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


Epsilon Eridani[edit]


I'm the nominator for the Epsilon Eridani article. Please could you remove this from the FAC list as it has not received sufficient support at this time and the reviews are more about style issues than FA criteria. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, please could you reject this FAC. The article needs some rework based on a recent paper. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi Raul - WP:Featured article review/Japan/archive1 looks to be getting close to a keep without FARC. However, it's going to be yours to close, as I initiated the review and have remained intimately involved in it. Also, sent you an e-mail. Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A ping on this, since it seems to be maturing. Your decision, though, obviously. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


I've closed the AN/I thread. If there are wider issues, I'd suggest that you thrash them out with him or open an RfC/U. However, it'd best to not call him a 'dick' or any other such insults; if part of the problem with his editing is incivility then dishing out more incivility in response is hardly going to help matters. Fences&Windows 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Raul654. You have new messages at Lanthanum-138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)



Looking ahead, I hereby award this barnstar for your choice of TFA on 12 April, following the pattern of the preceding week. Keep up the good work! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 02:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Grin - I was wondering when someone would notice that :) Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I noticed it, it just seemed silly to bring it up. But then I'm always reading the monthly lists for "similarity".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cites publisher wikilink[edit]

In citation templates, should the publisher name be linked?

First time only?

I searched, and can't find a good definitive answer - therefore, here I am!

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have a standard for that. Personally, I wouldn't do it - unlike linking authors or titles in refs (which, IMO, is a good idea) I don't think links to the imprint or publisher are particularly useful. Raul654 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Roy Orbison[edit]

Raul, sorry to bother you, but you are my only "friend" here who I can ask. Yesterday I did a good bit of work on the Roy Orbison article - added a new section "75th birthday tributes" with some content and six references. My plan was to continue to beef it up as the date of Roy's 75th birthday approaches (April 23) and other tributes become known. I am stunned to discover that all my hard work was reverted by another editor who said two of my references were "questionable" and therefore notability was in question. I thought we were to assume good faith. I don't do shabby work and one of my objectives here is to help as much as I can cleaning-up articles and citing sources (as evidenced by my participation in WP:URBLP). That said, having my hard work so casually dismissed is very discouraging. Would really appreciate you taking a look at the Roy Orbison article and letting me know if you think the revert was justified. Thank you for your time! Kmzundel (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the editor saying Roy Orbison isn't notable (raises eyebrows)?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that is NOT what the editor is saying. I suspect he/she is referring to the musicians doing the tribute concerts and/or the other musicians referenced. Kmzundel (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, listing non notable artists would be a question of editorial judgment. Since there's a fair amount to say about Orbison, I'm sure, I'd lean against it but I'm not doing the writing so I'm not there, so to speak. It seems to be something to work out on talk page, although it is certainly appropriate for you to seek advice from Raul or anyone else who cares to chime in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Notability can be subjective - especially when we're not familiar with the person/place/thing. I took a look at the venues hosting the two tribute concerts specifically mentioned and researched the artists before deciding to include them. If anything both affirm Roy's worldwide influence. The deletion seemed harsh when so much worse writing is often accepted and/or tagged instead. Kmzundel (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Raul. Check me out. I'm the subject of two unrelated threads here back to back, this one and the one below. I don't think that has ever happened. But Kmzundel, I replied to you on my talk page, where you first posted. Did you forget that you posted there or were you just hoping to find someone who makes less sense than I? --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Aspersions and concerns[edit]

Raul, I have been informed that I have cast aspersions in your direction at Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples and Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Amazing Grace‎. I am quite new to adding music .ogg files to articles. There is currently a ruckus at "Amazing Grace" regarding music samples and I an not so impressed with the version of the song that you added in terms of its ability to present a depiction of what the song sounds like to the reader. I have attempted to add samples that I would want to hear if I were a reader. This has led to debate on the article's contents. This leads me to note two things about the article which passed at FAC 15 months ago. First, the author is now claiming that there are particular notable renditions of the song that are associated with it although none are mentioned in the WP:LEAD. If this is the case, the FA process is not working for WP:SONGs. Also, the article has no musical structure section to teach the casual and trained interested parties what the song sounds like. Again this is a notable deficiency in the article, especially for an FA. Since you have enough of an interest in this article to have provide a musical sample, you may want to consider current concerns at Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As a result of this post, I have looked at the talk page and weighed in there: I don't think Dr. Blofeld showing up to support TTT is surprising, unexpected, or constitutes "a ruckus", and I hope TTT will learn more about sound files before trying to "learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing" on a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to bring up stuff irrelevant to the issue, it seems that I had already learned a bit before the example you point to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul, re this. Still no, but this and the thread above. QED. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Amazing_Grace#US_Air_Force_sound_samples) Notable version is not a standard relevant to any other WP:FA that I can find. It seems to be made up for convenience. A quick run through WP:FA shows almost all renditions in articles are not described as notable versions in the text. See "Dixie (song)", Gianni Schicchi, "My Belarusy", "National Anthem of Russia", "Old Dan Tucker", "On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away", Sylvia (ballet), "Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)", Thespis (opera). Sandy of all people knows that notable rendition is a totally made-up standard that is not relevant to any discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of different things at issue here. I've commented where I tried to summarize them and give my opinion. Raul654 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (And Moni, it saddens me to hear that)

FAC recusal[edit]

Raul, I'm recused from Lecen's FAC nominations because we've interacted at the talk page of Hugo Chavez. Neither Karanacs nor Laser brain has been online for several days; would you be able to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil/archive1? I haven't read it thoroughly, but my sense is that there are no outstanding issues. I may not be able to get online today to promote, so if you see anything else at the bottom of the page and have time ... :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nafaanra language[edit]


I may be mistaken and am certainly not an expert on the subject, but my impression is that the Nafaanra language was not traditionally written, and that the Nafana people did not read or write until recently. It looks like the picture Mark Dingemanse found was of Nafana people being taught to read Nafaanra using a system of writing first developed in the 1970s. The article says that only 1-5% of the Nafana people are literate in Nafaanra, suggesting that writing in the Nafaanra language has not widely caught on yet. As such, I personally don't think having a written sample of the Nafaanra language is very important to the article (or at least not important enough to prevent it being on the main page). Perhaps a spoken sample would be more useful if you are looking for something to put on the main page when the article runs. Calathan (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A spoken sample would be fantastic - better than a picture - and definitely suitable for the main page. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be several audio clips in the article. Would one of those be usable? Calathan (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh man, those things (the speaker symbols) are tiny. I would never have noticed if I weren't looking for them.
I like File:Muura.ogg, but I would prefer something a bit longer in duration. Raul654 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where to find a longer clip (all my knowledge on the subject comes from reading the article and doing a short Google search). Are any of the main authors of the article still active on Wikipedia? Maybe one of them would be able to provide a longer audio clip. Calathan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship and the upcoming movie[edit]

Nothing wrong about the article per se, but is there a conflict of interest posting this on the main page so close to the release date of the upcoming movie on the same subject? What better free advertising than to be mentioned on the main page of one of the most visited sites on the web. Delmlsfan (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this until today. No, I don't really consider it much of a problem to feature it close to the movie's release. Raul654 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library[edit]

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

unit cohesion - ideas about organization?[edit]

See [1]. Your thoughts much appreciated.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 29, 2011[edit]

Raul (or TPSs, preferably admins because it will be protected in a couple of hours), perhpas you could take a look at the changes the TFA blurb for the 29th. The primary contributor of the article has made some pretty major modifications. Some of them have introduced prose that doesn't come close to 1a standards while others have replaced the village's location with something about some MP resinging, which I feel has major issues with "recentism" and undue weight. I don't think the blurb is fit to go on the Main Page as it is at the moment, but in two hours, only admins will be able to edit it so I'm backing off to avoid the appearance of being under-handed (by reverting just before cascading protection takes effect) or of using my tools in a dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul is away;[2] I looked at the blurb, see your concerns, and reinstated the original blurb. If the blurb is changed again without discussion, I'll request protection. I can't find discussion anywhere of the new blurb, but it does seem to contain undue text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm here for a few more hours. (The crazy train gets under way tonight once my fiance flies in and we go into final wedding prep). From looking at the edits, this change wasn't so good, but this one was fine. I'm going to fix it by taking the best parts of both revisions. Raul654 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've also let Myosotis know about this discussion so everyone's on the same page. Raul654 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy and well done Raul. Oh, and congratualtions! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mitchell :) Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Raul - looks just great. I only tweaked the blurb because I got a message on my talk page to say I could. I hadn't finished when the above conversation started, and was just trying to work out what might draw people to the article. Myosotis Scorpioides 14:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats from here as well! Best wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Article moves[edit]

Raul, While I realize that moves like this are technically correct, as none of the zillions of other artworks of this subject as yet have articles, I don't think they are very helpful unless the work concerned is very clearly the best known of the subject, which is certainly not the case here, or in other examples I've seen. At some point the move will hopefully need to be reversed, as other treatments get articles, which will now mean a requested move. Congratulations & I hope all goes smoothly, btw. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article of the day for May 27th[edit]

I would like to promote Ernst Lindemann for May 27th's article of the day. Lindemann was the captain of the German battleship Bismarck and was killed in action 70 years ago on that date. How do I go about nominating the article for that day? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, make sure that you read all of the instructions before delving in. Hope this helps, Woody (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article for May 12[edit]

Might it be useful to include the year 2009 in the description of this article? It is in the article title, but I found it a little confusing to have all those dates and no year to anchor them to. Thanks. (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added that in now, it seemed reasonable to me. Woody (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for minding the shop while I'm away, Woody :) Raul654 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I hope you're enjoying the break! Woody (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've wanted to go scuba diving since I was 8 years old, and I finally got the chance on Thursday. It was *AWESOME*. Got moderately sunburned but it was well worth it. Raul654 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Preventing an article from becoming TFA on the wrong date?[edit]

Pigeon photography would probably have become this year's TFA on 1 April if I had submitted it to FAC early enough. (There is even more April Fools material than what is currently in the article. E.g. the inventor's house was previously a Catholic church built by Protestants against the protest of an official Swedish delegation, and later a pub.) Now it has been promoted, but I just discovered that there might be a risk it will become TFA before the next suitable date (1 April 2012), with no prior warning. Is there any good process for preventing this? Hans Adler 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly ask Raul to hold the article (I have asked him to hold Statue of Liberty for the 125th anniversary in a few months), but there is no guarantee that it will be TFA next April 1. There's a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and then, you know!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It's clear that there is no guarantee that it will become TFA on a certain date. But I think it has very good chances, or I would not have asked. And in fact I would not have taken it through FAC if it were not a perfect fit for the occasion. Hans Adler 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with holding off until next April. But my memory is imperfect, so if I should happen to forget your request and accidentally schedule it, please drop a note here so I can unschedule it. Raul654 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. At WT:TFA I saw a comment by an editor who wasn't notified before 'his' article became TFA. I have no idea if this is the norm or was a rare exception. Would a hidden comment at the top of the article help in such a case? Hans Adler 21:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Such notifications now occur.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks. Hans Adler 21:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:University of Delaware coat of arms.svg[edit]


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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


Just making sure you know that there's no scheduled TFA for tomorrow, since you scheduled three weeks' worth on 26 April, which run out at midnight UTC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. I've scheduled tomorrow's article already. I'll put more in the queue a bit later. Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I never doubted you. I was just checking. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding Today's Featured Article[edit]

Hello. I was alerted yesterday to the fact that the article that I worked on, Taare Zameen Par, is today's featured article. I am curious about its nomination, but I have been unable to find it anywhere in the request page's history. Do you know of an easier way to locate it? Thanks. Ωphois 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It was not nominated. Raul selects some community nominations to fill slots, but the majority are entirely his decision. There would not be anything to see, in other words, other than the TFA itself. Generally, a note is placed on the article talk page, and on the user talk page of the major contributors and/or FA nominators after Raul puts it in the queue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Ωphois 18:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What Wehwalt said. Most of the featured articles that appear on the main page were not nominated, but instead selected by me using a pseudorandom process involving tea leaves, chicken entrails, and a cat named Skipper. Raul654 (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, recusal, and plea for help[edit]

Mark, my belated congratulations on your wedding, and best wishes to you and your bride for a long and happy marriage !! As mentioned earlier, I've been swamped with IRL business, and am likely to remain so through June. Neither Karanacs nor Laser brain have edited for about a month, so I seem to be all alone at FAC. I've entered a commentary on the Philip Baird Shearer RFC, so would appreciate if you could handle Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1. If you have any time this week or next to run through FAC, it would ease the burden on me, considering my online time in the next few weeks is very limited. I've been able to keep up with archiving, but not with promoting. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I'll look it over later today. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

God Hates Us All[edit]

Hi Raul, can you take the words during the terrorist attacks out of the blurb for the TFA the 22nd. The album has nothing to do with anything, obviously, and it looks abit odd, and has been out of the lead now anyway. Ta. Ceoil 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, but it's done. Raul654 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Good service around here. Ceoil 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping this talk section had some humor about the correlation with the 2011 end times prediction. :( « ₣M₣ » 04:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Someone out there got the joke :) (I 100% intentionally choose that article as a reference to all of us who, when May 22 rolls around, are still here and weren't raptured away. The article title seemed intimately appropriate). Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I just posted something about this on my Facebook status, then came here to ask if it was deliberate. Epic. Kudos to you, sir. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely brilliant! I just fell off my chair with laughter! Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant indeed - I posted the article on Facebook too. David Gerard posted something similar on NewsTechnica called God: "Sorry, you all suck". --mav (reviews needed) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, guys :) Raul654 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert of my question at Talk:Kids for cash scandal[edit]

Hi, can you tell me the reason for this revert? --CliffC (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - I didn't mean to make that edit. I think I accidentally reverted you while looking at my watchlist. Sorry, my mistake. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No biggie, I've done that too. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Boletus edulis[edit]

Hi Raul, did you catch the report at WP:ERRORS before removing the alternate names from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 23, 2011? Graham87 07:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen that before I removed it. I'm not thrilled at the prospect of setting a precedent on this article, but I'll grit my teeth and add two of the names back. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. Graham87 08:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Could I ask what the reason for the avoidance of common names is? Surely the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, and the point of TFA is to draw attention to our better articles. If we avoid informing people what we are talking about by the terms they will recognise, and dodge the chance to encourage them to take an interest by presenting the TFA as something they are already familiar with, then we are acting contrary to those goals. Obviously the lead paragraph needs some trimming to fit the requisite size for the Main Page space, and in many cases alternative names will be a suitable place to make those cuts for conciseness, but what is the thinking in making it an assumption that these names, only necessary because wp:commonname has been overlooked, should not be shown on the main page? Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The article title is supposed to be the common name, and alternate names should not be necessary - hence, they are cut. Raul654 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
But in cases such as this, the binomial is not the common name for anyone except experts in the field, and if there is to be recognition (which is the purpose of naming anything) then at least some of the common names need to be given. Kevin McE (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

Hi Raul, I'd just like to say it is a great choice for tomorrow's featured article. I'm guessing it is being featured because of Towel Day. Cheers, IrishStephen (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. Raul654 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I must agree, excellent decision Raul. I very much enjoyed the article. Neftchi (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

May 28[edit]

Dear Raul, I want to propose Azerbaijani people as featured article for May 28. The date has a special meaning as it marks the Republic Day or Independence Day for the Azerbaijani people. However I do not know the exact procedure on how to get a featured article of the day. Could you please help me on this matter? Neftchi (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I saw you have put this at TFA for May 28, don't know whether you were aware it was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 6, 2006? Woody (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Doh. I checked to see if it was an FA, but I didn't check if it had appeared on the main page. I'll revert myself. Raul654 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

29 May[edit]

Hello. I want to suggest Manchester United F.C. as 29 May Today's Featured article because there is a tournament final on the previous day (28 May). TGilmour (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 UEFA Champions League Final (to save Raul having to look for which final you're talking about). BencherliteTalk 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
See discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The tech behind TFA[edit]

Hi Raul. I'm currently volunteering to build the backend for the proposed Today's featured list, and I'm wondering if you could point me to the key templates that are used for TFA, so I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Thanks in advance. Edokter (talk) — 17:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing is to get the archive and footers in place. Using the featured article stuff as a template, I've started it for you here -- Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 2011. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a full list of pages I created:

Hope that helps. Raul654 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That will get me along nicely. Edokter (talk) — 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photography[edit]

I notice you've scheduled Pigeon photography for later this month. You might want to pull it; I believe it was written intentionally as an April 1 TFA, and I think it makes sense to keep it back. While we do have other potential candidates, AFAIK they're all on English history or US places, which have been the themes for I think every April 1 TFA since it began, whereas this is on a non-Anglosphere topic and very different to those which have been used before. (As you probably know, I dislike the liturgical-calendar "April 1 is odd topics, October 31 is morbid topics" approach to TFA but if we're going to have this tradition, we may as well do it as well as possible.) – iridescent 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about -- it's not scheduled as far as I can tell. Raul654 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:Today's featured article/June 6, 2011. I wasn't notified, either. I only noticed because the article was protected. Hans Adler 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that's Dabomb and not you; he may be unaware of the previous discussions. I'll ping him. – iridescent 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I needed to purge the archive. I was seeing the first article he scheduled, not the pigeon photography article. Yea, he's probably not aware that that's an April 1 special. Raul654 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
All fixed. I figured little things like this would crop up as Dabomb gets up to speed. Raul654 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
While I'm here, are there any other unusual situations I need to be aware of? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Everyone has their own personal bailiwick when it comes to FA scheduling. Certain article authors don't want their articles go up, ever; other people think certain categories are over-represented and don't want to see those articles scheduled again anytime soon. You'll just have to discover these things as you go along. And don't worry if you make a mistake or someone drops a note on your talk page asking that you reconsider a choice you've made - it's bound to happen. Be polite and reasonably accommodating (particularly towards the wishes of the articles' authors) :) Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of things like that.. I'm going to be on the road most of June (8th-23rd) so probably not a good idea to schedule any of mine during that period. I won't have sources, I won't be around on a regular schedule, etc. etc... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing on my articles: Statue of Liberty is going to be nominated for October 28, its 125th anniversary.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I previously wasn't one to push for a TFA request for any of the Michigan highway articles because I'm trying to pin down some better designation dates. (M-28 and M-35 date to the system creation, but the initial system highway designations were only assigned on paper.) That said, M-6's first section opened to traffic on November 20 2001, so I'm planning on requesting that for the tenth anniversary this year. I know the guys behind SS Edmund Fitzgerald are looking at at the anniversary of the sinking (November 10) for a possible TFA. Imzadi 1979  18:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured list looks just about ready[edit]

I know that you've seen the current thread on the main page. But just to keep you up to date, we're just doing a final few checks and tweaks to the Today's featured list process, with the intention of requesting formal approval tonight. Everything going well, the first list will hopefully go on the main page on June 13.

An exact working model of the main page can be found at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (live): this contains the source code that we intend to use.

Edoktor has created an "always Monday" version at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (visible), so that users can see what the page will look like when lists are there.

The meat and bones of the process itself can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured list and Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions.

To my knowledge, the only major thing we haven't done is protected everything that should be. That's not an oversight, but down to the fact that myself and RexxS are non-admins, and we're two of the people best-placed to deal with any minor issues during the formal approval stage. The proposal will run all week, but if it is going well, we will lock down everything that should be protected on Wednesday, and double-check that we haven't missed anything on Thursday and Friday.

As someone with quite possibly more relevant main page experience than anyone else, I was wondering if you had any final thoughts before we go ahead with this? Regards, —WFC— 18:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All the template that are used when a TFL appears on the main page have indeed been protected. The TFLs themselves become protected automatically through cascading protection. Edokter (talk) — 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Protection is unnecessary. The main page and main page/tomorrow are both cascade protected, which means that as soon as blurbs are <24 hours from hitting the main page, they will not be editable by non-admins. (Check the TFA blurbs to confirm this - they are cascade protected, but otherwise not protected at all).
Also, the blurbs themselves have been a bit wonky. The featured list should be the first link in the blurb, that link should be one of the first phrases in the blurb, and the writer should be careful not to introduce any new errors (like this one) This blurb, for example, should be rewritten so the link is at the beginning of the blurb. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the templates to be protected, as TFL is not present every day, vandals could still have their way with the templates from tuesdays to saturdays. Edokter (talk) — 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, Raul, for the advice on writing blurbs and your specific edit to improve TFL June 13. We are just beginners in this arena, and while we learn the ropes, your input and guidance is much appreciated. I'll try to write up advice such as you give above into a hints and tips section if I can find a suitable page to place it on. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost—could you please check?[edit]

Hi Raul, long-time-no-speak! Could you please check over what I've written about the FL slot on the main page? I've also asked the other guys to do so. Thanks. Tony (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean ??

We like to think we take prose, the Manual of Style, and Wikipedia's policies such as verification even more seriously than featured article candidates.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The questionable statement pointed out by Sandy not withstanding, it looks good. Raul654 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The offending sentence has been removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm still curious what it means :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It means that someone fucked up. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it means when you have a full week to scrutinize anything that hits the main page, you have the luxury of taking everything very seriously ? We don't all have that luxury -- we rely on the reviewers that show up. Anyway, it didn't seem a very gracious comment, glad it's gone :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd interpret it somewhat differently. I'd say that as the new guy on the block FL is desperate to prove itself, and what was meant was that as such they're very keen to make certain that MoS compliance and so is rigorously enforced; the rest was just the normal foot in mouth stuff. But as you say, prepping one article a week is rather an easier challenge than dealing with tens of articles. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a fair point. Although I've yet to come across a week with tens of days in it. —WFC— 01:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
So have I. Have you been drinking? Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Trial program" at WP:TFAR[edit]

The non-specific date nomination slot has now been in place for just over one year - is it now time to say that the trial is over? BencherliteTalk 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, by all means. I didn't realize it was still labeled as a trial. Raul654 (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Availability note[edit]

Mark, I'm going to be away during June 21–28. Hopefully there should be no problems, but let me if there is. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I hope I'm not stepping on toes here, but since the primary author was reluctant and the general consensus was to save Bart for a more "special" date, I switched him out. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I make it a point to defer to the author's wishes. I hadn't seen Scorpion's comment, but if I had, I would not have scheduled it. Thanks for catching that, Dabomb. And I'm also going to be traveling from the 23rd until the 26th, but I'll schedule them ahead of time. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic![edit]

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bought in for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bought in is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bought in until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bought in for deletion[edit]

You were "informed" twice of the AfD discussion? Ouch. I'm sorry.

Good luck,
I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC) (changed on 20:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Tight scheduling for TFA chosen blurbs[edit]

Raul, I don't know whether this has been a chronic problem, but the default situation for the selection of some TFAs seems to be precariously close to the time they have to be locked. This meant, for example, that the other day the community was denied direct access to the ability to edit the blurb. A 24-hour lead-time would enable proper support for the finished product, for you and the delegate. I'd previously imagined competition so intense for these spots that they'd be queued in line for a week before their MP appearance: but it's not so. Can you advise whether it's a short-staffing issue? I started a thread on the MP talk page related to this. Tony (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Tony here; scheduling far in advance would be good in other ways as well, as it would give time for people to notice if there were reasons not to run an article. ("I was saving that for his 100th birthday", "I'm about to do a total rewrite", "I'll be on vacation on that day and it's likely to prompt a lot of questions only I can answer"…) – iridescent 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Have you guys talked to Dabomb87? I had the impression he was doing much of the actual scheduling right now and that he had pledged to keep 3 or 4 days ahead. My favorite excuse (not used yet) "Can you schedule it for after the 27th when the statute of limitation runs out?"--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that Dabomb87 is away for a few more days. Don't expect anything from him until 28 June at the earliest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There must be a serious staffing/time issue: the blurbs for tomorrow onwards, for the rest of the month, are blank. Tony (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
After reading these comments, I've started an RfC here to measure support for a proposal that blurbs for the three featured-content sections on the main page be posted for community input at least 24 hours ahead of the deadline for cascade-protection. Tony (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


I'm just curious as the currently oldest still active participant, where did MOTD originate from? I've noticed in the history that you and Pstudier are really the oldest still active users from when our project began. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know. I've only edited there once. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't remember but I didn't originate it. Paul Studier (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony1's corrections[edit]

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the broad range of changes that Tony1 is introducing into blurbs, including John A. Macdonald. They go well beyond mere corrections see here, and seem to vary from TFA practice by for example, having the death year have only two digits when the century's the same. I would have no trouble with minor changes to conform with MOS (though I think we can assume a recent FA is more or less MOS-compliant). But now we have an article blurb which has significant textual differences from the article lede. There should be some deference, I think, to the principal author and/or nominator, or if Tony wants to make changes that go beyond obvious MOS issues, at least he should open dialogue with the writers/nominators. These aren't corrections, he's making judgment calls (i.e. whether or not the comparison with Mackenzie King should be in there) that I think are unwise and that really should be left to the editors who improved the article and brought it to this point, or at least to the director or his delegate. As I am about to check out of my hotel, it will probably be several hours before I can reply to any comments, but I will accept whatever you have to say about this without further complaint, but Tony1 had a month to suggest whatever changes he wanted to the blurb while it was sitting at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a real hide to completely revert my edit in one swoop, damaging the text, introducing inconsistencies, and then claiming some precious principle that text in a blurb should be the same as in a lede. They are two different genres, and the original editors of the article, if they're still around, are quite welcome to edit the blurb too. I suggest you take lessons in English, Wehwalt, before you tell me how to write. Tony (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I made two edits in four minutes, the combined diff is here. As you will note, I recognized the validity of your concern over the generic term "prime minister". The rest seem purely judgement calls, plus the variation from TFA practice I noted above. This article sat at TFA/R for almost a month and no one complained about the blurb. Where were you then? I'm not going to get into the "take lessons in English", Tony, let's stick to business.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Raul, Tony went to my latest FA C and opposed within minutes of the above. He had not reviewed oneof my noms in a year.That raises a serious conduct issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I was quite open there about the logic of my review, in which your lead failed by any standard and I had to oppose. I hope you're able to make the suggested changes in your own FA lead, which neatly parallel your objections to non-admins' participation in the blurb copy-editing process, and your unexpected principle that a blurb should depart from the lead of the associated article (whereas the blurb serves a quite different purpose to the lead). Thank you. Tony (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I've begun an AN/I thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Raul, could you please help fix this? Thanks so much. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Never mind - all settled. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm going to proceed from FA process first principles here. Wehwalt is right that the rule of thumb is that the blurb and the article text should be identical or close to it, except for:

  • Title issues - the title does not fit the lead sentence
  • Birth and death dates - If the year of birth and death are known, they should be given, with the month and day omitted; if either is unknown, both should be omitted
  • Alternative names - should be omitted
  • Honorifics - should be omitted
  • Length - if the lead is longer than the blurb should be, it has to be selectively edited

Tony - Wehwalt's concern here is two-fold: you made changes to the blurb that were not made to the article, which violates the above principle; and he believes that the changes you made were not merely cosmetic, but substantial, and that you need to work with the articles' authors (who, presumably, know the most about the topic). Now if you have an issue with the blurb-matches-the-article principle itself, I'd be happy to discuss that with you and anyone else who wants to talk about it. (I like it that way but I'm not married to the idea) But you can't unilaterally decide to ignore it. About his second concern, that some of your edits went beyond cosmetic MOS editing, looking at the diff, I think two of your changes (excising he is surpassed in tenure only by William Lyon Mackenzie King and a means of transportation and freight conveyance which helped unite Canada as one nation.) were substantial, and the rest were cosmetic. Assuming the latter were MOS complaint, I think the right thing for Wehwalt to do would have been to make those same cosmetic edits to the article itself, revert the substantial ones to the blurb, and have a discussion on the article's talk page about them. Raul654 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, about the allegations of retribution on the FAC, I see from the ANI discussion that Sandy is aware of it. I'm going to trust her judgement to evaluate the validity of that objection. 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That is a reasonable course of action, though not intuitive, I think you will grant. However, it takes a situation where raising a concern does not result in: well, I won't repeat it all. And considering the latest screed on Dabomb's talk page, it is not a comfortable situation. A reasonable course, as well, would be for TFA noms, since the vast majority are granted, to have the blurbs edited, or better, changes proposed, during the course of the nomination, perhaps on WT:TFA/R. I do have the concerns about tracking the lede in the article. And, to be honest, I would rather have the article I got to FA advertised on the main page of the world's seventh leading website with my words, not Tony's. Yes, I am human and selfish in that regard, but is that so terrible? After all, we don't get paid! I did not visit any archives or libraries on Macdonald, but I did spend well over a hundred dollars on books, and I don't think I will be able to use them again for another article, and with the second volume of Gwyn's bio out in September, that's another thirty dollars. I think the allure of that is important to at least some TFA nominators, and if there is something that would have an advanced expert in English going tsk, but be unnoticed by the general population and is not offensive to the MOS, I think we should go with the article author, one of the body of people on whom TFA relies on the supply side.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Where there's stylistic disagreement, I think it's perfectly reasonable to defer to the wishes of the article author(s), at least until it's off the main page. Raul654 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Very easy to say that, but I'd like to know exactly why my multi-word edit, which was all an impovement as far as I can see, was reverted, rather than just the matters noted in the edit-summary. Repetitions were re-introduced, and a new inconsistency. Is that what you mean by "defer to the wishes of the article author"? I don't agree unless they're reasonable. Tony (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying he was right to revert your edit in its entirety. I think many of your changes were good ("Macdonald became the first prime minister of the new nation" is a better construction than "Macdonald was designated as the first Prime Minister of the new nation") some were not (using only the last two digits of the year is definitely not the standard formatting used for the main page). Unless I'm missing something, the two sentences I described above as non-cosmetic (about William Lyon Mackenzie King having a longer tenure and explaining what the Canadian Pacific Railroad was) are not redundant with anything else in the blurb, and definitely a judgement call. (Personally, I think it helps to have a sentence explaining what the Canadian pacific railraod was; the sentence about King needn't be there but it's not exactly hurting anything either.)
But we're getting lost in the weeds here of that particular blurb. The big picture I'm getting at here is that, for almost any blurb I schedule, there is clearly room for reasonable people to disagree about what should and should not be there. When an article is about to hit the main page, it's best to err on the side the status quo and not make substantive edits until after it's off the main page. And for any edits you make, it's important that the article match the blurb (with the exceptions I noted above). Raul654 (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Why must there be this one-to-one matching? A blurb has quite a different function from a lead; it's not paragraphed, by convention, for example. And if the choice is clear in time, the article should really be given a once-over, too, don't you think? Tony (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • A blurb has quite a different function from a lead - is that really the case? I believe the FA criteria explicitly state that the lead should serve a concise summary of an article, such that it can be used in blurb form on the main page. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says basically the same thing. (The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.) The single-paragraph thing is a stylistic choice on my part. It's not meant to convey a functional difference between the two. And if the choice is clear in time, the article should really be given a once-over, too, don't you think? - I'm not really sure I follow what you are saying here. I fully support anyone who wants to tweak articles and blurbs that are about to hit the main page to fix non-substantive/style issues. Substantive content-related changes, in my opinion, should be postponed until after the article is off the main page. Raul654 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The single-para idea is very appropriate. My view is that linking should be sparser in a blurb than in an the corresponding article lead, since the links are all accessible at the article, in full context, and lower-value links can have the effect of reducing visits to the TFA. I also suspect that removing a sentence or two from a blurb often makes it crisper, and a blurb is essentially a short text, space-poor. In an article, a lead is expected to be more expansive. When the reader clicks on ...more, I believe they go back to the top of the article.

Your full support for the polishing and scrutiny of the article is gladly noted; I think it's really important, given how FAs can sometimes degrade over time, even factually (shouldn't a TFA about a modern topic, including BLPs, be updated before the TFA day, where necessary?). This is why I'm so keen that a few days be available for community input. In particular, where there seem to be no main authors available, it would be good to encourage other editors to do a quick run-through of the text. On just one matter, image use guidelines and policy have changed over the past 18 months, and many FAs could do with an audit of pic locations and size. Text-squashing is still under-recognised as a problem, because everyone assumes all readers see the dispaly as they do. I see some pretty messy image use in older FAs. Tony (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Raul, I note your "trust" in Sandy's judgment. I'm afraid you're being fooled; it appears to be part of a continuing campaign against me for writing The Signpost's "Featured content". She has damaged herself, FAC, and me by impugning my honesty, and it's not going to stop there, obviously. I now cannot review at FAC without fear that she will act in ways that are influenced by a conflict of interest. It is a most undesirable situation. Tony (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Walk the walk[edit]

[3] If you're going to accuse me of something this serious and unethical, then you should be prepared to go through with your threat to seek "consequences" for what you say has taken place. If not, I recommend that you retract your statement, or I will act on it. I'll give you 24 hours. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The RFC you wrote is full of accusations that are either false (claiming that it is a misrepresentation of a source to say two is "several") or otherwise invalid (normal editing spun in such as way as to make it seem nefarious). And I'm not the only one who has noticed:
  • "But what I see here is an attempt to spin a whole bunch of non-issues and minor complaints into a pattern of nefarious behavior that is not backed by any evidence." - Gamaliel
  • "It looks to me like a handful of editors have made a hobby of finding issue with Cirt's behavior, to the point of stretching the truth to fit a predetermined point of view." - macwhiz
  • "most of it is simply overblown" - JoshuaZ
  • "First, I find that the attacks on Cirt have been much worse than anything I can see assembled above. " - Hobit.
I will not be retracting my statement. Raul654 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I already know that you and at least four other people, disagree with the conclusions of me and other editors. What I'm still waiting for, and time is ticking, on you to back up your statement of "demonstratably false". This statement means, I assume, that you can back up your allegation with actual evidence, not opinion. You make a statement as serious as the one you made, you had better be prepared to back it up, which so far you haven't. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just that I disagree with your conclusions. It's obvious to me (and lots of other people) that your whole purpose with that RFC is to harass Cirt, and your method is to throw shit at the wall until something sticks, by trumping up ordinary editing behavior to make it seem nefarious. If you want some outright falsities in your RFC, here you go:

  1. You claim that this edit had a misleading edit summary. Cirt said "better to keep in chronological order", moved a paragraph into the correct chronological position, and deleted two others. While his edit summary did not deal with the entirety of his edit, this is common editing practice. An edit summary does not have to summarize the entire contents of an edit - hell, it's optional to begin with. Your allegation that his edit summary was misleading is false.
  2. You claim he misstated the content of a source by using the word "several" to characterize the two recipes from Everything Tastes Better with Bacon that were The Best American Recipes 2003–2004. some; an amount that is not exact but is fewer than many - Your allegation that cirt mistated the contents of that source is false.
  3. You claim that Cirt misstated the contents of a source when he wrote that The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining". As your own "evidence" (I use the term loosely) shows, the entry is entirely supportive of his summary: An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. Your claim that he misummarized this source is false.

If you are still waiting for an apology, I hope you are not holding your breath. Raul654 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I too think your comment was uncalled for. First, while this is really one of the most minor points in the RfC/U, several is defined as "more than two or three, but not [very] many" both in the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters. And by focusing on this point, a minor detail in the RfC/U, you are ignoring the substantial evidence of what User:DGG described as "outrageously promotional" editing at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Outside_view_by_DGG; as well as views on systematic NPOV violations expressed here for example and complaints from multiple editors about BLP violations and bullying. In view of the latter, I was disappointed with the ad-hominem nature of your own comment. If the statements from the RfC/U were as outlandish as you characterised them to be, they would have been unlikely to attract support from some longstanding and widely respected editors like DGG and SlimVirgin, who would clearly deserve sanction as well then for supporting them. That is absurd, and you have simply made a mistake.
Misleading edit summaries of the kind Cirt made are regularly cited in arbitrtation decisions, and are explicitly mentioned in the arbitration principles. We all get edit summaries wrong sometimes, and this may have been an innocent oversight, but deleting four paragraphs of unflattering information from a clearly promotional article about a company, written at the personal request of someone professionally associated with that company, with an edit summary of "better to keep in chronological order" raises a justifiable eyebrow and is part of the overall promotional pattern that some editors perceive in Cirt's editing.
To claim that Cirt did not misrepresent Partridge is not a view I can support, nor is it supported by editors generally who have worked on that article. The source said,

As we drew from written sources, we were also mindful of the possibility of hoax or intentional coinings without widespread usage. An example of a hoax is the 15th November, 1992, article in the New York Times on the grunge youth movement in Seattle. The article included a sidebar on the 'Lexicon of Grunge'. The lexicon had an authentic ring, but turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by a record company employee in Seattle. An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.

Cirt's summary said, "The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining", and he placed that summary both in the lead and body of the article. This wording misled editors (including myself at first) into thinking the term was listed in the dictionary, a 2,000-page tome and standard work in this field, when it was not, and it was a key consideration in the voluminous discussions as to whether the article should be named after the word, or after Dan Savage's campaign to create such a word. I hope that you might familiarise yourself with the evidence in the RfC/U, as well as other editors' views expressed to date at the RfC/U page, and then perhaps reconsider your rash comment. It was not a fair assessment, nor one I believe actually based on a proper review of the evidence. Regards, --JN466 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"I too think your comment was uncalled for." - Funny enough, I feel exactly the same way about your RFC.

"First, while this is really one of the most minor points in the RfC/U, several is defined as "more than two or three, but not [very] many" both in the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters" - the fact that any dictionaries support Cirt's edit means that your allegations of mis-summarizing are false.

"If the statements from the RfC/U were as outlandish as you characterised them to be, they would have been unlikely to attract support from some longstanding and widely respected editors like DGG and SlimVirgin, who would clearly deserve sanction as well then for supporting them. That is absurd, and you have simply made a mistake." - I'm not going to fall into the trap of defending every one of Cirt's tens of thousands of edits from the level of pedantic criticism expressed in that RFC. But I do think Gamaliel said it best when he said "If creating an article on some obscure restaurant is a crime, we're all guilty. Even Jimbo, whose complaint in the AFD is cited above, has done it. Remember the Mzoli's Meats controversy? Plenty of people in the AFD thought that Cirt's article was sufficiently sourced and notable. Are they secretly promoting anti-Scientology too?" You are dredging up common editing behavior and trying to spin it to make it look like Cirt was up to no good.

"Misleading edit summaries of the kind Cirt made are regularly cited in arbitrtation decisions, and are explicitly mentioned in the arbitration principles. " - saying his edit summary is misleading does not make it so. The arbitration principles refer to summaries that are actually misleading, like saying you are doing X and instead doing Y. Cirt's edit summary said he was doing X, and he did X and Y. An incomplete edit summary (including a blank one) and a misleading one are not the same thing. Or, to put it another way, by your logic a blank edit summary is a misleading one. I've never seen the arbcom or anyone else ever make that claim. What he did was not ideal, but your allegation against him is (still) false.

"This wording misled editors (including myself at first) into thinking the term was listed in the dictionary, a 2,000-page tome and standard work in this field, when it was not" - His edit was 100% supported by the citation. He said the dictionary said it's an example of coined usage, and did not claim that it had its own entry. And I see nothing in the full citation to make that any less true. If you assumed from his edit that santorum had its own entry, you should have checked the dictionary yourself, or at least asked him that directly. It sounds to me like you are blaming him for your own faulty assumption.

"I hope that you might familiarise yourself with the evidence in the RfC/U" - I've seen the evidence. I'm unconvinced by it. So are most of the people who have seen it. Perhaps in the future you should concentrate on one or two or a small number of actual bad behaviors, supported by convincing evidence, instead of producing a laundry list of allegations and a mountain of mostly harmless diffs.

"and then perhaps reconsider your rash comment. It was not a fair assessment, nor one I believe actually based on a proper review of the evidence." - I'm not saying Cirt is a model editor. And since I'm not about to rebut every one of the many allegations thrown at him, I'll even concede that some of them are could be true. But the fact remains that a large number of the allegations in the RFC are without merit - some are plainly factually wrong, and many are accusations of what is otherwise normal editing behavior. When the allegations are looked at in detail, one is left with a distinct feeling of 'where's the beef?' And this dumping of harmless diffs is a recurring pattern where Cla is concerned (For see this RFC thread and this comment from RA regarding Cla from 2008) So thank you for your invitation to retract my comment, but I will let it stand precisely as is. Raul654 (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am mystified. Dictionaries do not support Cirt's edit, as they are in universal agreement that several is defined as more than two or three. These are from the top of Google: [4][5][6][7][8] I concede that this is not a major point, and indeed a silly one to argue about, but I find your bending over backwards to argue that "several" means "two", in support of Cirt and against all major dictionaries, strange and indeed troubling.
In response to the problems highlighted in the RfC, over a dozen editors to date have supported DGG's view that Cirt should be stripped of OTRS access and, ideally autopatrolled status. That you want to sanction Cla68 and me for bringing that RfC in light of that response is truly bizarre, all the more so as the RfC in part concerns use of of the main page for political advocacy. Regards, --JN466 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is indeed an utter waste of time on your part. Unaccountably, you missed Consisting of a number more than one but not very many; diverse [9]. Isn't that weird, that you would only manage to turn up defs that happened to support your opinion? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC) [Update: note that what I said was correct at the time. Subsequently the partisan AHC has restored the <cough> correct defn [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)]
(e.c.) Cla68 and Jayen, I find Raul's opinion balanced and rooted in solid evidence (of lack thereof). I will, by the way, be writing a brief statement there critical of Cirt's naive behaviour and failure to understand a few basic things, in case you think I'm coming from a biased perspective. Yes, you don't have to be paid by an external agent to commit a breach. But more AGF about his future intentions at this stage would be welcome. This spiralling witch-hunt has consumed too much of your valuable time. Why not drop it and keep a watch on him? Tony (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me if I consider the OED, Webster's, Longman and Collins more authoritative sources than Wiktionary. The links I gave are all the pertinent ones from the first page of a Google search for several dictionary. I will grant you that the Shorter OED says, "2b: In legal use: more than one ... 4: As a vague numeral: Of an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three; more than two or three but not very many", but bacon recipes hardly qualify as "legal use". Sorry this wasn't a more agreeable conversation; I'll leave it at that. --JN466 17:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly agree about Wiktionary. But I'm uneasy that this is occupying so much time and space, when Cirt himself seems to have accepted that he's been very unwise in the past and has withdrawn from problematic areas. Tony (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is one of the aspects of the RfC/U that I find most puzzling. Cirt has already said he is taking corrective action. What, then, is the RfC/U supposed to achieve? It has predictably degenerated into a re-run of the Santorum fight (not surprising as JN466 advertised the RfC/U prominently on the Santorum talk page) and is proving nothing more than an exercise in mud-slinging and partisan sniping. I read somewhere that JN466 has been pursuing this for two and a half years on and off Wikipedia. It is hard to avoid the impression that the RfC/U is being used to lay the groundwork for an arbitration case and that the ultimate objective is to get rid of Cirt altogether. Prioryman (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be my impression as well, Prioryman. I've tried to stay away from this mess but it appears that the time has come to take exception to this RfC/U. At one point Cla wanted to create an "Cirt's enablers" list, but was forced to drop that tactic. Most decent people avoid unpleasant ones, and what with the wikihounding and forum shopping we have seen, the goal appears to be to discourage a prolific content creator who is shown more than willing to work with his detractors. Whatever Cirt does, it is never enough for them. Jusdafax 05:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not surprised at this; like I said above, I always thought the RfC/U was a pretext to fit Cirt up for an arbitration case. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cla - I have responded to your RFAR comment with one of my own. Raul654 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Raul, on further consideration I'd like to commend you for showing Cla68 for what he is... a Wiki-bully who in my view is badly in need of strong corrective action by the community. Though it appears his 24-hour ultimatum was an empty threat, should he issue any further threats or actual actions against you for speaking out about the ongoing Wiki-hounding of Cirt, I for one would appreciate a notice on my talkpage, since my watchlist is busy and I sometimes miss things. Thanks! Jusdafax 06:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Jusdafax, it wasn't an empty threat. I don't mind when someone disagrees with me, but when someone calls me a liar, I remember it. Please feel free to put my user talk page on your watchlist, and I've noted that you have called me a bully for taking exception to being called a liar. I will also post this response to your talkpage to make sure you receive it. Cla68 (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The 24 hours is long past, and you have not acted, so your actions, which you admit are a threat, appear to me to be empty. Feel free to "note" any comment of mine that you want (which smacks of your attempt to foment a 'Cirt's enablers' list at his recent Rfc/U), and your wording and posting on my personal page ("to make sure I receive it") are noted in turn. My question is, if you object to your self-described threatening actions being called those of a bully, what else would you call them? Collegial? I'll take any reply from you on this thread, and hereby request that you stay off my page permanently, as I find your manner and tactics offputting at best. Jusdafax 08:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Justdafax, that on occasion Cla68 is a bully. Regarding the liar accusation, I have witnessed Cla68 lying to ArbCom about me while bullying me. He blatantly lied to ArbCom in an attempt to try to get ArbCom to apply sanctions against me. [11] Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
My reading of WP:BATTLE is that Cla68 is clearly, here and elsewhere, in violation of said wikipedia policy and has pushed his luck with it. Also worthy of contemplation is that Cla fails to respond to Raul's detailed refutations, above, of why Cla started this dramatic "Walk the Walk" '24-hour warning' thread; instead we are treated to what appears to be a show of WP:TAGTEAM all of which, as I see it, is in the service ongoing violations of WP:HOUND against Cirt and now anyone who dares to speak up for him. My question: how much more of this will the rank-and-file community and admins allow? Jusdafax 17:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate thread[edit]

I just wanted to note, Raul, that the "designated as" language in the Macdonald lede and blurb was a deliberate word choice, meant to remind the reader that someone had to make Macdonald prime minister, that is, the governor general, in this case, Lord Monck. "became" might be superior grammatically, but I felt that and similar usages were not as nuanced. I felt it especially important in this case as Macdonald was not premier on 30 June 1867, the day before Confederation, Belleau was. I felt it was a good way of hinting to the reader that fact, which given the fact that Macdonald was prime minister for 19 of the following 23 years, might otherwise be lost. It's not a big deal either way, but I suspect that a lot of word choices could be lost that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but the word is clunky and unexplained at the opening. Passive voice raises the question of who designated him. Many Americans, for example, won't understand the business of governor-generals. The blurb (and the article opening) would be better to avoid this, since presumably the issue will be explained in the body of the article. Tony (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but as I have some experience in article writing and what to tell the reader then, I think I am content to do it my way. The reason I mentioned this is that Raul mentioned it specifically. All the more reason why copyedits of blurb without consultation with principal editors before TFA day is a bad idea, if you do not know the material, nuance can be lost. And by the way, it is governor general in Canada, not governor-general as in Australia, as I gather you consider the natural usage?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No, you are breaking a basic policy of the site: no WP:OWNERSHIP. You have been behaving in a very aggressive way about the blurb and the article. Truth is, you don't own diddly-squat of either. Stop acting as though it's yours, and read the details below the edit-box, which you by default agree to. Enough of this. When the blurb comes up again, I'll be back to edit it. We can talk about it then. Tony (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If you think there should be a change, please bring it up on the article talk page, where it will attract the attention of our Canadian editors. As substantive changes to the blurb must bring with them parallel changes to the lede, you will need to build some consensus. This is not that forum.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Raul, please feel free to run any of the articles of which I am principal author at your discretion. We'll see how it goes, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'll be along to copy-edit the blurb, thanks. Tony (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Consulting with the principal editor on substantive matters, and making parallel changes to the lede, with no substantive change if consensus cannot be accomplshed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You are not the owner of the article. Please read the text the edit box, and note WP:OWNERSHIP. You are perfectly welcome to discuss changes that are made, at the article talk page or, if concerning the TFA blurb, on user talk pages. Your aggressive behaviour last time was unacceptable. Tony (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am simply repeating what Raul told you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Raul can say what he likes, but he needs consensus, and there is none for your aggressive ownership. Looks like there will be another fight coming up. Tony (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Raul is the featured article director, confirmed by the community. If you wish to override him, I"m not quite sure how you do it, but certainly community consensus is involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If I wish to override him? Don't twist the truth to try to bully me. Read what I wrote again: it stands. Now, if you persist with this aggressive ownership, I'll be pushing for FAC to be closed down or radically overhauled, to stop editors such as you from breaching the pillars. I've wasted enough time today, so don't expect anything more. Tony (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not think you would be able to get FAC closed down. Have a nice day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No, but its reputation is at stake. Please see my suggestion for a happy medium, at a similar thread at WT:FAC. Tony (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you give me a link or tell me what section it is in? That page is now quite long and I'd like there to be no misunderstandings. I am anxious to make peace with you, Tony, but we both have to give some for that to be possible. I am interested in seeing what you have to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, I am packing up to get ready for several days of archival research. More coins, though I think you slight RHM22 when you say I own the field. RHM22 has, I believe, six or seven FAs on numismatics.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure Raul is bored of this: I've left the link on your talk page. Tony (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that Raul would take boredom for the sake of peace between us. I dislike conflict and I think you will find me reasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of TeleZapper[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article TeleZapper has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced product article with no indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dialectric (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks for creating the whole WikiMovie series! Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Out-of-turn TFA scheduling[edit]

User: TheLoverofLove scheduled Super Smash Bros. Melee for July 30 without asking permission or going through the normal TFA/requests process. Thought it would be worth letting you know about it; the diff is here: [12] Difluoroethene (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian Archives of American Art Backstage Pass[edit]

Archives of American Art Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
Collections Storage Archives of American Art.jpg
The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art in, Washington, D.C., on Friday, July 29. 10 Wikimedians will experience the behind the scenes aspects of archiving the world's largest collection of documents and photographs related to American art. After a complimentary lunch, an edit-a-thon will take place and prizes will be awarded. Followed by an evening happy hour. We hope you'll participate! SarahStierch (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup[edit]

Blaise Pascal[edit]

Do you agree that an FA with plagiarism in it should be stripped of FA immediately? There're some concerns over that in the FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

One paragraph please...[edit]

It's interesting that you removed the paragraph break in TFA. When I did the same several hours ago, I got two comments that this was intentional. I mean, it did seem to persist for awhile without you noticing. -- tariqabjotu 18:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless my memory is failing me badly, I don't believe I ever approved a one paragraph blurb. (I've been inactive for a week because of a funeral and then work) Raul654 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I scheduled the TFA on July 14 with no paragraph break. TCO's notion of the "director's approval" of the paragraph break probably refers to the fact that when he put in a break the next day, I didn't revert him (I hadn't noticed the change) and took it to mean that I endorsed the change. Anyway, I'm glad to see it's been resolved, and thanks for explaining your reasoning to him, because TBH I wasn't quite sure why we always stuck to one paragraph either. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think TCO point was that it went it WP:TFAR with a para-break. Anyway, what is the reason to remove paragraph breaks? Why is blurb different then a lead? Could it be that blurb has been an issue all along? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter[edit]

The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Pre-emptive semi-protection of a featured list on the main page?[edit]

Hi Raul, given your experience of running sensitive subjects as TFA, you may have a view on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Semi-protection of hepatitis C list, regarding the next scheduled TFL. Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for changing the text at the bottom of TFA[edit]

Talk:Main_Page#Adding_the_FA.2FGA_count Tony (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup, July 29[edit]

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
Flag of Washington, D.C. icon.svg
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cal Thomas[edit]

Hi Raul - could you please pop in your source for this edit when you have a chance? I tried to find one to add in but came up empty handed. It will likely be easier for you to provide it than for me to continue to plumb the depths of newspaper reports and websites trying to find it. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is Cal Thomas himself, via Behind the Breaks, via Lawrence O'Donnell. See this (1:15 in). Raul654 (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, I'll add that in. Thanks! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DC-area Meetup, Saturday, August 6[edit]

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
US-NARA-Seal.svg On Saturday, August 6, the National Archives is hosting a Wikipedia meetup, backstage pass tour, and edit-a-thon in College Park, Maryland. Meet staff and fellow Wikipedians, go behind the scenes at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Dominic·t 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Foundation and earth cover.jpg[edit]


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


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Good life cover.jpg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to increase the maximum number of nominations at WP:TFAR from 5 to 10[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Question: What is the reasoning behind the five article limit? - as the page is for your benefit primarily, you may have a view. BencherliteTalk 11:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure it matters too much either way, however I'm concerned about being rushed into this without considering the implications.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

J.C.W. Beckham main page appearance[edit]

I just received a note on my talk page today that J.C.W. Beckham will appear as TFA on September 1. While I always find it rewarding to have my work featured as TFA, I really don't want this article's appearance to hurt my chances of getting Governor of Kentucky as TFA on November 8 (the day of the gubernatorial election in Kentucky). I announced my intent to nominate Governor of Kentucky at the pending requests page as soon as it was eligible to go there. Right now, it should get 3 points, according to User:Wehwalt. If another similar article doesn't appear as TFA between August 8 and November 8, it would get another point. Beckham is definitely similar, as he was the governor of Kentucky. If you think Governor of Kentucky could survive for November 8 with 3 points, go ahead and run Beckham on Thursday. If not, I'd like to request that you schedule another article for Thursday to give Governor of Kentucky the best shot of running on election day. Thanks! Acdixon (talk contribs count) 13:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Acdixon, I was the one who scheduled Beckham. Don't worry too much; I have no problem with scheduling Governor of Kentucky in November after slotting in Beckham for September 1. Considering that WP:TFAR is perenially underused, with the three points, that article should have no problem staying on the requests page. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
If you still don't want Beckham to run though, I don't mind switching him out. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
No, as long as you and Raul are aware of my intent to nominate Governor of Kentucky for election day and don't see a major problem with that, go ahead and run Beckham. Since I usually do articles about long-dead folks, I rarely get a chance to request an article for TFA that has a date connection that modern folks would know or care about. Thanks for noticing the article and considering it main-page worthy. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

September 11 TFA[edit]

Raul, I've scheduled TFAs through September 10, and I'll leave it up to you to decide what goes up for 9/11. Best, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Great. I think I'm going to go with one of the flights. Raul654 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Both of the American flights need some work; I did point that out in the discussion but nothing seems to be done. Just uncited statements and whatnot, if you requested it I'm sure it would be done quickly (I prefer not to work on 9/11 articles before I'm urged to fix it, for a number of personal reasons).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why does it have to be USA limited. Chile abnd Ganesh Chaturthi (this year) are on the same day too. dont have to pander to stereotypesLihaas (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well Ganesh Chaturthi isn't a featured article, so unless you are going to make it one in a real hurry, it's not an option for this year. As for Chile, isn't that a country, not an event? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anybody But Bush[edit]

I know you created this redirect in good faith, but it serves no purpose to do anything other than offend Bush. There is no need for a redirect; it is not something that many people will likely look up. JDDJS (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi Raul

Sorry for troubling you - I found you listed at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Video as a potential helper. I took a little bit of video on my phone at a gig on Saturday which I'd like to potentially upload to the artist's page, but I don't have a clue how to convert it to the format acceptable for WP. Do I need to buy/download special software to do it? Any advice you can offer will be very gratefully received :-)

All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, hope you don't mind if a talk page stalker weighs in. This page on Commons may be of help to you. However, I am concerned by your description of what you want to upload, as someone who's done concert photography while dodging crowd surfers and security guards. If your video depicts the artist performing a copyrighted work, i.e. a song, it's a derivative work and would have to meet WP:NFCC and I'm dubious if you could meet the ten criteria. If, on the other hand, you are depicting the artist interacting with the crowd between songs, that would probably be OK, although there are a couple of potential mines you could still step on.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, fair enough, didn't realise that, I'll leave it then -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Watch out for systemic bias in the featured article[edit]

Just an observation that in the last 3 months you've had only 11 main page articles involving subjects from non-dominant countries, and none from English speaking countries outside US, Europe, Australia and NZ. The only person from those countries featured in that time was Hòa thượng Thích Quảng Đức on June 15. That's a fair while ago. Mdw0 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are there large numbers of eligible articles in those subjects available, or is Raul doing the best he can with materials to hand?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Therein lies the issue of systemic bias. It is not enough to say there are more featured articles from the core countries, because systemic bias promotes those areas at the expense of others. Countering systemic bias involves a degree of positive discrimination favouring articles from those other places. Mdw0 (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR on Encyclopædia Britannica[edit]

I have started a FAR on Encyclopædia Britannica, but User:Nikkimaria has reversed this. My nomination is because the article text fails criteria 2c, because of inadequate in-line referencing of the prose and also no referencing in the table. There has been a {{Out of date|section|date=August 2010}} template on the article on a poorly referenced section for about one year, and so editors have had plenty of notice to revise the article already, and I feel that discussion on the talk page about a FAR is only going to delay improvements unduly. The "Out of date" template invites users to make improvements by saying; "Please help improve the article by updating it." I think that notification with this maintenance template that has been on the page for more that a year is adequate notification. I am also not happy about the Encyclopædia Britannica article, because there are some inconsistencies with the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica article. I would like to get the FAR going as soon as possible. My impression is that User Nikkimaria is not being as helpful as he could be. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The best way to "get the FAR going as soon as possible" is to follow the instructions at FAR, which include posting a note on article talk. The Wikipedia will not be damaged by allowing a few more days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The article was mentioned on Today (BBC Radio 4) (national radio in the UK) this morning and it got some criticisms; see web cast at about 6.15 to 6.30 am - 15 to 30 mins from the start of the program (available for a few more days). I feel that some damage to the Wikipedia has already been done. Why did a FA have a maintenance template for about one year? Snowman (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Because nobody dealt with it, so why don't you? There's a damn sight too much of this slapping on a tag and running going on here, but then it's easier than actually doing anything worthwhile I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Pointing out a problem is doing something worthwhile. I do not monitor FA articles systematically. Before today, I do not recall seeing this article during the year while the maintenance template was present. Actually, I have made what I think are some improvements to the article. However, I do not want to spend a lot of time on this article, because I am happier editing other sorts of Wiki pages. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no point at all in slapping maintenance tags on an article as they are almost universally ignored. Where FAs are concerned the proper course of action is to raise the issue on the article talk page, and if it's sufficiently serious (I haven't looked at the EB article) then an FAR may be in order if it's not satisfactorily dealt with. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
@Snowman - There is also the consideration that over 30 percent of featured articles have maintenance tags/banners of some sort on them, some of them in place since 2008. Since it's impractical to consider over 1,000 articles at imminent risk for being taken to FAR, we have the talk page notification system in place to warn editors that a FAR is being considered. This requirement (for a talk page notification) has been in place for a year, and appears to be working quite well. I have personally dropped notes on several articles that appeared to have been abandoned, only to have surprising results when editors appeared out of the woodwork to complete cleanup work. Other times, nothing happens. However, we would prefer that articles retain FA status, while remaining at FA quality, and if we can attain that result without the process of a full FAR, so much the better. Dana boomer (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that editors could have got the impression that maintenance tags have no urgency for article enhancements as a FAR is not threatened, because this new rule that a FAR must start with a discussion on the talk page of the article. I think that it is likely that maintenance tags on FAs will continue to stack up in their thousands. I think that a maintenance tag gives adequate notice of a problem on a article, and I think that a maintenance tag being on the page for a few months should provoke a FAR without the additional need to start a discussion on the talk page. Clearly, that there are currently thousands of maintenance tags on FAs is a failure of the quality maintenance of FAs. Snowman (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just caught up with this 30% business-- most of those are dead external links. That happens, and doesn't necessarily mean integrity is affected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Slap and run seems to be the usual. I discovered a cn in Khrushchev apparently from someone who didn't realize that it's OK to cite at the end of a paragraph for its contents.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, a maintenance tag is a nifty gadget some editors use in articles when they don't understand what they're doing. It seems to be an end run around the "collaborative" part of the encyclopedia. Editors simultaneously use it to complain about something in an article, like POV, that they don't quite understand, and as announcement that the editor(s) who wrote the article that it needs to be fixed. What this does is place the burden of solving the template or tag solely on the editor(s) who wrote the article. If you don't invest yourself in attempting to resolve the issues you perceive to be in the article, you just leave the editor(s) who wrote the article to either assume you have no idea what you're talking about or guess. Guessing is a form of original research. Collaborate. Discuss what you think needs to be fixed. If the editor(s) who wrote the article disagree with you, access the sources. Learn more about the source material and how the article was constructed. In my experience and opinion, drive-by taggers and templaters are simply unwilling to do any of this work. They see themselves as proactive in using a template. If they aren't willing to do a fraction of the work involved in writing the article, I see them as lazy. This also promotes article ownership when the editor(s) who wrote the article are the only ones who have read the sources. Why should they listen to you and treat the template seriously when you insist on doing as little work as possible? Also, please see this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand and agree with the general points being raised by Moni and Malleus (I once cleaned up that article a bit, it's not that hard), but disagree that there is never good reason for maintenance tags. Two examples: I have worked extensively on a suite of articles on Wikipedia that are "owned" and protected by advocates, and the best I can do on any of those articles is add maintenance tags, knowing that the article owners outnumber me and won't NPOV the articles. And, I have worked on boatloads of medical articles that are often egregiously and dangerously wrong, but since I don't have access to full text of medical journal articles, I can't always fix them (and even if I did have access, it wouldn't be physically possible for me to correct all of them). In both of these cases, the maintenance tags serve to alert our readers that the articles contain very bad, even dangerously bad, information (and many medical editors have long felt that medical articles should have an equivalent of our BLP policy). At any rate, that (dangerous medical misinfo or alarming POV and advocacy) is not the situation for this particular FA, which is where I'm in violent agreement with others opining here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Who said there's never a good reason to place tags or templates on articles? I've done it myself, but always with a note on the talk page asking what's up. I can't say what Malleus' point is, but mine certainly was that if you tag or template an article, you should be prepared to discuss the article's deficiencies, and at least be willing to assist in resolving the problems prompting the tags and templates. --Moni3 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that some people have presented a bigoted stereotype of editors who add maintenance tags to articles. Some people do a lot of editing within there own sphere of interest or knowledge and editing outside of this sphere would be outside of their comfort zone and could be a distraction from their usual contributions to the Wiki. I think that quite often editors add maintenance tags knowing that they will not be able to contribute easily and fluently to an article outside of there sphere of interest often preferring to make contributions in a particular science or subject area based on many years of experience of work, study, or perhaps a hobby. I reiterate that I think that the presence of thousands of maintenance tags on FAs indicates that the systems on the Wiki to maintain the quality of FAs has failed. I feel that editors should be able to start a FAR on any FA containing long standing maintenance tags without having to discuses it on the articles talk page, because the maintenance tags provide a very visual signal that a article has a problem and many maintenance tags are specific. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok fella, you just spun right beyond the sphere of sense with your "bigoted stereotype" and this is why: I edit articles about actual bigots and stereotypes: Lesbian, Emmett Till, Rosewood massacre, Save Our Children, Harvey Milk, and Stonewall riots, among others. Very frequently someone will come along with no experience in constructing any article and put a template on it, like POV. Some months ago I had a baffling 3-week discussion at the talk page of the Lesbian article to remove a sentence in the lead that was very clearly supported by at least 14 cited sources and no one involved could understand why I was arguing for keeping the sentence in. As if everyone involved had never heard of reliable sources and original research. Because, I surmise, they hadn't. Neither had they actually read the article, much less the sources. My most recent experience was someone placing a POV template at Roy Orbison because s/he completely misunderstood what neutrality means. S/he thought it meant never expressing strong language, like "astonishing" or "desolate", even if the sources had clearly made a point that was adequately summarized by these words. A couple years ago, I watched some angry editor consistently place a template at E.O. Green School shooting. Not because the article was deficient, but because the editor disliked the topic. This is so prevalent that in the past year, maybe twice has someone actually made a valid point with a template or tag in an article I watch. I think this has been explained well enough by people involved in FAs. If you wish to push for FARs with no discussions when the instructions say you need to start a discussion to resolve issues in the article, your FARs are going to be rejected. But do as you wish I guess. Everyone else does. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel that their is no need for me to reply. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent) @Snowman - If that is how you feel, then you should start a discussion at the FAR talk page with a proposal. The requirement for talk page notification was put into place through community consensus and discussion, and it will not be removed because of the disagreement of one editor. If you can find a community consensus that supports your view, then so be it - Nikki and I are only following the wishes of the community in this matter, and so it is not up to us to unilaterally (or bilaterally in this case) allow one editor to change the rules. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I might start a discussion on the FAR talk page, and I realise that the policy would require a consensus to change it. This is User Raul654's talk page. I understand that he is the FAR project leader, and I am initially hoping that he will comment indicating his opinion. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting[edit]

DC Meetup 23 & Annual Membership Meeting

Wikimedia District of Columbia, the newest officially recognized chapter, is holding its Annual Membership Meeting at 1pm on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library.

Wikimedia DC.svg

Agenda items include:

  • election of the Board of Directors for the next two years
  • approval of a budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year
  • report on the activities and accomplishments of the past year
  • social gathering afterwards at a nearby restaurant

Candidate nominations are open until 11:59pm EDT on Saturday, September 24. We encourage you to consider being a candidate. (see see candidate instructions)

The meeting is open to both the general public and members from within the DC-MD-VA-WV-DE region and beyond. We encourage everyone to attend!

You may join the chapter at the meeting or online.

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Orphaned non-free image File:University of Delaware coat of arms.svg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Mordechai Vanunu head.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mordechai Vanunu head.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. damiens.rf 15:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Yom Kippur War[edit]

I have nominated Yom Kippur War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are receiving this message because you have been identified as one of the top five editors of the article based on edit counts. Brad (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

DC-area Meetup, Saturday, October 8[edit]

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
US-NARA-Seal.svg You are invited to the National Archives in College Park for a special backstage pass and scanathon meetup with Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, on Saturday, October 8. Go behind the scenes and into the stacks at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Free catered lunch provided! Dominic·t 16:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)[edit]

Hi there, my request to have the human centipede on the main page was met with overwhelming opposition to which I have no argument with, to be honest I expected that sort of response. However, out of interest, would the article be finding it's way onto the banned list? Or would it be ok to nominate it again at some more appropriate time in the future? Eg ten year anniversary or something similar. I'm just curious and would like to know now so I don't waste anyone's time should that time come. cya Coolug (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll quickly break down the objections to using the article on the main page and my response to them:
  • It's too graphic/outrageous - I watched the South Park parody of this film and that was gross. I read Cliftonian's description of the sequel. That was really gross, and would certainly give me pause about putting Human Centipede II on the main page, if it should ever become an FA. By comparison, this movie almost seems tame. I don't see this one as being in a different ballpark than previous films that we've run, like Cannibal Holocaust and Halloween.
  • It could damage the project - I find this complaint to be lacking in perspective. We've featured outrageous stuff on the main page before and the sky didn't come crashing down, nor did Nazis once again ride on dinosaurs. Cannibal Holocaust didn't cause a peep, and Gropecunt Lane was one of the most viewed FAs ever. If past experience is any guide, it's the banal articles (like Bulbasaur or Grace Sherwood) which always seem to cause the most problems.
  • It's a commercial product and we'd be giving them free advertising - This argument has been invoked since time immemorial and maybe I'm missing something, but I've never found it especially compelling. (If advertising is raising of awareness of a commercial product, and if Wikipedia's mission is raising awareness of all manner of subjects, then advertising is part of our mission.) Is someone out there going to conclude, based on seeing this article on the main page, that we're paid shills for the horror movie industry?

On a couple of related notes, if we're going to use it at all, I like Andrzejbanas's suggestion that we use it for Halloween. And the suggested picture is terrible. A better one should be located or none used at all. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for this detailed response. I might see what I can do about that Halloween idea.... cya Coolug (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page[edit]

Hi Raul,

Another editor referred to your having made a list of "banned articles", which you would block from appearing on the main page. Would you please

  1. make such a list public, or
  2. refer to the principles guiding such a list, or
  3. respond to the user essay "Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page"?

A response to 1-2 of these would be quite informative, and a response to all 3 would be more than I expect.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I've stirred up a bit of trouble; sorry Raul. Kiefer, as far as I know, the only article on the unofficial, informal list is Jenna Jameson. It's been this way for years, and there's absolutely no need to raise a huge ruckus about it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
A ruckus? Moi? My middle name is sotto voce .... (I do share Lenny Bruce's confusion about why Jenna Jameson would be banned but The Human Centipede welcomed.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed is correct that Jenna Jameson is the only FA I wouldn't put on the main page, and even that isn't quite written in stone. The criteria by which I make this decision is entirely subjective, based on which articles I think are going to cause an unacceptably large 'fallout' for myself/the other admins/Wikipedia. I also prefer to avoid speculating on hypotheticals beacuse such discussions tend to generate far more heat than light.

To address your specific question of why the Mrs. Jameson is worse than the human centipede, sexuality is more of a taboo subject than violence/horror - particularly in the case of someone who makes a living having sex - which means Jameson is going to cause more outrage. Admittedly, this judgement is subject and open to debate, but that's how I see it.

As for the Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page essay, I agree with the principle expressed there that the main page isn't the same as the rest of the encyclopedia. The main page is akin to the showcase in front of the book store, where we can exercise a difference standard of judgement in what to put there compared to the rest of Wikipedia. (The notability of a topic is the criteria for inclusion on the rest of Wikipedia, but I think the decision whether or not to put it on the main page involves more than that) That being said, however, that essay isn't particularly useful because it avoids says what that standard should be. Raul654 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raul!
Thanks very much for your personal reply. I agree with almost all of your comments, apart from the previously mentioned Jameson/Centipide preference.
Previously I (and others) had opposed a DYK mentioning Sexy Cora's (1) failure to set a record for most blow jobs in a day or (2) dying in surgery her 6 or 8th breast enlargement. Jameson at least has written a book which has sold very well, which makes me think that her appearance should not cause too many headaches.
I admire your work at FA.
Sincerely and with best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Gropecunt Lane strikes me as more likely to generate controversy, which it did to a remarkably small extent. —David Levy 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Scotland and especially Glascow have defused much of the exposive power of the c-word. Americans make allowances for the speech acts of the British Isles.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We do? That's news to me!  ;) —David Levy 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Hi Raul, I hope you're well. My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. Please let me know by emailing mroth (at) Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 17:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Yes, congrats on ACF - I see you have been doing work on Stanford too! I was planning to get back to that next. Amazing how many articles there still are to be written. Good job! Jokestress (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

rename my user name[edit]

i would like you to chnge my username from shivangikohli1 to maddy123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivangikohli1 (talkcontribs) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that account name is already taken. You'll have to file a usurpation request. Raul654 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

speedy deletion[edit]

please look into this article for speedy deletion .. Eshan Sharma . I found it irrelevant and not suitable for Wikipedia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FAR request[edit]

Hi Raul - We're going to need your help in closing Wikipedia:Featured article review/League of Nations/archive2. Nikki and I have both been significantly involved in it, so can't close. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Raul's Razor[edit]

Just read your laws, and love them. Raul's Razor is especially great. Thanks! -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


It's over when we say it's over! I just bluelinked a few on the new list. If that's finalized parsing, I can spin through and fix the ones requiring fixes. Pokeback! Jokestress (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22[edit]

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello. I have started a discussion, and would value a comment by you as you are both concerned with Featured articles on the main page and a programmer. I would like to now if it would be possible to implement a method for having the day's featured article automatically become watchlisted for me everyday, and the previous days featured article automatically become delisted. I am bringing this up for discussion since I realize I will not actually bother watchlisting and delisting a new article everyday, but since I already refresh my watchlist frequently if it was already watchlisted I would be likely to monitor it, and I believe other editors are in a similar state. Thanks AerobicFox (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll[edit]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Eakins's The Translator G-364[edit]

Please take a look at The Translator on Wikimedia Commons: One of the images is reversed, and I think it is the color one. Thanks. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's reproduced in Goodrich (1933, plate 59). He should be facing left. Raul654 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Raul654! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


Hurricanehink has prepared a blurb that was originally meant for November 1, but since you've put that dinosaur alligator on that date, you might want to put it on November 2, the date of landfall in Nova Scotia of the storm (blurb) below.


HurricaneFan25 17:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

10/31 TFA[edit]

If schools see "The Human Centipede" as a front-page "can't avoid looking at it," Featured Article they will block Wikipedia. Imagine yourself as an elementary school principal and you saw 5th graders looking at the front page of Wikipedia with "The Human Centipede," as the FA. What do you do next? Abe Froman (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Having worked in education for some years I would imagine blocking wikipedia wouldn't prove very popular with teaching staff who are often completely reliant on wikipedia to plan their lessons, so I severely doubt this would ever happen :) Coolug (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Abe, please provide a citation demonstrating that after Gropecunt Lane featured on Wikipedia's main page, some schools blocked access to Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 08:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Count me in with Coolhug's comment above - I find your assertion that they will block Wikipedia to be highly dubious.
Imagine yourself as an elementary school principal and you saw 5th graders looking at the front page of Wikipedia with "The Human Centipede," as the FA. What do you do next? - Maybe I'd realize how futile it is to try to censor the internet from middle schoolers who know there are things on the internet that adults don't want them to see? Raul654 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
1 out of 6 schools in Australia already block Wikipedia [21], a stat I believe probably holds true in other English speaking countries. This TFA isn't going to convince anyone to unblock us, quite the opposite.
It's obvious that the editors on the Front Page believe that occasional outrageous articles have educational goals worthy of subverting the least-astonishment principle in placement set by the Wikimedia foundation, so I defer to their judgement. I canceled my recurring donation to because I won't fund practical jokes on casual visitors, but wish you luck with the project in the future. Abe Froman (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


...for your comment at ANI. I appreciate it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Raul654 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC[edit]

Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC & edit-a-thon
MLK Library.jpg

Wikipedia Loves Libraries comes to DC on Saturday, November 5th, from 1-5pm, at the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library.

We will be holding an edit-a-thon, working together to improve Wikipedia content related to DC history, arts, civil rights, or whatever suits your interests. There may also be opportunities to help with scanning historic photos plus some swag!

You're invited and we hope to see you there!

RSVP + more details!

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

Governor of Kentucky[edit]

I hope you will still consider Governor of Kentucky for WP:TFA on November 8. It had 11 supports and 1 oppose on the request page before being replaced by Battle of Tippecanoe today. I responded to the oppose this morning, but the !voter did not have a chance (or take a chance) to respond before it was replaced. This oppose made the difference in replacing Governor of Kentucky or SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Thanks for your consideration. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi Raul - Can I ping you to close the League of Nations FAR (WP:Featured article review/League of Nations/archive2)? Nikki and I are both involved, but I think that it's ready to close, unless you see something we don't... Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


I was surprised by your comments. The editors at the article come from both ends of the political spectrum. In spite of this we have been working well together, far left and far right. No edit warring, no page protection. I must admit it was a welcome change from some of the drama I dealt with at Pro-life et al. – Lionel (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't started an edit war, and I don't want one either. I don't like tags and I'm pretty reluctant to use them. (And I *really* hate 'drive by' taggers - people who drop them on articles without making an effort to fix the issue, or even explain why they added it). With that said, however, the timeline article needs one, for reasons I've explained at great length on the talk page. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know you, you don't know me, but with your number of edits, you should know better than to say that the war was "based on lies". NYyankees51 (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you should probably get your facts straight. (A) That the Iraq War was based on lies and deceptions is a proven historical fact. I suggest you read Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations and Niger uranium forgeries for starters; (B) Although perfectly factual, in the related article edits, I did not use the word lie, I quoted verbatim from the Downing Street memo which said that "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war. Raul654 (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Xenocide cover.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Xenocide cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto for File:Shadow hegemon cover.jpgMoe ε 11:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
And File:Richbiotch.oggMoe ε 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi Raul654, i have been bold and created a {{Stress user topicon}} template for the "Wikistress" image series, with adjustable stress_level (0 to 4). You have been credited with the original idea, so i thought you might be interested. - Benzband (talk :) 16:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

For the last few months...[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
I award this Working Man's Barnstar to Raul654 for helping reduce the number of entries in the Stanford Archives from nearly 2000 entries to a little over 70 entries. Thanks for all your hard work! --Sesamehoneytart 18:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

TFA Battle of Tippecanoe[edit]

FYI: Per discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, I've written a new TFA summary for the Battle of Tippecanoe here. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 10:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi this may seem pretty out of the blue but ive been checking/verifying missing wikipedians and i noticed you posted this [22] albeit a very long time ago by wikipedia standards (7 years ago!) and i dont know if you knew º¡º but it is very odd that he/she edited practically everyday and just suddenly disappeared on 4th may 2003 without a trace and i have a sneaking supcision that they might of actually passed away, any thoughts on this? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 12:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, he came back under as User talk:O^O (and possibly more names too). Raul654 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Although that account was last active 11 May 2007, do you know any other user accounts he might of been on? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

He also went by User:BigFatBuddha. Raul654 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was his previous account name and i believe he renamed it to º¡º for one reason or another, i guess he got bored of wikipedia and quit. although its strange that he left no notice or no trace. Either that or he kicked the bucket; or just simply made a new account. But then again isnt that against Wikipedia policy? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 16:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not an easy answer. It really depends on why he discontinued the old account, and what he is doing with the new account. See WP:SOCK for legitimate uses of a second account. But be careful about making allegations as sometimes these can be construed as personal attacks. – Lionel (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough ill leave the status quo , besides knowing my luck ill probably end up being misunderstood/interpreted and banned again as i have learnt from a simular situation i was in.... 13:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Didnt want to refactor[edit]

Hi Raul, I didn't want to move your post here[23] (support ban), but it is one subsection off and I think was supposed to be up a section. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)