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


Tropical Storm Erick (2007)[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

Raul, I'm hoping you'll look at this FAC, as its closure may be viewed as setting a precedent. There have been months of discussion at WT:FAC about how to handle shorter articles (in relation to past FAs), with the discussions touching on issues of notability, how do we define 1b comprehensive, whether there should be separate recognition of shorter FAs not eligible for TFA, potential for merging, whether an article is stable if it could be merged elsewhere, whether an article provides adequate context, worthiness for TFA, availability of sources, and more. The community has been divided throughout these discussions, with this being the only change to gain consensus out of hundreds of KB of discussion, filling three archives and still going. I'm concerned that the recurrence of these issues is stalling FAC (see WP:FAS). The article is 750 words. It has passed muster on other WP:WIAFA criteria (that is, except for the length/context issue), and has nine Supports. It has three Opposes and two Comments indicating that the article should be merged to the storm season article or that it doesn't provide adequate context (from User:Hurricanehink, User:Yomangani, User:Geometry guy, User:Stone and User:Mike Christie). I will make the call if I must, but I'd much rather have your input. The FAC community has invested a lot of time and bandwidth into trying to sort this issue, so I feel a clear call is warranted out of respect for the effort invested. Separately, I will send you an e-mail regarding Marskell's planned absence from FAR as soon as I have a chance to gather my thoughts.[1] [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, a potential situation at WP:TFA/R between January 8 and January 9, both high points, explorer and expedition back to back, will present a problem in the point tallies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Raul, the January 8 article, Alfred Russell Wallace, is about a scientist who did field work. Although he may fit the category, he was not primarily an explorer. Nimrod Expedition, proposed for January 9, has since been removed by the proposer after opposition to its nomination on the basis it had too many points and was proposed too early, although within the rules. (There appears to be a feeling among a few that high-point articles should not be proposed early on in the 30 day period, despite the rules, as they displace other articles requested for the interim.[3]) Everyone appears to hope you will feature it anyway, but the proposer wants no part of ill feelings caused by a nomination at the request page.[4] Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

copyright permission[edit]

Raul, thank you for helping me out on the Florida Catholic photo. I posted their new permission letter here [5]. And I forwarded the email to OTRS. NancyHeise talk 18:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure - glad I could help. Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


I moved a part of your response up one section, with the signature. I hope that you don't mind. If you do just revert and I'll add my response again. –MT 05:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wheel of Fire, S5 Ep 19 - Title Section[6][edit]

Hi, I wanted to recommend some additions. From the History Page it appears that you entered most of the information for the article. (Let me know if I'm wrong.)

The section currently references the myth of Ixion and his punishment upon a wheel of fire.

On TV.COM[7] the title is explained as follows:

"The title is a reference to King Lear: "You do me wrong to take me out o' the grave: Thou art a soul in bliss; but I am bound Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears Do scald like molten lead." Londo's situation is similar to Lear's ...."

It is spoken by Lear in Act IV, Scene 7. In fact, the word "wheel" is used four times in King Lear. As used by Lear in the above quote it appears to be a reference by Shakespeare to Ixion's punishment/fate.

J.M. Straczynski himslef seems to verify that a reference to King Lear was intended and that it is Londo's situation that is comparable to Lear's. See The Lurker's Guide: [8]

JMS also says that

"The wheel of fire visually has spokes proceeding out from a central flame; the center burns outward. And several of the fires smoldering lately have done that; with Byron it was a literal flame that has now gone out along the spokes and had substantial repercussions, with more to come years down the road."

In fact, "The Wheel of Fire"[9] is both the title of a book about Shakespeare's tragedies and a Wikipedia entry. In this context, the wheel of fire refers to the sequence of events (called "fortune" in King Lear) that result from the hero's tragic flaw. Two of the "wheel" references in Lear are related to this concept of fortune.

I thought you might want to add some of this to the title section. Ileanadu (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


...Define Vandalism. I am editing the articles so that the articles are more accurate on the facts. Global warming and related subjects are a theory not a fact, There is a lot of evidence to support, but it is not obviously true. Kluft (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already responded to your comment on the talk page where you left your previous comment. In short - you are wrong. Your edits are detrimental to our articles. You must stop. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll just add a little something: This is completely wrong. CO2 levels are stated as being higher, not because we assume it to be so, or because theory says it must, but instead because all our data show it to be so (ie. fact). But please provide us with your evidence for the opposite on Talk:Climate, and please stick to reliable sources, which in this case means peer-reviewed science - not blogs, op-eds or newspaper articles. Perhaps you should also try to read the reference (or alternatively the look at raw data.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I am not in any way trying to say that Global Warming or related subjects are true or false, nor am I here to give an counter argument. But that it has not been proven in either direction; so something not proven true or false, but believed to be true, is a theory. I believe that letting reading know that 'Global Warming or related subjects' have not been proven true or false is good, just that there have been a lot of evidence found to support it, but not enough to make to make it undeniably true. Yes, in that thermometers don't lie, but it doesn't always mean the world is warming, it's just supporting evidence. I just want to make wikipedia better. I am Not vandalizing, this is what I see to be true. But if don't, then I'm forced discontinue my work here. Kluft (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
In science everything is a theory. Gravity is a theory, we run nuclear plants all over the world, based on the Atomic theory, Internet communication over DSL is dependent on Quantum theory etc. etc.. Please see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Theories_and_hypotheses.
In these article, we present the scientific opinion according to the weight of evidence, and adhere strictly to a neutral point of view - which doesn't mean equal opportunity, but rather that we present the sources and information, according to their prevalence in the literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ripening sock of our old friend?[edit]

Can you take a look at Josko33 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh [10]! I'm getting good at spotting him ;) And thanks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Swimming Hole[edit]

Sorry to jump in on this article before you were done. Hope I did not create any edit conflicts. A fascinating subject. It would make a great DYK nomination, and I have put it up for that award. Since you're still working away, I'll leave it alone to avoid edit conflicts. Cbl62 (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the DYK nomination - I was going to put it up for one anyone. And don't worry about edit conflicts -- I like seeing other people fiddling with my work :). So go ahead and edit away. Raul654 (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for The Swimming Hole[edit]

Updated DYK query On 19 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Swimming Hole, 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) 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

December 26 TFA[edit]

Well, this would have been interesting ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorly talk 14:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks[edit]

Can you review some Scibaby rangeblocks? I've just blocked dozens of anonymizing IP ranges which fall under your /16 rangeblocks. If an IP is under multiple rangeblocks, it'll take the settings of the larger range. In this case, your /16 softblocks will override any hardblock of the smaller ranges. Since several subnets are now hardblocked, it would be good if you could look over these IPs and see if a /16 softblock is still needed:,,,,, and Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The following sockpuppets have used those ranges:

    •, 2 November, Vextration (Scibaby)
    •, 23 October, Strayson (Scibaby)
    •, 17 October, Showconfig
    •, 12 October, IJALB
    •, 6 October, CHECKORUP
    •, 13 December, Josko33 (Scibaby)
    •, 1-2 November, Vextration (Scibaby)
    • , 5 October, Yustachian (Scibaby)
    •, December 19, Josko33 (Scibaby)
    • (No bad edits found)
    •, December 14, Josko33 (Scibaby)
    •, 25 November, Istrill (Scibaby)

What do you suggest be done about these ranges? Raul654 (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All those IPs are under a blocked range from (except, which is blocked under a different anonymizing range from The narrower rangeblocks should hopefully do the trick and since your softblocks were overriding the hardblocks, I've unblocked the above /16s. If you see another IP from one of the above ranges, it could be part of another range. If not, you can simply reapply the /16. Spellcast (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

TFA: January 1[edit]

Hi, you might want to consider using Ceres as the TFA for the new year's day. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal. We just had an astronomy article for TFA and I'd like to avoid having another one so soon. Raul654 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How to create Ogg theora file from frames[edit]

Hi Mark,

About two years ago I uploaded quite a few GIF-animations to wikipedia, at the time GIF-animation was the only form of animated media. For example, I created the animations for the Coriolis flow meter article (and I wrote the article). Now there is the possibility of uploading Ogg theora files, enabling much better compression than animated-GIF.

I've been combing wikipedia and other sites for information about generating Ogg theora files. But I get the impression that all the available software is conversion software.

Do you happen to know software (for Windows environment) that can take a series of frames as input, and turn that in an Ogg theora file? As far as I can tell, what existing software does is convert files that are already in video-format. All I see mentioned is conversion of quicktime .mov to Ogg theora, WMV to Ogg theora, .avi to Ogg theora, etc. etc. Cleonis | Talk 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that you shouldn't -- for human-made animated graphics and diagrams (as opposed to live video -- the kind you shoot with a video camera) animated gif is the most appropriate format. It's smaller, (potentially) lossless, substantially better supported in browsers, etc.
The longer answer is that if you really want to despite my above concerns, the only way I can think of to do it would be to go from animated gif -> X -> ogg theora, where X is some intermediate video format (1) for which there exists a program that can do gif->X conversion, and (2) that can be converted to theora by ffmpeg2theora. I'm confident that such a format exists, but without further investigation I couldn't tell you what it is. Raul654 (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, generally animated-GIF is bigger than compressed video. For an extreme example of a bloated GIF, see: Image:Precessing_Kepler_orbit_280frames_e0.6_smaller.gif
Animated-GIF files are smaller if and only if the design is optimized for small file size. For instance, I don't use color in animated-GIF. Using grey-scale only I can make do with a palette with 16 entries. Then each pixel in each frame takes 4 bits instead of 8 bits. Other optimizations are possible, but it's cramping my style.
You have a point: I hadn't quite realized that the compression algorithms that are used in MPEG and Ogg Theora and so are optimized to compress real world scenes. Compressing diagrams is another ball game. So, animated-GIF will have to do. Cleonis | Talk 10:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Did the translation! Just wondered if you could look it over - I'm not sure whether you speak/read Russian, but it needs someone to proofread and make sure I translated everything correctly - my Russian is good but not perfect. Graymornings(talk) 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak any Russian, but I did polish up the article as best I could. (primarily changing all instances of "USSR Academy of Sciences" to "Soviet Academy of Sciences". USSR is the noun, and Soviet is the adjective.) Raul654 (talk) 08:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the proofread - the article's looking good. Graymornings(talk) 23:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Raul, I've looked for the answer for my question, but wasn't able to find it anywhere, so I thought I'd just ask you. Are featured lists eligible to be put on the Main Page? Thanks for the consideration, and Merry Christmas. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Return of a sock?[edit]

I don't think anyone is daft enough to be this obvious, but you ought to check out User:Scibaby1. I'm guessing it's just your run-of-the-mill vandal, but who knows. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppeteer. Probably not Scibaby himself, but one pretending to be him. Raul654 (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you feel about these, but here goes :)[edit]

Adventsljusstake med tre brinnande ljus.JPG Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Merry Christmas![edit]

Santa Clause is skiing in Adelboden.JPG Merry Christmas!
Raul654, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page.
Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :(
neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Raul, and thanks for putting up with some of my nonsense. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Fvasconcellos, Neurolysis, Ottava Rima, and all the other people watching this page. Yes, I had a very merry Christmas. In fact, I got engaged. :) Raul654 (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, congratulations, Mark!--chaser - t 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, Mark !! Here's to a joyous New Year (and well wishes to the other half) SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Congrats! Its nice to see that someone around here is able to keep up a real personal life. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean[edit]

O'Hai there Raul654, Merry Christmas!

I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

  • Congrats! Merry christmas Raul! (Haven't edited in ages just stopping by for the xmas cheer :)) RN 22:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Many congratulations! Now don't do like I did, and have your father-in-law-to-be catch you doing programming homework on your wedding day... Best holiday wishes to you and yours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

An old friend[edit]

Any thoughts on User:MalcolmMcDonald? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If he's a sockpuppet, I don't think he's a sockpuppet of Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to lay pretty good odds on Boyster as a scibaby sock. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Close the bets - i'm certain on this one.... I'll be very surprised indeed if it turns out not to be scibaby.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And he couldn't lie low for long - so here's the next one: Sparnge --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Raul. Did you get my e-mail? -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did. Sorry about my delay in responding - in the Christmas rush, it got lost in the woodwork. I've replied now. Raul654 (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a happy New Year[edit]

We're watching, keep on good work! NVO (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 28, 2008[edit]

I don't know what is the procedure to change the daily TFA intro, but it's too small. The main page is completely unbalanced and tweaking the DYKs/ITNs won't be enough. Cenarium (Talk) 01:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added three previous hooks to the DYKs and at least there's no blanks any more, but the TFA intro is overwhelmed by the DYKs. Cenarium (Talk) 01:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the blurb slightly, as I have seen other admins make slight changes to the blurb. If it is not satisfactory, I have no objection to it being changed back or modified, please do not consider it wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The blurb is a bit short, but IMO it's not too short - the usual thing we do in these cases is trim ITN. If someone wants to expand the article intro and update the blurb to match, I don't object. Raul654 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm keeping my hands off. Thanks for your forbearance.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Video TfD ...again[edit]

You are logged as the creator of Template:Video on 17:31, 28 April 2005.
In March of 2008, Eric Schmidt of Google said that videos are being uploaded to YouTube at the rate of 10 hours of video per second[11]. Wikipedia will also be uploaded with many user-made illustration videos as well as short fair-use feature movie clips.
In this environment, a deletionist campaign against Template:Video last March at WP:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 21#Template:Video, struck me as idiosyncratic, with arguments I characterize as software kernel programming simplicity and minimalism (reduces bugs), misapplied to human-scale artistic design (clips from famous movies don't need a marquee).
It was also conducted in bad faith. I counted about 200 WP videos at that time, and at least 23 of them used Template:Video:

El Tatio, Spectrum analyzer, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Ubuntu (philosophy), Annie Oakley, DNA microarray, Levitron, Green-winged Macaw, Dissolve (film), Derek Wall, Trouble (board game), Paragliding, Aurora (astronomy), Railroad switch, Fencing, Human rights in post-invasion Iraq, Apollo 11, Apollo 14, Sign language, Bruce Perens, Tank, Babirusa, Mind the gap

A techie editor lacking an esthetic (art-music) education replaced all them with the bare image tag (so that videos and pictures look alike in Mediawiki code), then TfD'd claiming non-use. I negotiated his withdrawal of it at Template talk:Video#Rewritten video template.
That editor had replaced the templates without notifying the talk pages of the impending TfD. I did so and spent more political capital than I wanted to. I decided not to spend even more reverting the 23 after the TfD was withdrawn.
As a result, now another non-esthetic-education techie editor is again pursuing a Template:Video TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 27#Template:Video. In effect he is claiming that because I didn't get into 23 tussles that the idiosyncratic editor caused, that the Template:Video is now subject to deletion never mind the bad faith actions leading to the TfD.
These esthetically challenged deletionist techies are trying to take away page layout artists' tools that they don't know how to use. I think some page needs to be organized to stand guard over esthetic choice at Wikipedia -- or at least to protect something as simple and obvious as an optional movie marquee parameter.
On the other hand, if you don't care about this template any more, I have other things to do. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 09:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Raul, opinions seem to be all over the place on what WP:Layout#Links to other Wikimedia projects should say about Wikisource. See for instance WT:Layout#Proposal and Your Akutan Zero recently made it through FAC with the "Wikisource has original text..." logo intact. WP:SELFREF disallows references to Wikipedia (except roughly for disambigs and for templates that indicate something that would keep the article from passing GAN or FAC), and SELFREF also seems to counsel against references to other Wikimedia sites (for example, we simply present images in articles, without mentioning that they're hosted at Commons). I've asked around, and arguments go both ways: some say that it's important to promote Wikisource because we want people to upload to Wikisource; some people say that, if we should be promoting the Wikisource logo in article text, why shouldn't we be promoting Wikipedia in article text? Thoughts? (Watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On the smaller question of why I did what I did with the Akutan Zero article: I put a link to wikisource because I thought that the article was *greatly* improved by having a ready link to the intelligence documents the find generated (which it took me 2 hours to manually OCR). I can see no reason why the article would be improved by not providing the reader with this document. I placed the wikisource template in the body of the article next to the relavant paragraph ("Data and conclusions from these tests were published in Informational Intelligence Summary 59, and Technical Aviation Intelligence Brief #3, and Informational Intelligence Summary 85.") I admit the placement is debatable -- for consistency's sake, it might be preferable to limit them to external links sections only, but in this case it clearly ties in better in its current location.
On the larger question of what to do with links to other projects -- that's difficult to generalize. I can see how Wikisource, Wikinews, Commons links are useful, but I can see little reason why any other project would be linked (except arguably in-line links to wikitionary.) My rule of thumb is that in almost all cases, they should go in the external links section, unless there's a really good reason why they shouldn't. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


I have resumed discussion on the sealift. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 was inducted into The Hall of The Greats[edit]

On December 31, 2008, User:Raul654 was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats

This portrait of Salman Rushdie was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

The inscription is in the description. --David Shankbone 00:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, David -- I'm touched. I appreciate it. Happy new year! Raul654 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
haha - didn't somebody somewhere once say something about once the monuments begin to be built, the revolution is over...?  :-) --David Shankbone 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please check your blocks[edit]

You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.

Editing from (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Raul654 for the following reason(s):
Range used by Scibaby

This block has been set to expire: 06:47, 25 October 2013. 

I'm not scibaby. Some of your blocks are causing collateral damage. I've been working with this project and doing some volunteer work for WMF (in the way of blog promotion and moderation and OTRS) so you can imagine my feelings when I got this message. I know you work hard, and we all make mistakes, please double check this range. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a legit user and I've seen that you do share a number of ranges with Scibaby. I've made efforts to limit my blocks of your shared ranges so that they prevent logged-out users from creating accounts and editing. You should not be affected when logged in. (If you are, please let me know which blocks are causing the problem). I checked the range you mentioned and it should be exactly as desired - affecting only logged-out users. Raul654 (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If it is anon only, I should not have been affected... There must have been a bug. (or I logged out?) I had experienced that message for a few minutes. If it happens again, I'll double check to ensure I am logged in, or file a bug report regarding the anon only setting. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Swimming Hole[edit]

Hi Raul; I'm finished on the Eakins for now. Feel free to have a look and ask questions or make suggestions. Cheers and Happy New Year, JNW (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!

From FloNight

Happy New Year![edit]

A cat to ease all of your troubles
Happy New Year!
Hey there, Raul654! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

TFA templates all have unnecessary ending div tag[edit]

Hi Raul, I've been creating an alternative main page for my own use (and maybe everyone's if it goes through WP:MPRP), and I've come across a problem. In each TFA template, there is an ending div tag after the paragraph; is there a reason for this? There was never an opening div tag, so why does it need a closing one? I've gone back to look, and the end div appears as far back as I can tell in every day, so maybe there's something wrong with whatever you're using to make all the templates. User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2 uses divs/CSS to display all the main page content, and this ending div breaks my page (It's easily fixed by adding an open div tag just before TFA, but others may not be able to figure this out). If there's a reason for it, could you please explain.. or if not, could you please remove it and make sure it's not added to future ones? Thanks a lot! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It may have started Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2006. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2006 doesn't have it (in fact, there's an edit removing it), and it didn't appear in spot-checks earlier than that. I can, if necessary, write a script to regularize these blurbs. Which reminds me; the first TFA page was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 22, 2004. Planning anything for 5 years of TFA? Gimmetrow 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know HTML, so it's entirely possible a stray tag slipped in. If you could fix them with a bot, that would be great.
As for 5 years - wow. Time does go by fast. Until you mentioned it, no, I wasn't planning on anything, but I'm open to suggestions. Raul654 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bother, but I notice that you've added TFAs for the days up until January 7th... each of these also contains the unnecessary ending div. Do you use some type of program/bot to create the templates, or do you do it manually? The history of each template shows your user name and not a bot, so my guess is manually. If this is true, you don't need the "</div>" at the end of the descriptive text. I thought after it was brought up, the problem would be fixed, but it continues. The old TFA templates don't necessarily need to be fixed, but new ones hereafter shouldn't contain the div tag. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I do it by copying and pasting the previous day. Remove it from the last day I've schedule and I will propagate it from there. Raul654 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the first TFA was Mozart, there is still Mozart family Grand Tour not used.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Might add a "Featured 5 years ago" link along with the "Recently featured" links. Gimmetrow 03:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Or get the DYK people to have " ... that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was the first Today's Featured Article, five years ago today?" throughout the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to do a bunch of other things at the same time. On the list are;

  • remove the trailing /div
  • wrap any images with <div style="float:left;margin-right:0.9em"> and </div>
  • replace Image: with File:
  • add "more..." links where absent
  • replace the trailer text with {{TFAfooter}}
  • remove links to 4-digit numbers (years) and links to month/day combinations

Anything else? Gimmetrow 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Raul654 (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What do the "recently featured" links mean for the 2004 February 22, 23 and 24 entries? All those linked articles appear later in 2004. Gimmetrow 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A bit of history - Mozart wasn't the first FA to appear on the main page, per se. It was the fourth or fifth. The FAs started appearing on the main page the previous day, and people were changing it every few hours. I decided that was crazy and imposed a rule that we would change it every 24 hours. Mozart was the first one to stay up for the full 24 hours. So basically - you can ignore the "recently featured" for those days - they were articles that went on the main page for a few hours, not the full day they should have been. Raul654 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Barack the Magic Negro[edit]

Updated DYK query On 3 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barack the Magic Negro, 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.



I have been told by Guillom a OTRS admin to place a official request on the meta page before receiving access to the queue. I placed now a offical request on meta (See here).

I am hoping that you can place there a message that I can help with the language I speak. I hope that I can help real soon so your backlogs are soon gone :)

Bye, Abigor (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) p.s I watch this page if you respond here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigor (talkcontribs) 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair warning ;)[edit]

Hi Raul,

We at WikiProject Oregon are preparing to send out an email to 90 Oregon legislators, inviting them to submit photos for use on their Wikipedia biographies. It occurs to me, at this late date, that this could trigger a lot of work for you and anyone who handles the back end.

Is this OK? Is there anything I can do to help, if you get flooded with requests? Here is our message, in draft form. -Pete (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead - it's a great idea. Right now the photo submissions queue is bursting at the seams, so I might be taking you up on that offer. Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
PS - I've removed the first sentence from your draft. Raul654 (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the simplifying edit -- I like it! Hopefully we get some good photos. Please let me know what I can do to help manage the workload. -Pete (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jourdan Dunn photo[edit]

Hi Raul, sorry about removing the inline credit from the photo in the Jourdan Dunn article; I figured the photo provider may have required that credit as a condition, but I wasn't sure about the external linking. Did he also require that the image caption include a link to his site, or could that link be included only on the file page? I don't have a problem with crediting the provider in the caption, but I was just wondering about the link since my habit is to avoid inline ELs where I can. Thanks, Politizer talk/contribs 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't do it unless it's specifically requested, and it's not something that most people ask for. Both Ed Kavishe (professional photographer who sends us photos of people in the modeling industry) and Jim Summaria (professional photographer, sends us pics of musicians) have asked for in-line photo credit along with links to their websites. The send us *lots* of high quality pictures. If you see pics from them, don't remove the in-line citation. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds fine. Sorry about last time; now that I know, it won't happen again. :) Politizer talk/contribs 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures for Yom Kippur War article[edit]

Hello Raul654, I've posted a question for you in the talk page. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby rangeblock collateral[edit]

Hnkelley (talk · contribs) requests a modification of a rangeblock by you. Best,  Sandstein  22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

He emailed me a few days ago, and I've been so backlogged with other things that I haven't gotten back to him. I'll get back to him tonight or tomorrow morning. Raul654 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Range Block[edit]

Hey, you have disabled my IP address from editing? It says Range used by TileJoin but I haven't a clue what a TileJoin is. I can't find it in the rules and stuff. Can you elaborate? Urbanknowhow (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tile join is a prolific sockpuppeteer. He registers many user accounts and later uses them to disrupt Wikipedia. IP addresses and ranges he has used are, as a matter of course, blocked in such a way as to prevent them from registering now accounts. However, these blocks do allow existing accounts to edit Wikipedia. Thus, people who already have accounts (such as yourself) are not affected as long as you log in. Raul654 (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Per our e-mail discussion...[edit]

...I'm ready to start back on cleanup detail.  :) I've done a number of original articles on this new account including a few DYK articles and cleaned up some of my old ones, so it hasn't been purely "whack-a-vandal." I have a few ideas for new content once some of my other writing and production duties in real life subside a bit. I have two articles in mind for bringing to feature status to boot and one is pretty darn close. As far as keeping things tidy, heaven knows it's us against them and I want to be an "us" once more. Thanks again. You've been here for me since day one (you left my first welcome message) and I appreciate your guidance and friendship more than I can express. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - you have your admin bit back. Raul654 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It's an honor to be back and you have my word on this very public forum that I'll live up to the responsibility. Owe you yet again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan 18 TFA[edit]

Raul, just to make sure you know, Radiohead is at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I had not seen that. Thanks for the heads-up. Raul654 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of GoRight[edit]

Hello Raul654. GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Comment: The arguments made in the unblock request appear prima facie persuasive to me. I am also concerned that the recent history of The Deniers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could lead an observer to the conclusion that you blocked this account so as to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Your comments on this matter or a lifting of the block would be much appreciated. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block him over his recent edits to the Deniers, per se. I blocked him because those edits were the latest in a string of extremely disruptive behavior on GoRight's part. Since the RFC and community sanctions were imposed on him last August, I've been keeping track of his disruption here. In short - he contributes nothing of value, while wasting the time of others. (Just look at his talk page, on the two threads prior to the block -- the one here wherein he is warned against using talk pages as soap boxes and for making personal attacks, during which he reverted warred to keep his disruptive comments in the article); and my warning to him that further disruption from him on global warming articles would no longer be tolerated). Raul654 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift reply. It seems that this is a rather complicated issue, and I am loath to make a hasty judgment here. Still, I am not convinced that this block was appropriate under these circumstances, if only because you and he do also seem to disagree in matters of content. I'll leave his unblock request open for now in the hope that another administrator more acquainted with this situation will review it.  Sandstein  23:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to take over the block (that is, unblock and reblock), that is fine with me. Raul654 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather not, because, to be frank, I can't really see blockable disruption in his most recent edits.  Sandstein  23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
All of his edits since coming back on January 2 fall into one of three categories:
A better question to ask would be - has he made even a single productive edit since coming back on Jan 2, or is he here solely to disrupt Wikipedia? Raul654 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the request for unblock and decided to accept it. — Aitias // discussion 02:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I am cleaning out Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 December 25 and saw your comment at the listing of a few images, like File:Ali-Moeen-Writer4.jpg. What is the current status on these, is there a chance of a clear permission through OTRS? Garion96 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We got a response, and it looks like it's good, but I haven't yet checked to make sure everything is in order. (I haven't dealt with that one because the queue is very backlogged) Raul654 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for your help and support. As mentioned before, I understand why you blocked it. Reagan and Helms (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Do you really believe this page to be productive to the encyclopedia? Per Wikipedia:Attack page, "keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad that some user ever did' is not constructive or appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." This is Wikipedia policy and you know better. I hope that you'll use common courtesy and delete or blank this page. Oren0 (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The key to resolving this dispute is to resolve GoRight's misbehavior - namely his penchant for making personal attacks and harassing others, revert warring, making BLP violations, wikilawyering based on his own false claims of policy, etc. Notice that during the two months he wasn't here, the GW articles were relatively peaceful.
So, to answer your question -- if that page reduces GoRight's disruptive editing, then it's certainly helpful to the encyclopedia. And, in point of fact, it's not a list of everything bad he's ever done - it's way too short for that. It's a list of bad things he has done since the last community ban discussion, during which people said "oh, he can't really be that bad" and said he deserved another chance. (Also, during those discussions, GoRight claimed to have turned over a new leaf and said he would behave more civilly and adhere to a 1rr. This is now exposed on that page for the lie that it was.) In total, the last covers about his last ~150 edits, a tiny fraction of the total. It will also be evidence against him if this goes to another RFC, or before the arbitration committee.
If I should happen to see GoRight start to behave better, I'll delete it myself, but I'm not holding my breath. Raul654 (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Raul654/GoRight[edit]

User:Raul654/GoRight, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raul654/GoRight and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Raul654/GoRight during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Professional photographer's guide[edit]

Since you helped out with the Jim Summaria pictures, I thought you might be interested in working on the professional guide to contributing pictures to wikipedia page that I am trying to create. Remember (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've over-thought that page. Essentially, when getting a photographer (or musician, or anyone) to contribute media Wikipedia, you need to address three issues:
  • Why should I freely license my pictures (or music) so they can be used on Wikipedia? Answer: Because putting them on Wikipedia is great advertising. You will see the traffic to your website spike. (Especially if you offer them in-line attribution with a link to their website) [Photographers like hearing this!]
  • What's the catch? You have to license them under a copyright license that allows use to copy and use them, for any purpose, including commercially. [Photographers do not like hearing this!]
There's not a whole lot you can do about #1 and #2, so #3 is where the efforts should go. From a UI design perspective, contributing to Wikipedia is a disaster (especially as it involves the junction of En Wikipedia versus Wikimedia Commons). It's basically impossible for an outsider to comprehend. My solution, the the photo submission system, was to throw manpower at the problem, and it works pretty well (The queue has been backlogged as of late, but this is one of those good problems - it's a sign the system is becoming popular)
Anyway, so I think you need to redesign your page, from the bottom up, to be simpler, and more focused on what is and is not important to potential contributors (photographers, musicians, etc). Things like COI, or "Should I upload to Wikipedia or Commons" needlessly complicate what should be a very simple description, and are going to confuse and off-put anyone who wants to contribute. Raul654 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, it might be worth getting testimonials from professionals who have already contributed. I myself have talked four into contributing: Jim Summaria (photographer, mostly photographs musicians), Ed Kavishe (photographer, photographs models mostly), John Harrison (music professor/violin player, I talked him into sending us some violin pieces of his) and Aaron Dunn (webmaster/primary contributor to Musopen) Raul654 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of your suggestions. Feel free to make any helpful changes yourself, otherwise I will do so (when I can find the time). Remember (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen the changes I've made? Check them out when you get a chance and let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your revisions. Remember (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Page has now been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Guide for Professionals. Thanks again for your help and feel free to revise it further to make it better. Remember (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Raul, I've started a draft at Wikipedia:FCDW/AprilFools, with the aim of end of January/beginning of February publication in the Signpost. Do we need to say something about the kinds of things that went wrong last year, that people got blocked for? Is it necessary to discourage some of that? If so, I'm not sure where to find that information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I'm aiming for February 7 for Wikipedia:FCDW/AprilFools, in case you want to review it first ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited![edit]

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/01/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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) 02:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan 21, 22 TFA[edit]

Raul, please be aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#January 22 regarding the date (not sure how that would be handled best). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a good case could be made for either day. I'm not yet sure which one I'll schedule it for. Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Free picture for Alpha Kappa Alpha for mainpage[edit]

Hi, Raul. First, thanks for selecting AKA to be featured on the mainpage on Thursday. I was just wondering if you were going to select a free image for that date, since many are available on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. miranda 03:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! miranda 03:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Our old "friend" is back[edit]

Can you please check Realson - i'm rather certain that we'll have a match. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Raul654 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering about User:Trent370, on the basis of this edit: [12] Johnfos (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was him. Raul654 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Samurai [[13]]

Moar 4chan[edit]

O hai

Out of curiosity, did you consider using the article's only free image? Giggy (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did consider that. The problem is, if you don't know already know who he is (and most of our readers don't) then it's not clear who he is, or what his relationships to 4chan is. Raul654 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say no to a lolcat but I suppose that has the same issues as moot. Giggy (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The blurb specifically mentions lolcats and links to the term, and I think the phenomenon itself is much more well known that moot himself is. Raul654 (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

One for about 10 months away...[edit]

I might forget but October 10 is World Mental Health Day, so might be a good one to have major depressive disorder mainpaged...or something else if I get another one up to scratch. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi Raul: responding here rather than at the swimming hole because I'm going off-topic slightly. Okay re: rationale for the title. As for Agnew, I'm sure to have quite a bit on him, just from all the Eakins books I own. I'd also like to start the article on Amelia Van Buren, one of my favorite American portraits (I've written a column on another of his portraits, to be published in the spring). Don't know how involved I will be, since the new semester starts next week, and I've got syllabuses to copy and lessons to plan, articles to write....oh, who am I kidding, I always end up here... JNW (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

PUI of File:Ali-Moeen-Writer4.jpg[edit]

Can you please provide an update to this PUI? It would be ideal if you could also include a ticket# so that other OTRS agents can follow it up in your absence. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The major ticket is 2009010310003991. It took me a while to find it again because Howcheng closed it. He uploaded the picture as file:Ali Moeen.jpg, which is a duplicate of the above file.
Also related is 2009010610017042 Raul654 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Agnew Clinic[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of The Agnew Clinic at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mgm

It's a real shame there is a problem. Please expand so this wonderful painting meets the guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added more than that just now. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi Raul, one of the TileJoin rangeblocks has snared a seemingly long-term editor, User:Jatkins. It seems to be caught in three rangeblocks. Perhaps, IP exempt? Thanks and regards, Woody (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unblocked now - thanks guys. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 12:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AT weapons[edit]

Hello Raul654,

A discussion is ongoing here. Awaiting your reply. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 78 FAC[edit]

I don't understand why this was archived. The first oppose was from a reviewer where I addressed the majority of his concerns. The second oppose was from Awadewit, who was asking for somebody else to take a look at the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


He is requesting exemption from your rangeblock of Waffles in Box. They do not appear to be related. Would you be OK with letting him through? Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Him and RagnarokiÇ both seem to have been caught up in the block. From the checkuser, I cannot definitively state they are not Wafflesonbox, but if you want to go ahead and give them an exemption, that's fine. Raul654 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind[edit]

I have made quite a few changes to The Agnew Clinic. Victuallers (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ?? Victuallers (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you have deleted the work I did yesterday without explanation. I guess you could see this as being bold. However as the Agnew Clinic notes that is was possible to identify everyone in the picture and art historians record who they are then why is it important that these are not mentioned? Is your objection to me editting your article? I'm happy to roll the article back to how it was if you feel that is better. I am having difficulty assuming good faith... please help. Victuallers (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Among other problems, the caption is grammatically incorrect ("A The Agnew Clinic by Thomas Eakins"; the template has two instances of self-referential writing ("Click button to enlarge or use cursor to investigate" & "use a cursor to investigate.") which should be avoided; it contains a ton of links to non-existant local page sections ("#Victuallers"). My edit fixed the bad links, and put them into an HTML comment if and when someone should happen to create articles for them. Until then, we DO NOT create image-map links to non-existant articles. (Image map links are not the same thing as red links). Please take another look and fix all the damage you've done with your recent revert. Raul654 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that Yomangan has fixed the same problems I fixed. Raul654 (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Raul, just coming over to ask you to run a check concerning the last case we just dealt with, because, right after you made an annotation to Ibaranoff's page, a new account was registered, and it immediately goes to argue in Ibaranoff's style on the talk page of one of the articles he was editing. I shall list the accounts below:

Thankyou for your time.— dαlus Contribs 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Already taken care of. Raul654 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the sockmaster was edit warring over the article Mudvayne and Hed PE. I suggest you put both on your watchlist.— dαlus Contribs 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you undone the protection of another admin. Are you considering unblocking him after all the disruption he has caused i.e. sock puppetry, block evasion, dozens upon dozens of personal attacks, e-mail abuse, etc.? Can I ask you to at least involve the community and the blocking admin in this decision? The most worrisome part is the user denies all of this, even violating 3RR when the page history is viewable by anyone. I just saw you unprotected his talk page, it was protected after 10 abuses of the unblock template, and a tirade of personal attacks. Before undoing the rest of their actions will you please discuss first? Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying you would unblock him without involving the community and the other 10 or so involved admins? Not suggesting anything just asking. Part of me thinks you must not be aware of the extent of the disruption he has caused, and have not seen how he still denies everything down to edit warring. All the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong's" are getting old. I can't imagine not letting the community take part in this decision. His fate should rest with the community, if he does admit to his wrongdoing that is. Landon1980 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
In regards to his talk page being protected and his inability to reply. This was explained to him countless times by countless admins, yet he insisted on abusing the unblock template, would not admit to any wrongdoing, and continued the sock puppetry and block evasion. He left them no choice other than to protect his talk page. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as hostile, and I'm not intentionally. I just think it is a common courtesy to involve other admins when undoing their actions. Landon1980 (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Landon1980, while I understand and agree with what (I think) you're getting at, as the blocking admin (but not the one who locked the page), let me say I'm ok with Raul unprotecting Ibaranoff24's talk page to chat with him, there is zero risk to the project in this, his ability to edit that page can easily be taken away again if need be. Ibaranoff24 has been with Wikipedia for a long time and speaking for myself, I was utterly startled by the sockpuppetry and unwillingness to acknowledge all those layers of untowards behaviour. Raul has more than enough experience with this kind of thing and if he can find a way to ease Ibaranoff24 back into helpful editing, I'm all for it. Backsliding can always be dealt with through swift reblocking. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on his answers to questions on his page [14], it doesn't seem that Iba is ready to let go yet. He still doesn't acknowledge any wrong doing, and is still ready to argue his original ban was wrong. I asked him if he would consent to a topic ban or at least say he wouldn't try and reinstate his edits on the pages that resulted in his block, and his answer wasn't very encouraging [15]. I can certainly appreciate what you're doing in offering him another chance and I agree he was once a very good contributor, but something has changed. I'd have to suggest that he spend at least a little while away from wikipedia to understand what happened, and then possibly work under a topic ban for a while when/if he returns. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Note that he also still denies the sock puppetry. Landon1980 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
He still denies everything, pretty much. I'm staying off there, I asked my questions and got awful answers, so there's nothing more to be gained on his talk page. I'd advise the same for all parties involved, if you have comments on Raul's unblock suggestion, probably this would be the best place for them. Dayewalker (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider letting him off the hook, even if he does say that he won't edit the article, until he admits to the sock puppetry.— dαlus Contribs 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to him denying the sock puppetry. It looks like you are not the only checkuser to have confirmed this. Landon1980 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming[edit]

Thanks for the averaging explanation - I just can't stand it when people get their undies in a big ideological bundle without actually bothering to look at the data and the facts. Awickert (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor requesting unblock[edit]

Hello Raul. See User talk: This rangeblock is involved. I edited his RfU so it's now in your jurisdiction as the blocking admin. Since it is an anonblock, all he needs is to have an account created, but you probably want to verify that he's not Scibaby. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Sure, Raul; in about eight hours is possible. Cheers. Tony (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much. Raul654 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan 27 TFA blurb[edit]

... needs to be disambiguated to Hurricane Dog (1950). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you get the previous day links as well? (Thanks!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No, but Gimmetrow did.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


"Skinny dipping" has apparently only been around since the 1950s and it sounded a bit out of place in the article. I've swapped bathing to swimming. Bathing doesn't sound strange to me, but maybe that's a British/American thing and the article needs to be in American English in tone as well as spelling. Yomanganitalk 17:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai[edit]

Hi Raul. User:Manhattan Samurai has violated the probation three more times since your final warning. I have restored the block. Regards SilkTork *YES! 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur - the rules for the probation were simple, and he was warned, but he simply won't abide by them. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on TFA for Jan 24[edit]

Raul, There is a discussion going on here, WT:TFA/R#Mac for TFA on Jan 24 you might want to chime in on. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, nice idea, but too late to do anything about it. Still, making you aware. Dave (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Schutz bot (mainpage bolding)[edit]

Raul, the main page bolding bot busted twice this week: will you please review User talk:SandyGeorgia#Today's FA? I'm not sure what to tell Schutz, as I'm not sure where the template comes from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Raul. Sorry to bother you, but I was hoping you could help me out with something. I don't really know much about checkuser so I was wondering if I could run something by you. We have a had a bad problem with the user above, as you can see by his confirmed and suspected sock puppets. He was originally banned several months ago but keeps coming back. He is getting better about concealing his identity. I am nearly certain User:Gladiator Knight 16 is his latest sock puppet. He always creates single purpose accounts to edit/disrupt The Used and their related sub-pages. There are several similarities between this user and User:USEDfan e.g. three word username, sourcing content with the same unreliable website, editing the exact same section as his last blocked sock puppet, putting update/grammar, etc. in the edit summary. I can provide a little more evidence if more is needed. The article has been semi-protected more than once to prevent him from socking, and as you can see his latest sock made a series of meaningless edits just to get autoconfirmed. This account was also created only a few days after his last sock was blocked. I have a hunch he has a couple sleepers in his sock drawer (as he usually does). He also uses sock puppet's to edit articles related to the Ratchet & Clank (series). I completely understand if you don't have time to deal with this. I can file an SPI report if you would rather me do that. They are always such a long and drawn out process though, and I'd like to have this taken care of before he starts being really disruptive again. Thanks and have a good night. By the way his last sock was User:Gold digger gold. Landon1980 (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm not trying to rush you on this or anything. I just wanted to tell you if you would rather me add this account to one of USEDfan's SPI reports I can. Just let me know if you don't have the time. Cheers. Landon1980 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've drained the swamp for you. Raul654 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you sure did haha. I really appreciate that. Landon1980 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger[edit]

There has been a dispute about the recent FARC votes to keep Chrono Trigger at the WikiProject Video Games talk page, specifically some questions about the reliability about some issues about one of the sources much of the site relies upon.じんない 06:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Agnew Clinic[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Agnew Clinic, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

hot bulb[edit]

would you please take a look at the hot bulb engine article and discussion.
Wdl1961 (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely sorry to hear[edit]

About CC. Thanks for keeping us informed.


— BQZip01 — talk 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Swimming Hole[edit]

Done. I enjoyed reading it. Tony (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


You have mail. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've passed along your thoughts to the appropriate people. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you get (at least some) results. I'll leave the rest in more informed hands. Please contact me if any more info is needed, though I doubt I know anything special at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Please see me on IRC, as soon as is possible (might be urgent, might not be, I don't know). If you don't see me, please drop me an email through emailuser. Cheers, neuro(talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of in IRC. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Guide for Professionals testimonial[edit]

I am having issues wording this so that it is concise and relevant to the reader. I am wary of being accused of self promotion by fellow editors as well. I will get a draft going in userspace first so you and others can comment before it appears on the live project. Mfield (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Block of[edit]

You currently have a block of "" to expire in mid-July due to suspected sockpuppetry by User:Scibaby. While I completely understand your motivations, to block an entire class-B network over a single user is far too broad. You've essentially blocked every anon Sprint PCS customer on the west coast of the United States over a single user, including me from editting anonymously.

I strongly urge you to tighten the block to something more reasonable. Blocking a swath of 65,000 IP addresses over a single puppetmaster is detrimental to the greater community.

Thank you for your time. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In looking over your archive, I've noticed that the issue of your overbroad blocks have been brought to your attention numerous times by many different editors. I'm going to urge you to take heed to this feedback you are getting. How many potential editors are you turning away by blocking tens of thousands of IP addresses just to avoid a single user? The nuke-em-all-so-I-don't-have-to-deal-with-Scibaby approach is not proper in my opinion. Please don't say that they can use the registration service. As someone who worked the Help Desk for a long time, I can tell you that new users should not have to jump through hoops to be a part of the community. The vast majority simply won't bother and won't contribute at all which -- again -- is detrimental to Wikipedia. In other words, I'm saying that overbroad blocks do just as much harm to Wikipedia as a puppetmaster, if not more. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No one disagrees that collateral damage is a bad thing. On the other hand, I am balancing the concerns of the dozens of other editors who use his ranges to edit wikipedia (a far cry from "tens of thousands"), versus the actual cost in wasted time and frustration to the regular editors who have to deal with the damage he does. The current solution, anon-only blocking his ranges and preventing account creation, is certainly a reasonable way to do that. If you have a better compromise, I'm all ears. But simply saying that we should let him continue vandalizing is not an acceptable solution. And, for that matter, I caught him tonight using another sprint PCS IP ( to vandalize. So he hasn't gone away, and in fact unblocking that range would simply give him more resources with which to attack Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
For every person you have dealt with, how many HAVEN'T contacted you and simply went away? I believe it would be safe to say that only a very tiny fraction would bother to actually contact you. The fact that so many actually have contacted you indictates perhaps a few orders of magnitude more that didn't bother. How many constructive, good edits were prevented by blocking tens of thousands of IPs? Vandalism can be reverted. A prevented good edit is lost forever.
By your logic, you should just ban at the class-A level (/8) and be done with the situation. Afterall, there are only about 250 class A networks. Just a handful of blocks and you've rid yourself of Scibaby forever. Obviously this would be absurd, but frankly so is /16. You've blocked a LOT of innocent users and haven't, by your own admission, managed to block Scibaby! The scorched earth campaign you are on isn't working, but it IS costing. While I don't have a better alternative at this very moment, pursuing a failing strategy at the cost of good edits and editors should stop. If you ABSOLUTELY have to do a range block, please restrict your blocks to the /24 or /32 level. You'll probably be just as (non)effective at stopping Scibaby, but at least you'll reduce the collateral damage to something managable. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 06:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Your characterization of them as scorched earth blocks is patently false. As you yourself have already noted, you are editing from a blocked range. So obviously it *wasn't* a scorched earth approach, or you would not be editing. Anyone on one of Scibaby's ranges can request an account. If they choose not to avail themselves of that option, that cannot be helped.
As for the efficacy, just because something is less than 100% effective does not mean it is ineffective. Scibaby has had to curtail his vandalism, and the number of accounts he registers. The amount of damage has been substantially, noticeably reduced. Without getting into specifics, the range blocks have played a large role in that. (I don't get into specifics because every time I have discussed them, he has immediately changed his behavior, making me strongly suspect he reads what I write about him). Whereas your suggestion, blocking individual IPs and /24s, is competely effective. I spent about 3-6 months limiting myself to those blocks, and it was a complete waste of time and totally ineffective. (And may have further encouraged him).
In short, the range blocks work. Anyone on those ranges who wants to edit will have to go through the extra step of getting an account through ACC, but that's an acceptable tradeoff versus letting Scibaby vandalize using hundreds/thousands of accounts. Raul654 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I patently disagree with everything you just said as it simply does not reflect reality. They don't work. New users won't go to ACC, and will just go away. Anyone with any experience in user-centered design knows that users will not jump through hoops, especially after seeing a message that tells them that they are essentially unwelcome (and yes, that's how the blocked message is interpretted by many). There isn't even a very visible link to ACC anywhere in the blocked notice. It is actually hidden from view unless the user goes out of his or her way to find it! No one is going to bother with that unless they are very familiar with Wikipedia already. Why would any new user actually go through the hassle that you are foisting upon him? Why should they bother?
By your reasoning, we should just block all anons because any anon could just go to ACC. However, that line of thinking has been rejected by the community again, and again, and again. Wikipedia would not be what it is without the anon editors that you are blocking wholesale just to rid yourself of a single vandal. I believe you are failing to look at the big picture and forgetting what Wikipedia is all about in your blind obsession with this one vandal. However, I can also see that my attempts to show you that blocking hundreds of thousands of IPs (now that I know that you've blocked several /16's at 65,000 a pop over this Scibaby person) is more harmful to Wikipedia than a single vandal is falling upon completely deaf ears. In my opinion, frankly, what you are doing is much, much worse than any vandal. You are deliberately alienating many potential new editors who could bring untold value to this encyclopedia... and for what? To rid yourself of a single immature kid? Bad tradeoff.
Since I can see that attempting change your mind is absolutely futile, I will not persue this any further. However, I will close with this: If Scibaby wanted to do long-term damage to Wikipedia, through you he has definately succeeded. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FA placement[edit]

Raul, Ursula Franklin could go in Chemistry, Physics, Philosophy or Culture and society. The nominator says her main contributions are philosophical, but suggests Culture and society; I'm unsure how you prefer to categorize articles like this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Culture and society or philosophy and psychology. Raul654 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for IAR FAC nom[edit]

Note: For transparency this message was also left on the talk page of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)

In the interest of time, I am asking for special permission to file the FAC for USS Connecticut (BB-18) immediately on IAR grounds. I believe this will be the best method of allowing the article to reach FA status because it will provide editors at FAC the usual three to four week window to review the article, and unlike other articles there are three people who intend to through there all into the article to address all applicable points of objection during the FAC. Since I am aware of the ever increasing standards at FAC, I wanted to get your permission before giving anyone involved in this effort the green light to file. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Raul654 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible to move Feb 13 TFA to Feb16?[edit]

Hi Raul. I saw your Feb schedule setting Cranmer for the 13th. I would like to monitor the article when it goes live and unfortunately I will be on vacation during that week (no internet access). Is it possible to switch the date to the following week, say the 16th? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RelHistBuff (talkcontribs)

I've made the switch. Raul654 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Raul. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet TFA for Valentine's day[edit]

On behalf of the Shakespeare WikiProject, I was wondering if this could replace the currently-scheduled TFA for Feb 14, Valentine's day. The connection is more than obvious, and much more appropriate than the graphic novel that is currently scheduled, in my opinion. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that at least two editors at TFA/R supported 300 because it was a contrast to the sickly sweetness of Valentine's Day. The holdiay will, I believe, also recur in 2010. On (checks calendar) February 14, what a coincidence;-) --Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I should have been better at requesting this at TFA/R, but I was a bit slow and Raul was pretty fast at scheduling this time around. I've asked the Shakespeare project to comment here, but maybe we should move it to the TFA/R talk page? Wrad (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing at [16] Wrad (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Raul, I have plans to travel between Feb 5 and (possibly) 16 Feb 14. I am not sure what internet access I will have: perhaps none. I can pr/ar on the 4th before I go, and perhaps on Tuesday, Feb 10, but I know I won't be able to promote on Saturday, Feb 7 or Saturday Feb 14. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be visiting my fiance from Feb 10 - Feb 15. I can archive it before I leave, and again after I return. Raul654 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll let Gimme know we'll be on a strange schedule. Have a nice trip! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're invited![edit]

You're invited to the
Seventh Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009

Time: 3:00 PM

(view/edit this template)

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited![edit]

Wikimedia New York City logo.svg New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza

Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum
Last: 01//2008
This box: view  talk  edit

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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 automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor fix needed for TFA blurb[edit]

Hey Raul, a change needs to be made to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2009. Year Zero is the fifth Nine Inch Nails studio album, not the sixth. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Archie Jackson TFA[edit]

Hi Raul. Just a request regarding the featured article for 5 February 2009, Archie Jackson. While certainly not complaining that the article will be on the Main Page so soon, I had a plan in my own mind to try and have this article on the Main Page on 5 September 2009, the 100th anniversary of his birth as per Talk:Archie Jackson#Main page goal. I felt this would be an appropriate form of recognition for him.

While I am aware this is short notice, if there is any chance of a reschedule and an early request for this later date I would very appreciative. If time does not allow this, then never mind. Given the urgency and the lateness of my request, I trust you do not mind be making my request directly rather than through the TFA system. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've unscheduled it. Raul654 (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep my eye on the Main Page requests page and take my chances for 5 September! Thanks for going to the trouble. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians[edit]

There is a discussion on deleting Deceased Wikipedians. Since you've been involved in the page before, I hope you will consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (2nd nomination). Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Egypt's trapped third army[edit]

Hello Raul654.

I was wondering why you removed the sourced information I added in the article especially as I had provided reliable references. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Visit from an old friend[edit]

User:Strang_Butz? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead editor[edit]

Raul, do you think it is worth suggesting some version of this as a proposal here? Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure - it couldn't hurt, I suppose. Raul654 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought TFA[edit]

I left a message regarding the image at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 12, 2009. Cheers!--ragesoss (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Messy FAC apologies[edit]

Hi Raul, I just wanted to stop in and make a comment. I'd like to apologize for messy and lengthy amount of comments on the USMA FAC page. I came to realize that the article wasn't 100% ready and polished when the FAC started, especially with WP:IUP. However, quite a bit of good work was done based upon the many comments, and the support for promotion is currently 8 to 1, with the 1 being an image dispute, which I think that I fixed a few moments ago by replacing the disputed image. See more lengthy explanation at Sandy's page here. Again, I'm sorry that review was so untidy and un-civil, and at times the responders were confrontational with the reviewers. I think we've worked through all the issues now. This was my first trip to FAC, so I've learned a tremendous amount. Thanks.  Ahodges7   talk 18:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. FAC can get messy sometimes. Raul654 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC) (PS - I've promoted the article.)

User talk:[edit]

A user is caught in a rangeblock you applied to stop Scibaby. I don't know whether or not it is him or some other user, but I said I would ask you if you were willing to narrow the range or reduce the duration. I have no opinion either way. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The 66.215 range is one of scibaby's favorite ranges. He was using it as recently as the end of January (user:Trent370). The range block should not be altered in anyway. The anon should be directed to the account creation request page. I'll leave him a note on his talk page telling him to go there. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Didn't know anything about it so I figured I would ask. Have a good day. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


It might be nice for you to chime in here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#USS_Connecticut_.28BB-18.29 since at the bottom you have come-up through mention of an IRC conversation. -MBK004 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry 'bout that...I was trying to prove my point by using that IRC conversation, but it didn't help, as you can see... :/ Thanks for your help though, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for oppose striking (WP:FAC/New York State Route 382)[edit]

Per the results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GroundhogTheater, could I have the three opposes related to those on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 382 stricken as votestacking? If you could look into this, thanks.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just failed the nom only to find this request. I've now restored it. However, the page is rather long and unwieldy. Selective use of template:Hidden archive top and template:Hidden archive bottom might be in order. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion[edit]

Hi Raul. I note your closure of the FAR for the Intelligent design article in December 2008. You closed it as keep in spite of there being valid challenges about the use of copyrighted images as decoration there. The matter has resurfaced on the article's talk page and been discussed at AN/I subsequently. I am therefore suggesting that the matter be revisited in a further FAR. Another editor has opined that having featured articles which abuse nonfree media in this way brings the FA/FAR process into disrepute, and I am inclined to agree with that. What is your opinion on the matter? --John (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 made an extremely reasonable judgment call to put the article on the main page on 12 October 2007 containing the images at issue. They're not copyvios, but rather are well within the Wikipedia:EDP. Intelligent design is not an article on something like Yellowstone_National_Park or the Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth or any of numerous other FAs on topics of the kind where relevant free-licensed images are in great abundance. We started in mid-2007 approaching the Intelligent design article from the viewpoint of the increasingly widely accepted position that the use of images in WP articles is a desirable aspect of good article writing w.r.t. GAs and FAs, not only because they make the article look good but also because well chosen images relating to important aspects of the topic facilitate the educational value of articles--more so when there's a thoughtful, relevant image caption. It was a very substantial challenge to provide appropriate images that enhance the educational value of the Intelligent design article to readers. It's not an article on a physical thing or on an event that involves physical things that lend themselves to photographs, charts and diagrams and such that can readily be free-licensed. Take a look at Wikipedia:FA#Philosophy_and_psychology and Wikipedia:FA#Law and note how extremely few FAs there are. The intelligent design article had the challenges of both all rolled into one, being as it is a legal strategy attempting to substitute philosophy for science in high-school biology classes. In short, it's a unique controversial topic that doesn't readily lend itself to relevant and informative free-licensed images that convey useful visual information but instead the most relevant informative visual information was to be found in the NFC we used in the article (for example, the creative iconography in public presentations of various aspects of the intelligent design controversy) supplemented by well considered image captions. My recollection of the conversation leading up to featuring the article on 12 October 2007 on the main page is that Raul understood the inherent and rather unique difficulties involved with this topic, and I trust he also understood at the most recent FAR that the use of WP's Exemption Policy (the EDP, aka the NFCC) for several images remained reasonable in this article at that stage in time.
..... Also note that where feasible, free-licensed images have gradually replaced three of the NFC images, starting with the William Dembski image. Within the past couple weeks two additional such images have been removed (admittedly under pressure from anti-NFC advocates and strict interpreters of the guideline WP:NFC). The image of Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial was removed without too much adieu. A few days ago, another (The Darwin's Black Box image) has been replaced with a free-licensed photo of its author, with a loss of information value that was significant but not major., but that nonetheless goes in the direction of "free-licensed to the best reasonably feasible extent". Someday soon we'll find a free-licensed photo of Phillip E. Johnson too, and the fact that we're on the verge of obtaining one was part of the reasoning for letting the book-cover image be removed without contentious argument. Which leaves the cover image of Of Pandas and People and the Time Magazine cover image of August 15, 2005. So I must vigorously disagree with "another user's" notion that this somehow brings the whole FA process into some kind of disrepute. These decisions about the extent of judicious and minimal use of NFC, even in FAs, need to be taken to some extent on a case-by-case basis. None of the images ever violated the NFCC, and the guidelines in WP:NFC need to be regarded as the guidelines they are, not as black letter law. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, John, I was able to find a history of the Time cover image file and will post it at Talk:Intelligent design in awhile today. Then it's back to "real-life" work for me, except for very brief breaks until the weekend, at which time I should be able to provide more of the history of this interesting and vigorous conflict of ideology about what precisely is the right thing to do with NFC files of this kind. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was one of two editors who pointed out on the most recent Intelligent Design FAR that there is no consensus that the non-free images meet NFCC, and that they are replaceable by free images. No other editors on the FAR responded to these statements there, which relate directly to criteria 3. So I was somewhat surprised that the FAR was closed as keep, but not enough to ask you about it until now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a while has passed since I made my request. Do you intend to reply? If you do not wish to reply to the question I asked, are you willing to advise as an experienced Wikipedian on where this should go next? It seems undesirable that a dispute over free images should be allowed to fester for over a year without a resolution. Please see my thoughts here and tell me if you think there is a consensus to continue using these images in this way. Thanks for any attention you can give this. --John (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
John, in your summary at User:John/Intelligent design image use summary you've managed to neglect the numerous editors who actually participated in the article who supported the images' use. What do we need to do, contact every one of them for a repetition of their view? This article has been quite stable for well over a year since it was featured on 12 October 2007. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Read: [17] HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves[edit]

WikiChevronsOakLeaves.png The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your contributions to six current Military History Featured Articles, your flexibility in managing the "Today's featured article" list to accommodate relevant main-page appearances, and your generosity in providing many images for our visual library. For the coordinators, EyeSerenetalk 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS pic[edit]

Thanks for your efforts and I am very sorry about the OTRS image confusion with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3. The email is just a permission to use a picture already on Commons, it does not have an attached picture. I believe the email is from [email removed] - User:Finetooth helped with this and it is possible (though not likely) the image is from his email account (which I do not know the address of). I will contact someone else with OTRS permission - I must say for someone going through OTRS the first time that the whole procedure could be explained more clearly. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If it had come from that email address, I would have found it. (I searched for all emails containing the substring "Russell" and didn't find it. I just searched from everything from and still nothing). Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd be happy to post an OTRS explanation somewhere once I get back. Please remind me next week. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I am contacting Finetooth next and will contact another OTRS volunteer once we know more. I will remind you next week. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Update - there was a typo in the email address used. I have requested a new email be sent and will ask another OTRS volunteer to help once I know the email has been sent. Thanks again and enjoy your time off, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the picture is tagged, so all is well with that. Where should I post the OTRS explanation? Raul654 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just came here to remind you. Thanks too for listing the article as Featured on WP:FA - I guess that Gimmebot will close the FAC and add the star before too long. The email was sent to the photo submissions address, not the permissions address (which might have been the problem).
Anyway, I went to Wikipedia:OTRS and there is not really a clear link there on how to submit photos or permissions, so that would be one place to link an explanation page. It does link to Wikipedia:Contact us, which also is not as clear as it could be on submitting photos and especially permissions to OTRS, so that would be another place probably under "For Wikipedia editors". (There is a link on Contact us on photo submission under "For readers", but it took me a while to find that as I was thinking of myself as an editor. I do not find any link to a permissions submission page there). Finally Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission should link to the page for Permissions submission (which I still cannot find) and vice versa. I hope these ideas are helpful and please let me know if I can help, Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3, photo 1, Crop.jpg <font=3> Thanks again for your OTRS help - as you know, Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 made featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 1916 Plunketts Creek Map.png

John Wilkes Booth[edit]

Hi Raul. Any reason why you restarted the nom? Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do that with noms that are too long and convoluted such that I can't understand them. If there are parts of your previous comments that have not yet been fixed, feel free to copy them over to the restarted nom page. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. OK thanks Raul. Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Helen Hogg.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Helen Hogg.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) 05:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture human evolution[edit]

hello Raul / Mike,

In Today's featured article, I see the picture of the human evolution from slouching ape to erect walking man. Is it possible to receive a copy of this picture in such a way that I can use in in the Dutch Wikipedia?

My own signature there, in the Dutch Wikipedia, is a cyclist, and my nickname "JanDeFietser" means Jan the Cyclist. See in the Dutch Wikipedia ( my user page Gebruiker:JanDeFietser.

I imagine that somehow constructing a combined picture with the human evolution and the cyclist would be nice.

Thanks in advance if you could somehow be helpful.

Can you please reply on my discussion page on the Ducth Wikipedia?

jan (JanDeFietser) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanDeFietser (talkcontribs) 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that the picture is called "A silhouette of human evolution". --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jan, while Raul's apparently travelling for a few days, your question is probably answered by File:Human evolution.svg being a Commons image, available for all Wikipedia projects (and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License so that others can also use it under these terms). Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thanxalot! -- (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Dave was correct. Raul654 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple appearances on the main page as TFA[edit]

Hi Raul,

One of my goals for this year is to bring the Montreal Canadiens article back up to FA status in time to appear on the main page for the team's 100th anniversary date in December. Given that this article appeared on the main page once before as TFA in 2004 before being demoted, would that affect its eligibility to appear again at the end of this year? Alternatively, I could work on History of the Montreal Canadiens, but given the importance of it being a centennial year, I'd like to see the main article featured. Thanks, Resolute 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand Raul is travelling, so I am unsure how quickly he will respond. this diff may be of help to you. Cheers!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for that. I'm in no rush, still having 9 months to build an article to the appropriate level, so there is plenty of time for Raul to enjoy his break.  ;) Resolute 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you check[edit]

Publixx? He doesn't exactly match, but then the last couple of 'em, but he seems to match the last couple... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just edit-conflicted Kim (or he edit-conflicted me) with the same query... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Fishing gentlemen? --GoRight (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No, we're not fishing. And if you look back over my requests, i have a hit ratio of >90%. And while i can tell you exactly what made me suspecious, it would reveal what i look for. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
My, how convenient. You have reasonable suspicion but you can't tell us what it is. Do I get the same privilege? As for your hit ratio, I guess I missed that part in the no fishing section where it says it is OK as long as you are "correct" over x% of the time. Besides, with Raul doing the checking I am not surprised that you have a high hit ratio. Let me guess, he doesn't have to say why he has deemed someone a sci-baby sock either? Hmmm. Carry on ... --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Scibaby has a cow flatulence fetish. -Atmoz (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ha. Come to think of it we don't actually mention cow flatulence enough. Isn't that supposed to be more damaging that CO2?  :) From my own experience with Raul, however, I think he must be channeling William Stoughton from circa the later half of 1692 which is why I'm not surprised by KDP's high hit ratio. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Raul, don't bite, please... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
GoRight's predictable incredulity aside, Publix was obviously a Scibaby sockpuppet, and checkuser confirms it. I also spotted User:Chuane, a sock he was using yesterday. Raul654 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
But of course they were, was there really ever any doubt? --GoRight (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There's always doubt until checkuser confirms it.
But then again, when someone posts the same verbatim paragraph and references that Scibaby has on numerous occasions, most people use the duck test to draw the obvious conclusion. Raul654 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC, travel catchup[edit]

Raul, I hope you had a wonderful trip. I'm back, but I have a long medical appointment on Monday, Feb 16, and other catchup to do around the house. It's unlikely I'll be able to read through FAC for Gimmetrow's next bot schedule (Tuesday, 17). Will you be able to pr/ar on Monday or Tuesday, 16 or 17, and then I will be able to get back on track after that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Raul, have you had a chance to look at FAC, or should I start through now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
My list of priorities is (in order) is email, watchlist, talk page, FAC, and scheduling more FAs. I've cleared the email backlog, and I'm working on my watchlist now. I expect to archive the FAC later tonight. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Great ... I've been really behind in catching up around the house and IRL things, so haven't been able to focus on it yet ... I'll be back on board by next pr/ar (Sat). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing wikilinks[edit]

Hi, why did you remove the "main article" wikilinks I added to the Yom kippur war page? Why should they only be inline? The Sinai section, for ex., is very very long, and if the wikilinks are only inline, most chances are that most readers won't get to them. Thanks, --Omrim (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They're (doubly) redundant -- they are already linked twice in the article. Once in the Yom Kippur War template at the top of the article, and again inline in the text. There is no need to link to the same articles three times. Raul654 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

FA review[edit]

Hi Raul. I would like to have the Michael Jackson article's FA status reviewed. There are a number of issues. He is referred to as a businessman in the first sentence. This is misleading, undueweight, unsourced, and there is no substantial section discussing this supposed aspect of his biography in the article. (See talk page) He does own some music catalogs. I also think the section titles are VERY long and unclear. The article seems to need a lot of work. I tried to follow the procedure on the FAR page, but it is very complicated so I thought I'd drop by here to seek your guidance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As a heads up Raul, the editor is seeking to have the article reviewed because he doesn't like the fact Michael Jackson is labeled a business man in the lead. Consensus on the talk page indicates this is perfectly valid. Unfortunately this editor has been causing POV problems on numerous GA's/FA's, see Tina Turner talk page as an example. The Jackson article became featured in the Summer of 2008 with near unanimous support (very hard to achieve for such a controversial figure). The only notable alteration to the article since then was adding info to the 2008-present section and trimming the 2000-2002 section. Other edits have just been improvements to grammar and reverting vandalism. — R2 00:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Did they close WP:FAR for renovation when I wasn't looking?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Would hope that such minor issues could be worked out without a FAR; FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"The article seems to need a lot of work" doesn't sound minor to me, Sandy. Admittedly, the specific issues mentioned should be settled over drinks someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the article, like I said, it's barely changed since it's Summer promotion. This is one editor trying to apply pressure to get the wording of the lead changed against consensus, this behavior has gone on to other articles, such as Tina Turner, where she tried, against consensus, to have the word 'icon' placed in the lead first sentence. — R2 08:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, in looking at other FA articles, durian and Barack Obama for example, I noticed that the section titles are clear and concise, as one would expect. Subsections are used when needed. This is in stark contrast to the long, inconsistent, and unhelpful section titles in MJ's article.

I understand this fuss may not be something you want to step into, I had no idea a small pack wp:own fanatic Wikipedians would follow me around casting aspersions on my good name and character, but I'm still interested in your opinion as far as the qualities FA articles should have, and if ones that need work should be reviewed or if there's another approach you recommend. Thanks mucho and have a happy every day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

CoM, Raul's talk page is among the top five most visited talk pages on Wikipedia: when posting here about FA issues, it is common/routine to get feedback from many editors. I've looked at the section headings and don't see an issue; if there are other problems, perhaps you can specify them on article talk or open a WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth[edit]


I just finished addressing all of the objections to sourcing last night, noting the revisions (which included removal of tertiary and questioned sources, replacement with additional full-length biographies as reliable sources for inline citations, and the copyedits made in response to the comments) as an "Update" at the FAC – shouldn't there have been an opportunity to see if these changes satisfied the stale opposes/comments before the FAC was closed tonight? Please reconsider relisting.  JGHowes  talk 03:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg You know, some kind of reply would be nice.  JGHowes  talk 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of reply - I got distracted. You were making your corrections to the article at about the same time I was archiving the FAC, so I didn't see them. Normally, we suggest waiting a while after a FAC is closed, but if you think the article will pass now, go ahead and start a new FAC. Raul654 (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, no problem. I will take a few weeks to do further research and refinement before submitting it again at FAC.  JGHowes  talk 05:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited![edit]

Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27)

The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station.

DC 6th Meetup (March 7)

The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6.

This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Connecticut (BB-18)[edit]

Raul, I'm still working my way through FAC, but there is a query on my talk page about promoting/using Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Connecticut (BB-18) for the Feb 22 TFA, in case you want to look at it before I get to pr/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to schedule an FA for tomorrow (Feb 22) soon (like within the next hour) because I'm not going to be near a computer tonight. I'm not inclined to grant the request because we just had a warfare article on the main page two days ago. Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks; I'll continue working through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Raul, I thought that we were going to do this for the centennial of the Great White Fleet...? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I changed my mind - I can see you want this bad ;). I'll schedule it for tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to promote it first ... I haven't finished processing FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. Raul654 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Sorry for practically whining...I didn't exactly mean it to sound like that. :-/ Thank you both for your help during this, and make sure you do something to remember the GWF tomorrow. ;) Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you tripped up in your second edit at WP:FA - looks like when you updated the count, you inadvertently removed the article you added in your first edit. Maralia (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DOH! Raul654 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, sometime tonight after midnight UTC, I think I'm going to sit down and schedule out several days/weeks of TFAs. Raul654 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for your help with List of scientific bodies with official statements on human-cause global climate change, and thanks for all the other work you do keeping this place running.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My reply[edit]

It came from 2 sources: 1) The Kenji Hatanaka‎ article at the time AND 2) Some documentry programme that I watched at the time.

I spoke with the History board and they were fine about it. Hope it helps & good luck !!!--SGCommand (talkcontribs) 12:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

== File:Mathias Rust.jpg missing description details ==
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Mathias Rust.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


I know you are the supreme commander of WP:TFA. I was just notified that you have scheduled TFA all the way until March 6th. It was a bit unusual for you to jump that far out. I am writing because in the best interest of the project you may want to exercise your unilateral authority and Wikipedia:Break all rules. There is a current candidate (Saxbe fix) at WP:FAC, which has four support, no oppose, an image validation and a reference validation that has a centenary coming up on either March 4 or March 6. I should have given you a heads up that this was in the pipeline, but I had hoped to have this promoted by the end of the month. This article is from an underrepresented group on WP and is probably about a nine or ten point article in terms of TFA priority points on either of those dates. Of course it loses 6 of those points after the 6th and is thus less of a contribution to the mainpage for quite some time as a result. Thus, in the best interests of WP, you may want to consider revising the schedule for the 6th if this passes within the next week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If/when Saxbe fix is promoted, drop me a reminder here and I'll bump Luc to the 7th. Raul654 (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure. (Knock on wood).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Does Sandy still watch this page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Raul654 (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep ... I haven't looked in the last few days, but last time I checked, there were still outstanding image issues. I'll read through tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Images are resolved. Am I currently eligible to nominate Joseph W. Tkach on behalf of WP:CHICAGO for the 16th if intend to nominate this for the 6th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It is within the rules. I'd get someone else to do it, for the sake of appearances, though I see you only have two edits to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to get the lead editor to do so (see User_talk:RelHistBuff#Joseph_W._Tkach).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Raul, this is promoted now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am just remiss that I don't get to go for a TFAR points record.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I was double counting some points. There was no record to be had. It is between 7-9 I believe instead of 9-11. When is this going to be put on the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2009 page? Recall the 4th and 6th are centennaries for the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I suppose to do something to get the schedule changed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I've made the change. Raul654 (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

hippo skull[edit]

Hi, I wanted to let you know I am using your excellent hippo skull picture for the header of my blog at: Thanks for letting me use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Scene7 vignette[edit]

I'm not sure if "vignette" is the right term there, but this pointer paragraph that seems like it is scheduled to appear on the main page on the 28th, here, has its (more...) link pointing to the previous day's article, Caspar David Friedrich. I would have fixed it, but I am not capable due to either a lack of user privilege or competency. I am sure that you lack neither :) Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've fixed the blurb. Raul654 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan[edit]

I'm confused by your nomination for Surrender of Japan to be FA status. Since you are featured article director I would assume that you have control of which articles get promoted. Therefore I would not expect you (or SandyGeorgia) to nominate an article. Your task is promoting articles rather than nominating them. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Who said I can't nominate them? I'm in charge of the process, but I've written many featured articles too. Raul654 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Regarding this. I'm interested in how you did this. Did you personally archive it? --DFS454 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's what is for -- on-demand preservation requests for the purposes of citation. Raul654 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)[edit]

The 250th anniversary of Handel's death is April 14th. I'd like to try and get something by him for the mainpage. If I begin work on Agrippina (opera), already a GA, immediately, would you be willing to hold the slot open as long as possible? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You have 6 weeks. That's plenty of time. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Right. One week peer review and preparation, and we'll be at FAC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm guessing that you (?) oversighted the edits made by the editor you just blocked. I just wanted to give you a heads up that the username still appears in ClueBot's reverts of that editor, at least at intelligent design, Pope John Paul II and iPod. Guettarda (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dammit Cluebot... Raul654 (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, all cleaned up now. Raul654 (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There's another set of edits here R. Baley (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it really so hard for people not to use rollback on a bad name? Don't they realize that makes twice as much work for me? Raul654 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple more incarnations of the same username in the history of ID. The edit appears to have been oversighted, but ClueBot's rv still shows the username, as does User:AntiAbuseBot's. (Searching the bots' contribs turns up quite a few of these). Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Block settings[edit]

Hello. Since this is a Grawp sock, the email & talk page should be blocked as well. ~ Troy (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, according to checkuser, the account was automatically created. This means he actually registered the account on another WMF wiki and came here to vandalize with it. So he's probably out there on another wiki right now doing damage. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the hassle. (I kind of had a feeling Grawp might target Jayvdb because he removed the junk on my talk page.) ~ Troy (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't too sure about the "another wiki" idea, but I'll take your word for it. Perhaps a global block is what you want, no? ~ Troy (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Presumably if such a thing exists, it's the stewards who would have it. Raul654 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


saw some vandalism on Leet, and was going to try to figure out how UAA worked, but see that you already got this. Good deal! — Ched (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Raul654 (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but I looked again when it (leet) showed up on my watchlist - I'm guessing maybe you got an autobot protecting it now? ... but the user names confuse me - I'm guessing someone who's mad about an arbcom member (sock?) - You're probably already on top of things, but just in case, I thought I'd drop a "wanna double-check" note. Thanks — Ched (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review[edit]

I have reported a user thru AN for improper user name after it appeared on my watchlisting for Intelligent Design. The mysterious gaps in the edit history of the article suggests that you might want to scrub my report to AN too. Sorry if I mucked things up. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've scrubbed all the bad edits. I've also filed a bug report to make these kinds of fixed easier. Now I'm going to bed. Raul654 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thnx. I think the edit summaries can need cleaning too-automated summaries will show usernames by default, and that's how I noticed it. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Email to legislators[edit]

I'm embarrassed to say I haven't gotten it out! I still plan to. I will let you know when I do. -Pete (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Damaging edit[edit]

My apologies, that was an automated edit and I had no idea inserting HTML characters could even break the template. Lesson noted. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nudity in DYK image on Front page[edit]

I would like to get your opinion regarding nudity in a DYK image in queue. See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Nudity in DYK image. Thank you.Smallman12q (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.Smallman12q (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Concert Singer[edit]

Updated DYK query On March 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Concert Singer, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Updated on the FAC, also, pls check your email. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide your input[edit]

Raul654, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at something in ANI, which you might have some idea as to the background of the issue. (Once you look at the log that I linked to, you might remember the circumstances...) Thanks again! Edit Centric (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Speedy! You are the man! Thanks again, Raul! Edit Centric (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)