles, so besides David Fuchs helping out with interviews, I'm on my own, and the interviews risk getting old if we keep running them. I can begin to throw together something each week, but I sure hate to burden the Signpost readership with my prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Shoemaker's holiday and the about-to-be-implemented proposal to put featured sounds on the main page? Raul654 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Source for science article[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out. I think you wrote about that ruling some time ago but I had forgotten the details. Count Iblis (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Darn! You didn't even wait for the fun to begin! -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for the first time :) Raul654 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought pre-emptive page protection was inappropriate? GrszX 03:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We prefer to avoid it, but it's not an absolute prohibition, and certainly warranted in this case. Raul654 (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just wasn't sure what the situation was. Thanks, GrszX 04:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Question[edit]

Hi Raul654,

I have a copyright question for you. I had a trawl of the Wikipedia Copyright page which you seem to have a made significant edits to and I think your background may make you and appropriate person to ask - or at least put me on the right track for a correct forum for these questions.

I am in the advanced stages of discussion with an academic journal about starting a review-style track for their journal. One of the things I thought would be beneficial is to have the authors of the review either generate a corresponding Wikipedia article or spruce up any existing articles. We plan to make this one of the requirements for publication. We believe this will benefit Wikipedia by adding (hopefully) high quality scientific content that will be peer reviewed and benefit the authors by raising the profile of their work. The articles will be open-access and freely available online. My question is, do you for see any potential copyright clashes between Wikipedia and the journal? The text should be a summary of the article and any figures will be added to GFDL prior to publication, therefore I believe there shouldn't be a problem with copyright on the Wikipedia side. But I would really like to make sure about this before proceeding. Can you think of any other issues I should be aware of?

Feel free to contact me by email at - Ppgardne 12:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppgardne (talkcontribs)

Change Photo[edit]

{{help me}} Jack Dongarra has expressed to me his dislike for the photo on his entry due to its unflattering-ness. How can it be changed via the proper channels? - Utkwes (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nulling; I'm assuming Raul will see that you need help. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Replied at User talk:Utkwes Raul654 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
For meeting the Great Wikipedia Outage of 2008 IRC Channel shitstorm with a steady hand and sound judgment; helping users and calming the madness. Back, ye spammers, back! FlyingToaster (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) Raul654 (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh! and for your innovative use of cat-on-a-stick tax breaks. Lucifer (Talk) 14:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla pic[edit]

You think this picture would be main page acceptable? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No - if you looked at it and didn't know Odwalla was the featured article, you'd never know what the pic was illustrating. Raul654 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thespis (opera)[edit]

I'm going to be busy in late November and early December, so I wanted to ask this now: Would it be possibly for Thespis to run on Boxing Day (December 26), the 137th anniversary of its première? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not promising anything, but I see no reason why that couldn't run on boxing day. Please remind me in mid-December. Raul654 (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Panic of 1907[edit]

Raul I apogise for stepping outside of procedure here, but I do think the recently promoted article woild be worth a day on main page. It is very relevant to today's climate and very much of the now. Thanks either way. Ceoil sláinte 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, couldn't you find an article on an economic recovery, or a nice stock rally to develop and promote? Hardly seems like we need more doom and gloom. Dragons flight (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually (pardon my talk page stalking) I don't see it that way at all. When you look at a panic that happened 101 years ago, with all of the recoveries, bull markets, riches made since then, when one looks at it in proper historical perspective, there's nothing doom-and-gloom about it -- it's profoundly hopeful. All panics end; all inevitably result in recoveries: people look back at them later and say -- "what on earth was I thinking, selling off so low!!". Just my opinion.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Plus the article educates. When the article was in FAC there were objections to the word "antitrust" as too arcane. The author sought to clarify all terms. Few people know much about economic and financial issues but because of current events they are interested. What happened then is a smaller version of what is happening now. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiketsu (talk · contribs)[edit]

Still watching his talk page? Because he's at it again. x_x I gave him a first and now a second chance, but it looks like between those two chances he did it again and someone else reverted. Needs to be gone. JuJube (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't watching it, because I pruned by watchlist. But I've indef'd him. Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Since Marskell is the one most affected (botifying a FARC into articlehistory is very time consuming), I've posted at User talk:Marskell#GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Next chapter at User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Holloway blurb[edit]

Raul: Someone edited the Holloway blurb. Don't mind them adding a picture, but I'm concerned that they altered the first sentence which we carefully wrote to avoid the question of whether she's alive or dead. Would you consider changing it back to the version you wrote? Obviously there are only minutes left before it goes off main page, but it will be shown that way in the queue forever.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd also be great if you could close Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway when you get a chance. Truly ridiculous and against the guidelines that state reviews shouldn't be started within three days of the article being on the Main Page. Thanks, Raul. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, that FAR was removed from the listing and from the talkpage almost immediately, but I'm hesitant to archive it while y'all are still going at it there. Maralia (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Physchim62 (talk · contribs) reverted the removal of the listing[7] and the template.[8] Don't hesitate on my account, as I'm about to sign off for the night anyway. - auburnpilot talk 02:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Our old friend?[edit]

Please take a look at YAG490 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
You could maybe add User:Strayson. Seems similar at least. N p holmes (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to ask the same. Seems like the exact same pattern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Strayson and Itriel were both Scibaby socks. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Vextration as well? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one who exhibits the usual patterns: Unilli --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revision trial in FAs[edit]

I've suggested a trial run of flagged revisions with featured articles here if you'd like to comment on the idea. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


I have asked WP:AE to overturn my topic ban [9].--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


Please see here for a discussion of the unprotection of an article that you had fully protected. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul, unless you have any great objections I am going to unprotect the article. I am not exactly sure what the original reason for the protection was, and as such I do not want to unprotect until I know. Tiptoety talk 03:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I protected it because of Reenem's editing - he kept changing the casualty figures in the battlebox to say something other than what the cited source says. Raul654 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm, in that case I have Unprotected the article. Tiptoety talk 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Request of advice[edit]

Can you please take a look at,_Maryland) - its getting to be a bit of a heated debate - if you could look over the situation, and give some advice, it would help. (I'm posting because people are complaining Off-Wiki).Mitch32(UP) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion[edit]

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons vs. Doctor Who[edit]

Hi, Raul. I see from Awadewit's talk page that you're thinking of running Treehouse of Horror (series) on Hallowe'en. Of course, you have the right to choose what you like, but when "Treehouse" was proposed earlier in the month, there were several objections, mostly based on the potential conflict with Doctor Who missing episodes, which has been proposed for November 23 (the 45th anniversary of Doctor Who). According to the points system at TFAR, if "Treehouse" goes up on Hallowe'en, then "Doctor Who missing episodes" goes from 4 points to 1 point, making it likely to be removed.

Of course, "Treehouse" would be a fun entry, and I readily admit that setting one fandom against another is a poor basis for an argument; but The Simpsons has had three articles on TFA in the past year and a half. And I do think that the 45th anniversary of a culturally iconic programme like Doctor Who is worth noting if we can. I know that the presence of two TV-related TFAs within a month betrays our systemic bias towards popular culture, but if you don't want to go back on your word to Scorpion, is 23 days distant enough to bend the rule? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. I see that you've scheduled "Treehouse". I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't reply to my earlier comment, but of course you're the boss when it comes to TFA and you don't have to justify your decisions. Could I ask what your feelings now are towards the Doctor Who article on Nov. 23? Can I request it informally even if it gets dropped from the list at TFAR? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I was actually going to respond to a whole lot of talk page comments later today after I schedule all the FAs through (but not including) the election. Short answer - no, I don't object to putting Dr. Who on later in November. Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul. Sorry if I got a bit testy earlier. (Between the election and David Tennant announcing that he's leaving Doctor Who, I'm rather over-stimulated at the moment.)  :) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like I won't get to it until tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I see that you've scheduled November 23. Did you decide that the Simpsons episode was too similar, or did you forget about Doctor Who missing episodes? I was planning to put it back on the TFAR list when things opened up a bit, but you scheduled further ahead than I thought you would. Does David I of Scotland have a date relevance to Nov. 23 that I missed? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I forgot about this request when I was doing my scheduling. I've fixed it now.
You're right, that I went out of my way to schedule more than usual. I'm going to attending Supercomputing 2008, so I'll be missing all next week (I leave early on Saturday and come back late Friday) Raul654 (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul! You'll make lots of Doctor Who geeks happy. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding a free image, which had been previously discussed at TFAR. Also, "instalment" is the preferred UK spelling. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign[edit]

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, PretzelsTalk! 08:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Look what Gimme's done now[edit]

You probably already have something like this, but I'm impressed; see User talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page .E2.80.8E. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Different Main page proposal[edit]

Raul, we have been discussing doing something different for Nov. 4 by putting both Obama and McCain on the main page as the FAs of the day. You can find the discussion here (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#November 4 and here Wikipedia_talk:Today's featured article/requests#Alternative suggestion - both Obama and McCain as FA on Nov. 4. Since this is something entirely different. I was hoping you could weigh in about how this should be proposed and how you would like to see voting of support/opposition to this idea since you will have to make the final determination. Remember (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul already indicated above [10] that he is watching the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive? Rationale?[edit]

I have no experience opining on proposals to put particular featured articles on the main page except for the thread that ended with this edit. Until I was directed there from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics I had no idea who makes these decisions. I had thought these threads might get archived like AfD discussions: a notice at the top says "The decision was...." etc. and people are told not to edit it further. As it is, the only way people who participate in these discussions or who edit the page have of knowing what decision was made is to search the edit history for links like the one above and to draw inferences from that and the queue. It seems to me that the lack of any proper notice of decisions is a disincentive to participation in the discussions. Also, one has no way of knowing what to say in possible future discussion: whether or when might it be appropriate to propose an article again, and how to address any concerns that might have caused the article not to be chosen. For example, it was suggested (strangely, in my view) that an alleged "similarity" to the article about Emmy Noether that appeared in September might be a reason not to put group theory on the main page in November. Whether that played a role is something about which we can only guess. If it's true, then it might make sense to propose the same article at some suitable later date, but if the actual reason is some fundamental objection you have that no one knows about, then such a proposal would be a wasted effort. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the article -- I was in a hurry scheduling it that night and overlooked the requests page. I've added it to my short list, so don't worry about picking a new date. Raul654 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyperlink Request[edit]

Err.. could you please provide the hyperlink on where you can upload audio and videos? Please answer on my talkpage. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Marshall Williams2 Raul654 (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

An invite for you[edit]

Samanthaheadshot.jpg The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! Mitch32(UP) 12:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Todays Featured Article[edit]


The current image of Delhi is foggy and unclear and does not show much. Can you please change the image of Delhi on the main page to one of the following:

Image-New Delhi Lotus.jpg
India gate .jpg

. These are icons of Delhi and a symbol of the city. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When I feature a city, I like city pictures - pictures showing buildings, roads, people, etc. Individual buildings are not great. I've switched the image to Image:Barakhambaroad.jpg Raul654 (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. I just declined an unblock request on User_talk:Gnowxilef and in checking it, found Gnowynnad (talk · contribs) and Gnowe (talk · contribs), two accounts that were created within two minutes of each other on 3 November 2008. Combined with the actions of Gnowydnaxilef (talk · contribs), I can hear quacks. :P Anyway, thought you'd be interested in it. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 09:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

hint hint?[edit]

M&M's Plain.jpg

Raul, hope all's well... My second class of nascent Wikipedians, North of the Río Grande, is now gearing up towards its final few weeks. It would be a marvellous encouragement if the students could see an article their predecessors had written up on the main page sometime soon. I know you don't like being bugged about main page requests, so I'll leave it at that. Oh, but have some chocolate.  ;) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 12:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

All right - give me a few days until the election craziness is over and I'll see what I can do for you. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Magnificent. Many thanks! --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyperlink info[edit]

How do I convert to "ogg"? Please remember to reply on my discussion. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ITN and candidates on TFA[edit]

Sandy started a thread here on potential overlap. I don't think it will be an issue. Follow the link for why.--chaser - t 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think he meant Aude, not you. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
'Ya never know, with my memory. (I thought you told Jbmurray you preferred Snickers to M&M's :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I only have M&Ms to hand! --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul's going to need more than chocolate 24 hours from now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I sometimes mix up our most talented and valuable contributors.--chaser - t 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, how nice of you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I was reading the discussion about the Obama/Maccain double FA and I was gonna comment there, but unfortunatly as an IP I cant.. So I decided to ask here isntead. You mentioned there that if you do this then this will be a one time deal, but I have to wonder, what is it about this particular election that makes it so extraordinary so as to warrant this special treatment? There have been US elections since the 18th century, and god knows how many theres gona be in the future, not to mention the hundreds of elections held by other countries. There are hundreds of other events in human history that would be more deserving of a speacil TFA than this election.. Now, if double TFA were to become common occurence then this wouldnt be an issue, but if this is trully a one time event, then do we really want to use for an event that after a couple of years when all the hype has worn off will seem quite uninportant and mundane? Now, of course you can argue that this is the first time that we have two directly relevant FAs avaible, but as Wikipedia grows this will become common place and your position that this cant work as a precedent will be very hard to maintain. Once this goes up it will set a precedent, no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise... Anyway, just my two cents.. (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection of candidate bios[edit]

Raul, we have another issue. Discussion here leans to not protecting these articles until necessary on election day and switching to zero tolerance for vandalism and BLP vios wrt blocks. But you made them featured articles w/ the understanding that they'd be protected. If you want to protect them, I'd suggest dropping a note at ANI about it.--chaser - t 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment exactly... The compromise that I put forth was that the pages would be protected as soon as people started waking up- and presumably when the problem would start in earnest. However, I don't believe I will be the ones protecting them myself, simply because I am four hours behind eastern time and I will still be fast asleep when most of the country is, well, not. You should talk to Risker, I talked with him yesterday and he showed interest in being the one to protect, although he said he would prefer to do it at 12:00AM EST. Just my few cents. ~ L'Aquatique! [talk/stats] 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I just kicked up the protection level to full/cascading for Obama. I'll do the same with McCain. It will save us many, many headaches tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul, any reason you removed the fullpro template? ffm 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes - because we don't template the main page FA (or FAs, in this case), even on those unusual occasions when protection is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

TFA Nov 4[edit]

Charles.Blondin.jpg The Tightrope Award
For being bold. maclean 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I too thank thank you. I was at very suprised and joyed by the double TFA. Thanks for being bold and keep up the good work (you know,I actually expected a good amount of critizism, but so far so good)! (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What compromise on Barack Obama and John McCain?[edit]

I've seen that you put full protection on these two featured articles, but what compromise are you talking about? Why couldn't it just be semi-protected? Techman224Talk 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

From the protection log (23:47, 31 October 2008 L'Aquatique (Talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "John McCain" [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (compromise reached. This article will be temporarily reprotected on Nov 4) (hist) (Change)) which itself referenced the ANI discussion. Raul654 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I have a link to the discussions? Techman224Talk 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion here and here, among others. Raul654 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how you feel about barnstars, so...[edit]

You have my instant respect, for what it's worth :) IAR was made for this. This, and the reasoning and process behind it, is the Wikipedia I love, the Wikipedia I signed up for, etc. etc. Thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Fvasconcellos. Raul654 (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I thought you deserved a barnstar (whether you liked it or not) :). Remember (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I award this Original Barnstar to Raul654 for his insightful discussion and eventual defense of the first double "Today's Featured Article" on Wikipedia's Mainspace on November 4, 2008. Thanks for all you help in making this happen. Remember (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nov 11[edit]

Raul, I see you're closing in on Veteran's Day ... there is a thread at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#November 11, MilHist, but no one ever added a request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. If I'm really on the ball, I'll schedule through the 22nd so that it covers my trip to SC08 and back. Raul654 (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Group (mathematics) image possible copyvio[edit]

The image being used in the TFA for the 5th is currently under deletion discussion as a derivative work, and should not be used (at least until this is resolved). There are a number of other possible images to use, I've asked over there which for suggestions. Cheers! Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's frustrating. Both Giggy and Elcobbola review images at FAC, and didn't raise the issue on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello Raul. What happen to John McCain, Barack Obama and their VPs bios? There was no agreement or consensus to reprotect on Nov 4. The re-protection was only to be implemented if there was overhwelming vandalism. Is there? If not, this and other related articles should be kept unprotected. See the compromise discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Compromise ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:PROTECTION#Vandalism. Semi-protection should be more than sufficient; any shenanigans by registered users can be dealt with the flamethrower. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Your above statement does not match what is written on that page -- I will return the pages to semi today, and re-full protect them on the morning of election day thru to announcements of results, after which I will semi-protect them again. Is this something we can agree on? -- this is exactly what happened. I protected them (the Obama and McCain articles) 12 minutes before midnight UTC for 25 hours. Raul654 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
See also this Raul654 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read carefully Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Compromise. There was no consensus to protect unless we had reasons to do so. My question is: were we experiencing a level of vandalism that warrants ful page protection? If not, please unprotect. There are enough eyeballs on these articles to fight vandalism from any dormant accounts of SPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I would want to avoid starting another discussion at WP:ANI, Raul, so please re-consider your actions that seem to be in contradiction with what was discussed and agreed at AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your question cannot be answered because with the exception of one week in June, the article has been semi or fully protected for the last 11 months - and for good reason - and you very well know it. Unprotecting it as you suggest, on the day of the election, with the article on the main page, is insanity. From my brief skim over the articles during the last few days, I did not see all that much vandalism -- however, that is not to say we cannot expect a substantial increase tomorrow, both from the election and the fact that they are on the main page. If you think that a consensus of other admins will support unprotecting, by all means, start an ANI thread on unprotecting it, but I don't think they will. Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, Raul. JosuaZ, Digital, me and others, including Acuatique that proposed the compromise agreed on protection only if warranted. Are you say that your action is compatible with the consensus developed at ANI? If not, please undo the protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
All right - I've put them back to semi, but if vandalism gets bad, any admin is free to put them back to full. Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you/ I'll be the first one to do so if I see that happening. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Starting now, Jossi? [11] I'm not sure the consensus at this discussion would have been so strongly in favor of this mainpage move if several editors hadn't been reassured that the articles would be fully protected and we wouldn't be embarrassed by inappropriate tags added, for example, to the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Yes, my understanding was the same as SandyG's, though I admit I didn't follow the discussion so closely after a while. OK, we'll see. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on this the canditates pages and main page today. It seems to work out very well. Since Johnny Rockfort has been blocked now you can probably put Obama back to semi-protection soon. There hasn't been very much vandalism there so far today. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman?[edit]

Hi Raul, you had said the following in all the discussion about the McCain/Obama TFA:

  • "As far as Harriet Tubmanl, I think the Nov 5 suggestion is excellent. If we don't run McCain/Obama on the 4th, I'll definitely use Tubman on the fifth."

Just wondering why you changed your mind and Tubman did not get scheduled? Russeasby (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change my mind. I said it quite explicitely there - "If we don't run McCain/Obama on the 4th". We did, in fact, run McCain/Obama today (the 4th), so I didn't schedule Tubman for tomorrow. Having Obama/McCain and Tubman on the main page back-to-back is something I'd like to avoid. Raul654 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Raul, thanks muchly for displaying the group article on the main page. I don't know if this is still possible, but in case you just picked the first other image of the article :), I'd suggest to change the image you chose and replace it by Snowflake8.png this one. (I've also put the snowflake into the lead section of the article). IMO, it is both more aesthetically appealing than Image:Group D8 f24.svg (given the small size on the main page, on hardly can decipher what is meant), and also more meaningful (the current one is just one element of one group, the snowflake somehow encodes one group as a whole). Best, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Virtual incumbent[edit]

Hi Raul, I've done what I could to establish the usage of the term, and I'm pretty confident that its an established notion among political scientists, pollsters, and pundits. It's use in the 2008 election, however, seems to be a bit "neo". I've put what I found in the article and left some comments on the talk page. I'll leave it there until you either remove the neologism tag or nominate it for deletion.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing the tag. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Job[edit]

I like your decision to run both candidates' articles on Today's main page. Its truelly a Maverick move.Justice America (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Now I think I'll go watch the returns  :) Raul654 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Double TFA Dispatch[edit]

I'm gathering the pieces but don't know who might write it (I put in a query to Jbmurray): [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray says he can help. Wikipedia:FCDW/ElectionTFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

TFA scheduling[edit]

Hiya, quick question... how far in advance do you schedule? I'm working on getting this article to FA status, and would like to have it featured on the main page on 4 June 2009. How soon do I need to have it at FA status to get that date? roux ] [x] 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I like to schedule them about a week in advance. So you have months in which to work. Raul654 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
CHA was on the main page in 2005, by the way. Gimmetrow 01:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Gimme knows everything :-) Already been on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Multi-video start[edit]

Template:Multi-video start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the Twinklespam. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Porn movie on DYK?[edit]

There's discussion at T:DYKT#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_November_3 about whether or not to feature a porno movie on the main page in DYK. Please comment, especially on why Jenna Jameson hasn't appeared on the main page as the FA.

On a separate matter, kudos for featuring both U.S. Presidential candidates on the main page. To feature only one would have been biased. I'm sure the double feature got some Americans to vote. This election truly affected the world as evidenced by the world's reaction to the results. Royalbroil 14:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. Mario Vargas Llosa pictures[edit]

(copied over from my talk page:) You have mail. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 21:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying future TFA pairs[edit]

Hi Raul. Would you have time to consider what Quiddity says here? The quote from you is about the recent TFA-pair on the Main Page. Could you clarify whether it is the idea of related TFAs (i.e. themed like it was for the US presidential elections) that you don't intend to do again, or the idea of having two (or more) TfAs (but completely unrelated) that you don't intend to do again for the foreseeable future? I'm asking because I mentioned this at the 2008 Main Page redesign proposal (where Quiddity commented) where the idea of more than one TFA has been mentioned. I also mentioned that this seems to have become a bit of a perennial question. Can you remember where the earlier discussions were? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited![edit]

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 6/01/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

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.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)[edit]

Why is a 3-year-old, poorly written FA from 2005 up as FA again today? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hasn't been on the Main page before today. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
What? It got promoted 3 years ago and is just now on the main page?! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 02:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain this please? I'm totally confused. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles don't necessarily have to appear on the MP the year they're promoted. It's actually (at least by TFAR standards) considered good to have an older article as opposed to one recently promoted. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I nominated this for FAR now that it's been 3 days. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

CU request[edit]

Hi Raul, could you check out Unilli please. He's recently registered and edits the typical GW articles. I noticed that in Royal Dutch Shell he edited a particular passage, that Punctilius had edited before, who turned out to be a scibaby sock. However, its just a guess. Thanks Splette :) How's my driving? 18:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh! [13] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, you beat me by 2 minutes! I had not noticed your edit. Looking further into Unilli's edits the typical pattern is quite obvious... Splette :) How's my driving? 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup. If he's not a Scibaby sock he's doing ia very good job of impersonating one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he is a scibaby sock. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Splette :) How's my driving? 00:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Election Dispatch[edit]

St Andrews Day & David I[edit]

Just thought I'd note that November 30 is St. Andrew's Day. If the choice of FA for each day (25 & 30) is entirely random, then maybe November 30 would be better than November 25. I personally don't care though. :) Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul, David I of Scotland needs to be changed to Doctor Who missing episodes in the previous day at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 24, 2008 (you forgot to change it when you juggled). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Please give me a reminder as the date gets closer. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page featured articles[edit]

Hi, I recently found out that you're apparently the person who writes out the blurbs/introductory content for main page featured articles. I've been trying to find out an answer to a question I have regarding how the blurbs/introductory content is constructed on the main page; so, hopefully you can help with that.

The following question may seem rather trivial, but I wanted to inquire about it anyway. I'm wondering in what manner the intro of a main page featured article is constructed on the actual Wikipedia main page. I'm only asking because I noticed that the introductory content on the main page portion of a featured article doesn't always match the introductory content on the actual featured article itself. For example, in today's (November 12, 2008) main page featured article, Joe Sakic, the main Wikipedia page mentions that Sakic has Croatian origin; yet, in the actual article itself, there's no mention of it in the intro. Directly before the article was displayed on the main page (as in the day before the article got on the main page), there was no mention of his Croatian origin either. It may have been mentioned in the intro of the article a while back, which is why I'm wondering just how the introductory content on main page featured articles is constructed. From what point in the article's edit history is the introductory content taken?

Anyway, you can go ahead and respond on your own talk page here, as I'll have it "watched." -- Luke4545 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Every night at midnight UTC, the FA rolls over to the next day. Before then (anywhere between 1 hour to 2 weeks beforehand) I pick an article to go on the main page for that day, and select a picture. I then fill out a template for that month/year/day (for example, tomorrow's FA blurb is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 13, 2008) using a copy of the introductory paragraphs along with the picture I selected.
The blurb may not match the article exactly for any of several reasons:
  1. I might edit the blurb so that it is different from the article. This is most often to make it shorter - that is, I select the most important/relavant part of the text and use that to form the blurb.
  2. The article is changed between the time I write the blurb and the time it appears on the main page. If there's a lot of lead time when I schedule an article, others will take a look at it before it appears on the main page and copyedit it. They may not fold these changes into the FA blurb.

I think that answers your question. Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that does. Thanks for your help. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the next FA - are you really planning to use a fair use image on the front page? --dave pape (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No - I guess I just assumed as a nazi government publication it was in the PD and never checked to see otherwise. Raul654 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles[edit]

Scartol and I are planning a podcast on controversial articles (part of series on how to improve content on Wikipedia - the first was on copyediting). Since you have been on the ArbCom for a while, I thought you could provide a useful perspective. If you are interested in participating, please sign up here. Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Content on the mainpage[edit]

Hi there. I know your focus is more TFA and not DYK, but I thought you might have some thoughts of value to add to a current discussion regarding the inclusion of adult content on the mainpage at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pornography-related articles on DYK. We are currently having a debate over whether articles about pornographic films, etc. should be allowed onto the mainpage. There are those who argue they should be allowed due to wikipedia's no censorship policy and others like myself that argue that the mainpage should not use such material for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure how TFA has handled this issue if at all. Regardless, I think the topic is perhaps bigger than DYK and your thoughts would be appriciated. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. (Any follow-ups will have to wait until next week) Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Phalaenopsis Kaleidoscope (continued)[edit]

There is now a page on the botanical concept of a grex. Can you improve on it? - Jay L09 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Raul. You might want to offer an opinion here on the status of FAR. Best, Marskell (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on Sunday[edit]

Just a reminder that the Wikivoices podcast on controversial articles hosted by Scartol and Awadewit is happening on Sunday at 6 pm EST. Please add ideas to our list of discussion topics here and come prepared to give a short summary of your work on controversial articles at the beginning of the podcast. Awadewit (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I have added some suggestions for "conversing about controversy". If you have any further suggestions, please do add them. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul, thanks again for participating. We're happy to announce that it's live, and you're invited to listen to the finished product in all of its OGG format glory. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Hey Raul, just wanted to let you know that a few editors have requested your opinion here. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Cat gap[edit]

Glad it was appreciated :) Grutness...wha? 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

two new "old" friends?[edit]

Sam Yi and Kheshian - exhibits the usual pattern (and most of the same edits) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Those two and a bunch more. Raul654 (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I just spent the better part of an hour going back, blocking his old sockpuppets, etc. Remember when I said I wasn't going to do this anymore and that I wanted to protected these articles? And everyone else said it was OK because they could take care of them without my constantly using checkuser to monitor them? That's starting to look transparently false. I don't want to have to keep doing scibaby cleanup on these articles. Raul654 (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes i remember it - it would be nice if we could delegate it to someone else. Unfortunately i think he is too persistent and single minded to be much affected by a protection, whereas the collateral damage would be high.
On that note - here's another: Istrill --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
And another possible Tession (not as obvious though). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
And another possible... Instrin. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree about these three accounts, and have previously left messages on their Talk pages. Johnfos (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed - all Scibaby, along with several others too. Raul654 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Trillion_and_One fits the username pattern; slightly different MO on editing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
User:The Enlightened Democrat also smells socky... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note ED's first few edits were to bluelink his user and talk. Often not a good sign. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Both are inconclusive. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This one i guess will be fairly conclusive: Rilstron --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Howzabout User:Ianpb? I think he is changing tactics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He caught behind one of the magic 6 british firewall IPs. I'd say it's unlikely (but possible) that he's Scibaby. If he's misbehaving, block him, but not enough here to block him for sockpuppetry. Raul654 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, just checking. He showed a few of Scibaby's recognizable quirks, which I'd rather not mention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

City TFAs[edit]

Hi Raul. Wehwalt approached me with the idea of nominating Washington, D.C. as TFA on Jan. 20. I would like to formally proceed with that nomination around New Year's. We believe we can get a total of 3 points (date, basic subject, and first-time nom); however, I would like to know if there is anyway to keep city articles from becoming a TFA in the month before the inauguration (for obvious reasons). Wehwalt suggested I contact you to see if that is possible. Thank you for your help. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that I schedule it, you'll see someone tag the talk page. When you see that, just drop me a note here asking me to reschedule. Raul654 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


I was wondering, what is the likelihood that this article would be able to appear on the main page in the future? It's something I have been reluctant about for some time, but I'm warming to the idea you see. — Realist2 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to featuring that on the main page (It hasn't appeared for the same reason lots of others haven't -- because there's a large backlog.) Raul654 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the impetus! It was rather fun to do - I'd not done any species articles before, and it was refreshing to have an entirely new set of avenues of research to pursue. Shimgray | talk | 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)[edit]

Do you think this should be moved to FARC yet? I think it's still very well below FA status and should be delisted, myself, but the FAR hasn't been touched in a while. I'd say just move it to FARC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 21:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Cat gap[edit]

Updated DYK query On 26 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cat gap, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


I am very sorry to bother you, but I just wondered how far in advance you might be planning to schedule the TFAs around Christmas? I would very much like to nominate an article for December 22, and was just a little worried (sorry - my first nomination!) that you might schedule earlier than usual because of the festive period.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages with the most edits[edit]

As of October 2008. Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1 OrphanBot 34634
2 Jimbo Wales 26347
3 SandyGeorgia 13766
4 Alison 13295
5 Raul654 13006
6 Bishonen 12621
7 Tony Sidaway 12135
8 RickK 11578
9 Durova 10407
10 Keeper76 10114
Hrm - I knew this page was busy, but I hadn't realized it was that far up the list. Thanks for the info :) Raul654 (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit to Angus L. Macdonald[edit]

I disagree with your edit at line 22 in the Angus Lewis Macdonald entry, specifically, the words Nova Scotian government which replace Nova Scotia government.

Macdonald's more than 15 years as premier brought fundamental changes. Under his leadership, the Nova Scotian government spent more than $100 million paving roads, building bridges, extending electrical systems and improving public education.

Although it would be correct to write Canadian government and incorrect to write Canada government, this rule doesn't apply to the provinces. One would never write, for example, the Ontarian government or the New Brunswickian government. Admittedly Nova Scotian government doesn't seem as outlandish, but it's standard practice in Canada to write Nova Scotia government. Bwark (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It struck me as incorrect english to use a noun (Nova Scotia) as an adjective. But if you say that's how it's supposed to be, fair enough. Raul654 (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Zanzibar War TFA[edit]

Hi Raul. I noticed that you scheduled the above FA, to which I was a major contributor, for November 30 which is great (as this is my first TFA). However I read through the blurb and wanted to suggest an improvement. The penultimate sentence currently reads "The British quickly placed Sultan Hamud in power at the head of a puppet government; he abolished slavery within a few months.".

I would like to suggest that it be changed to "That afternoon the British declared Hamud bin Mohammed the new Sultan at the head of a puppet government. Within a few months this government announced the abolition of slavery in the country, which had long been a British objective." which provides links to the new sultan and explains why the abolition of slavery is relevant. In the case that this makes the blurb too long it may be better to replace both ending sentences with "The British quickly placed Sultan Hamud in power at the head of a puppet government, marking the end of Zanzibar as a sovereign state and the start of a period of heavy British influence." which removes the reference to slavery altogether. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Raul654/archive18's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Raul654/archive18 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Raul654/archive18's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Raul654/archive18!


A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


You've been noticed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC I think would benefit from your opinion[edit]

Unusual request from me. Please do take a look at the chatter at WT:FAC, here. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Main page vandal[edit]

Got another one for you to CU -- User:4jh4jkkjjnb. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've cleaned out that whole rat's nest - lots of account blocks and a few selected range blocks. Let me know if you see any new ones pop up. Raul654 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The puppetmaster was a sockpuppet of himself, corrected that. Cheers, Face 11:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi Raul. I've sent you an e-mail on Saturday, November 29. Best regards PHG (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I acted on it as best I could several days ago. I've just sent a reply to your email. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Akutan Zero[edit]

In addition to that book, there's a section on the significance of that find in Lundstrom's First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign. I think one of the Aleutian Campaign books that I have has a lot of pictures of the recovery of that zero, including a couple of the pilot's body. If so, I'll try to scan some of them into Commons. I think the book has glossy pages so the images should scan fairly well. It's a fascinating subject and please feel free to ask me for any copyediting help you might need as you get it close to completion. Cla68 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ding! Apparently there are pics of it already on the net. Now if someone familiar with Flickr did their wiki good-deed of the day and asked the poster (Hawk914) about their copyright status... Raul654 (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Those same pictures appear in Lundstrom's book and I think in this book:
  • Dickrell, Jeff (2001). Center of the Storm: The Bombing of Dutch Harbor and the Experience of Patrol Wing Four in the Aleutians, Summer 1942. Missoula, Montana: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., Inc. ISBN 1575100924. OCLC 50242148. 
I'll check to see if the books give their copyright status. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, one of the pictures in that book actually shows the Zero being hit by AA over Dutch Harbor and starting to smoke. If the copyright is clear I'll try to get it and others scanned in soon. Cla68 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I started scanning the images [15]. It will take me awhile to get them all. According to the books, all of those images on Flickr are US government images. I'll try to upload them later and add the licensing info. Cla68 (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I've got them all posted now. Cla68 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I should be done with the article sometime in the next few days. Raul654 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this article is certainly causing me to write a lot of sub-articles. So far:

I'm also going to try to wikisource the other intelligence briefs, assuming I can find them (although that's probably unlikely) Raul654 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also: Paul Foley (admiral) Raul654 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And James Sargent Russell Raul654 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'm done writing it, so I've put Akutan Zero on FAC. Two side notes:

1 - Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery could use an expansion from the Japanese. Also, there are two pics on the Japanese article that should be moved to commons.
2 - While I was reading a source, I found the name of a Japanese guy who was hanged on June 19, 1947 in Guam. I remembered that Shigematsu Sakaibara was also hanged that day on Guam too. (The date stuck in my mind because that's my birthday). So I did a little more reading an apparently 6 or 7 high ranking Japanese war criminals were hanged that night on Guam. I got the full list and most of them lack articles - Kikuji Ito, Shigematsu Sakaibara, Hiroshi Iwanami, Shimpei Asano, Chisato Ueno, and Kōsō Abe. And I think Yoshio Tachibana (who was assicated with some of them) was hanged on Guam not too long thereafter. I'm going to do some work and maybe write some articles on these guys. Raul654 (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be very helpful because I've had trouble finding much material about the Guam war crimes trials. I don't think much about it has been written up in secondary sources. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you don't mind, I have a few other sources that I can cite in the article so that it won't look like you're using primarily just one source for the content. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Granma (yacht)[edit]

Great choice for the main page! I didn't write it, but I admire your choice. I'm a fan of the breadth of your selections. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously missing something here, because I don't know what you are talking about... Raul654 (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Raul, that was linked from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 2, and he thought you put it there. Ral315 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! Thought you knew. It is a rather remote connection, just the day and month and nothing special about the year. December 2, 1956. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TFA blurb for 8th December[edit]

Raul, just a minor thing I've spotted: on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 8, 2008, "Chess" needs to be disambiguated to "Chess (musical). I corrected in the article itself, but the blurb is protected of course. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock[edit]

Iksel (talk · contribs). Ran across this guy; something didn't smell right. MastCell thought it might be Scibaby (talk · contribs) and suggested that I bring it up with you. Yilloslime (t) 05:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Robert_Kardashian.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Robert_Kardashian.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Robert Kardashian.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Robert Kardashian.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Robert Kardashian.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP sock names -- oversight needed[edit]

Hi Raul -- our friend Jarlaxle/Grawp was using some grossly BLP usernames for vandalism last night. I've cleaned up most of it, but there are several articles that I didn't want to delete/restore because of their high edit counts. Would you mind looking at these and seeing if you think oversight is appropriate? Thanks. Beijing Wikimedia Foundation Maya civilization Jodie Foster Nudity Sociology. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've oversighted the ones with personally identified information. Raul654 (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! You might want to oversight your revert on Jodie Foster, too.  :) NawlinWiki (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Dammit - I should know better ;) ... Raul654 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Basis his 4[edit]

Just a heads up, Basis his 4 is back and is now vandalizing cross-wiki under the following accounts: Oj54n6 (talk · contribs), 5lntlk (talk · contribs), Ejngtl5 (talk · contribs), N45kk (talk · contribs), Citybest! 99 four (talk · contribs), Rjnt (talk · contribs). See this and CheckUser-I for more. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot I can do on wikis where I am not an admin. You need a steward. Raul654 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Elk (Cervus canadensis) moved unilaterally[edit] me out...Elk has been moved to the title Elk (Cervus canadensis) with nary a discussion beforehand..I think I messed up a redirect as well by trying to move Elk to Elk (mammal) to fix this problem...anyway, you did the move some time ago to the Elk title which was the FA consensus deal and probably still is. Can you clean up this mess for us and get the pages back to where they need to go...otherwise I have a slew of article redirects that will have to be adjusted.--MONGO 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. Raul654 (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Akutan Zero[edit]

Updated DYK query On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Akutan Zero, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Great article indeed! NVO (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting article. — BillC talk 01:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Kudos to you, sir, for this outstanding article! --Kralizec! (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, all of you. FYI, it's currently on WP:FAC. Any suggestions you have or improvements you make are welcome. Raul654 (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow me to add my congratulations as well. I've also sent you an e-mail regarding it. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Albert Speer FAC on 12/13[edit]

Thanks for running that article; I think it is the best work I have done on WP and will be proud to see it main page. Can I suggest one change to the blurb? Insert the word "Nazi" before Party in the second sentence. Probably clear from context but who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done that for you. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My seventh grade English teacher thanks you as well. Always set things out in full when you mention them for the first time . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

More BLP username edits[edit]

What about these? NawlinWiki (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)