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


To my opponent[edit]

I wish you the best of luck in this month's Arbitration Committee election. May the best Wikipedian win! Peace Profound! --MerovingianTalk 10:27, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article/backup[edit]

we need a new Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article/backup, as it was used on Saturday while you were out (there was a dispute over Gender role). Also, the bums around here are so bummish! Nobody bothered to change the feature Saturday night, until I noticed... like 6 or 7 hours late! And finally, I've taken the liberty of putting together the blurb for a featured article tomorrow, not to impose. It was a request on the talk page and I didn't figure you'd object too much. Hope you had a good time in Boston! blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice to meet you in Boston[edit]

Well run, no rules, fun people, typical wikipedia. As promised, I have returned to Wikipedia activity.

Ortolan88 01:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom questions[edit]

A quick - OK, actually, probably a long question regarding your candidacy for the arbcom. How do you think you would have ruled/would rule in the following cases? Thanks very much. Snowspinner 17:43, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

I do follow things fairly well around here, but that doesn't mean I see everything. Since I am not a member of the arbcom, I haven't read the cases. I also think this is a bit unfair to current members of the arbcom - hindsight is always 20/20. But, in spite of that, I'll try to answer them from my layman's knowledge and from a cursory look at those cases:
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2
    • During his second trip to the arbcom for being abusive and making personal attacks, Irismeister was put on parole. I agree with the decision, although I probably would have also voted for temporarily banning him as well.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health
    • During his second trip to the arbcom, Mr. Natural Health was banned for 3 months for continuing the same behavior that brought him there once already. He also offered to act as Irismeiester's proxy, effectively allowing Irismiester to evade his Iridology ban. MNH was banned for 3 months, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Since Theresa Knott (who is most involved in this matter) had requested a year, I think that three months was too light; especially in light of the fact that he offered to help irismeister evade his ban. I find that most disturbing of all. I would probably have given him the full year ban.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2
    • I liked Wik. Although he could be *very* hard to work with (and unlike almost all distruptive users), he did a *lot* of good for the project. He left as a result of the 2nd arbcom ruling, and (we suspect) he was the one behind the vandalism in may. Knowing what I know now, I certainly would have voted for a less harsh punishment, so as not to have driven him away. However, as I said above, hindsight is 20/20.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel
    • Although I never interacted with Vogel, from what I know he was one of the most reprobate users on Wikipedia. The arbcom banned him for one year. Since he has stated he intends to defy the committee anyway, I think this is too light. I know they are reluctant to make lifetime bans - reading the meatball wiki article on the subject helps to clarify things a great deal. However, in this case, I think a lifetime ban was warranted.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168
    • This case was a tragedy. 168 was a great contributor who was driven to do irrational things by trolls (Lir in particular, on DNA and other articles). 168 quit thereafter. I think this case is probably the biggest screw up the arbcom has made to date. In fact, IIRC, Mav said something similiar when the case was withdrawn. Had the Lir case been adjudicated in a timely manner, this whole problem could have been avoided, and we would not have lost a really good contributor. →Raul654 00:45, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien
    • This was an odd case, and should have been handled differently. It was accepted solely on the basis of determining if having an offensive username is bannable. It is not the jurisdiction of the arbcom to make such policies. Under these circumstances, I would have voted against taking the case at all.
    • For the record, I fully support banning users who have obviously offensive usernames. Someone calling himself "Jrr Trollkien" is an obvious troll, and I think a ban is justified on that basis alone. OTOH, some people have complained that someone like User:Jengod has an offensive username. This falls *far* short of the "obvious" criteria. (And for the record, "Jengod" is a contraction of her real name)
    • However, I would have voted to take this case, had it been a full-blown Arbcom case to determine whether or not Trolkien's actions were worthy of arbitration. I probably would have voted to punish him, given that I agree with most of the evidence suggesting he was a troll.


Hi Raul, alphabetical order is nonsense. Start with a TOC and order it by time or thematic. -- TomK32

I'd suggest to use, it has a wonderful PDF-Export which should match your needs. There's a script around where you can input the article names and get a PDF but the result is far from being perfect or good enough for professional print. -- 16:38, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stata Center[edit]

Thanks for the Stata Center photos. I've added a cleaned-up version to the article (and I'm considering nominating it as a featured picture, despite some mean ol' "purple fringing"). Did you get the gigantic poster version I emailed you? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:Jeanne Calment.jpg[edit]

From where do you have that image?

I'm not sure - my first couple months here, I didn't make much distinction between copyrighted and non-copyrighted images. →Raul654 21:45, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

For wounds suffered in battle[edit]

For wounds suffered in the battles of Wikipedia, I hereby award you this Purple Heart. May you continue to be a valued contributor to Wikipedia for many years to come. Neutrality 05:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think you deserve this :) --Neutrality 05:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ha! That's great. I have given it a little spot of honor right here on this page. Thanks for the appreciation :) →Raul654 05:51, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tomrrow's featured article[edit]

So what's on deck? Are we just using the backup? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:31, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Admin help needed[edit]

Hi. User:Rex071404 has been making uncompromising POV changes to John Kerry for weeks. User:JamesMLane and I are considering starting a quickpoll to get a tempblock on this user for revert warring. James left a note on my page saying that it would help to find someone uninvolved in the dispute to launch the poll (see User talk:172 and User talk:JamesMLane). Perhaps you can talk a look. (You're pretty well respected, so your sponsorship of a quickpoll would be great.) Thanks. 172 06:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look and tell you what I find. Give me a few to look over the involved pages. (we can discuss this directly on IRC if you are so inclined). →Raul654 06:05, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! (I don't have the components for IRC on my home PC, though. Sorry for the inconvenience.) 172 06:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't know whether I have the components. My level of computer knowledge is pitiful. I'm on AIM right now as, and I used IRC several years and several computers ago, so I could try it. Heck, I'm on free cell phone minutes right now, I'll phone you if you want. JamesMLane 06:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've looked over the evidence, and here's what I think - his edits to John Kerry were POV, but not blatantly so. The bigger problem is his anti-social attitude. My inclination is to unprotect the page, and instruct him not to edit it without discussion on the talk page first. However, I think this could be construed as "stretching" my admin powers, so Mav suggested we do a quickpoll to do just that - remove his ability to edit the page without prior discussion. I don't think a temp ban is warranted in this case, nor do I think it would help matters. →Raul654 06:43, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. A quickpoll to remove his ability to edit the page without prior discussion sounds like a good idea. Would you or Mav be willing to sponsor it? I don't want to launch it, given my prior involvement in protecting the page. 172 06:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have left him a message on his talk page asking him to voluntarily accept that (diplomacy is always good to try). If not, I'll start a quickpoll. →Raul654 07:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
PS - Either way, I'm going to unprotect the article tomorrow. →Raul654 07:15, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! 172 07:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Newbie review[edit]

Hi, you just sent me a 'welcome' on my talk page. I suppose you could review what I've been up to and suggest better behavior. Be sure to look at too as that was me before I got my username.

The only actual question I have is how to limit the 'recent changes' to what's on the 'watch list', as otherwise things go past so fast as to be useless.

Thanks. --Kop 06:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's no way to limit recent changes just to items on the watchlist - that's what the watchlist page (Special:Watchlist) is for. Watched pages show up in recent changes in bold. →Raul654 07:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, very helpful.--Kop 17:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex and John Kerry[edit]

Raul, please see my comment on Rex's talk page. Thanks, Cecropia | Talk 07:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Raul, I wrote the following comment for Cecropia. But, it seems more relevant to communicate to you, so I put it here instead (and pinged Cecropia).

Just read you comment on Raul's proposal for Rex. I agree that Rex could be valuable, as subtle pro-kerry bias is very obvious to him (an avowed kerry opponent). In my view, the problem is that he doesn't just point these out and correct them, but actively attempts to insert anti-kerry POV. He is so enormously prolific at this, and defensive of his edits, that all work grinds to a halt as people resist his changes.
Your primary objection to Raul's suggestion is that Rex's edits would have to be vetted by a 'hostile' crowd. While I don't agree with your characterization as 'hostile', I do agree that requiring unanimous approval of Rex's changes is unbalanced. I would be perfectly happy with having approval by only a single person (with suitable provisions against sockpuppetry e.g. no bare ip's & no brand new accounts). That would preserve the free give & take of different perspectives without giving free reign to Rex's more aggressive and persistent tendencies. It would also keep us out of a sandbox existence, where Rex has free veto over everyone else's changes.Wolfman 07:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wolfman, what do you think of my protection/temp page suggestion? Also, I'm repeating below what I told JamesMLane for your interest and Raul's, which I'm just inserting verbatim:
"Hi James, I understand what you mean regarding Rex's aggressiveness; however I'm trying to look at the article to see what can be done for a satisfactory conclusion, hopefully without jumping back into it. My own experience seems to indicate that, on contentious articles where a clear majority of interested Wikipedians fall on one side of an issue, it is almost impossible for an editor with a contrary view to make any but the most unobjectionable edit with reversion or worse. Enter Rex (or a Rex-like editor). IOW, only a bombastic editor in such a circumstance even gets paid attention to.
"Please see suggestion, as I made it on Rex's page, for protecting the article and hashing everything out on a temp page. There people can let a contentious edit go for awhile while talking it without the need for an edit war, since the temp page is not live. This was done on several articles. I particularly think it worked well on Terrorism about a half-year ago. The editors agreed on nothing, not the definition of the word, whether terrorists really existed, who terrorists were, and so on and so on. It was protected for a month or so, not unprotected until consensus was reached and everyone agreed to let it go live. Perfect? No. But at least we had a workable article free from massive changes several times a day and patchwork protection. If Rex will agree, and everyone else will, too, I think it's the only way we'll get somewhere. I know a lot of people would like to solve the problem by banning Rex, but the article could be much better.
"BYW, I read some of the Bush people's praise of the Kerry article. The things they liked were heavily weighted with things many of the editors wanted to keep out. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)" (Repeated from JamesMLane's page) -- Cecropia | Talk 08:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We will *NOT* leave that article protected for a month while people work on a draft version - absolutely out of the qestion. MBecker unprotected John Kerry this morning. Hopefully, Rex will not be so disruptive this time around. →Raul654 15:25, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Chernobyl vs Chornobyl[edit]

Chernobyl is simply a spelling error. Even if this name is used in English magazines it is still a spelling error. The same aplies to Gorbachov vs. Gorbachev (spelling error). I think this because of the Russian 'io' sound which is usually spelled 'ie' in Russian itself. Outside people very often transliterate it 'e' where it should be 'o'. ABE 00:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, it really doesn't matter. Chernobyl is by far and away the most common english name, so we use that. If what you say is true, you can add a statement in the article saying that, but according to policy, it stays put at Chernobyl. →Raul654 01:29, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article[edit]

Transfer complete. Have fun! :) --mav 10:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On a related note -- I just added a rant to Talk:TFA about the weakness of SPF arrangements like the FAD proposal. It's not at all a dig at you; if you weren't such a model TLA candidate to start with, it wouldn't have been necessary to point out those concerns! +sj+ 21:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you want me to add "Recently featured: [[]] – [[]] – [[]] to each of the empty TFA templates? Or would you just copy the last day's 'Recently featured' line and modify it? --mav 21:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article: What I am seeing is: You disagree with the concept that any wikipedian fills in Tomorrow's featured article. Thus the protocol appears to be:

  1. FAD updates TFA
  2. any wikipedian edits (not the original 'insert') Tomorrow's featured article

This addresses the SPF issue because all you have to do is Grant Update privilege to a designee for a limited period. I will can revert the talk Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article in the interests of robustness in WP. Ancheta Wis 04:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FAC - DNA Repair[edit]

Hi Raul,

In the belief that you are a sysop/organiser type for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates, could I ask you to help cleanup the heated discussion at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#DNA_repair. I've talked to both User:Prometheus1 and User:Shibboleth and they seem to agree (there is discussion on both their talk pages and on User_talk:Solipsist, though Prometheus has largely reverted his talk pages already).

The proposal is to remove Shiboleth's objection along with the following rebutals from Prometheus and replace them with an equivolent objection from myself, along the lines of

  • Object - Interesting article, but the writing style is too technical for a general Featured Article and it may not be appropriate to simplify it enough for the average reader.
  • Object - Some of the images used don't have clear license conditions. At the moment they appear to be copyright and not licensed for Wikipedia.

I hope this isn't inappropriate and will let the dust settle. -- Solipsist 07:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I checked, and Shiboleth makes a valid point that none of the images have source information, two of the three have no license, and two of them contain a copyright tag in the image (This should be on the image page, not the image itself). This is *definitely* a valid objection. As prometheus is the uploader, he should definitely put this information in. It's an important issue and it should only take about 2 minutes to fix.
As far as the writing style, I haven't read the article but from what he specifically pointed out, I can see where he is coming from. Once the other objections are resolved, I'll go in and see what I can do. Ok? →Raul654 18:02, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Totally agree, the objections are valid. Trouble is Shiboleth seems to have landed in a flame war with Prometheus. Despite various attempts at diplomacy on their talk pages, I don't think anyone's feathers are going to get unruffled. I was proposing standing in for Shiboleth's objections as phrased above, which Prometheus has more or less accepted. That way WP:FAC can get tidied up and concentrate on the actual objections. Shiboleth is definately happy to be taken out of the firing line, and Prometheus appears to agree, or at least doesn't directly object to the clean up.
But it might be better to leave things as they are and not stir things further. -- Solipsist 18:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ah, ok - as long as the objector agrees, that's fine with me. →Raul654 18:27, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Raul, perhaps I wasn't clear. Can I ask you to make the replacement, so that it is a 'more official' revert -- Solipsist 20:55, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for trying Raul. It looks like in the meantime, the discussion of FAC has moved on a pace. I think it would be inappropriate to try rolling back the discussion now. -- Solipsist 12:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revert on FAC[edit]

Shucks, I tried to fix that duplicated section, but you're too diligent for me to match you in speed! Back to the editor, with all proxies turned off in hope that thst will make a difference. Dandrake 20:51, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean ???? =[edit]

If you continue to make disruptive edits, you will be blocked. →Raul654 20:58, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean???? Please be priceize and cite the Wikipedia rules? Thank you The King 21:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello Raul, I think it was very vicouls from you to valdalize the Baltic Institute entry from the Gdansk article. Please stop this or you mey be blocked from Wikipdia.

Yes Raul - Supporters of the Valdal movement will not be tolerated. Valdal himself will be hunted down and shot. Manning 21:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Poor Valdal - his name has become mud through no fault of his own :) →Raul654 21:14, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you.[edit]

  • Couldn't do this crazy work without the help of some stalwart and true souls like yourself. RP, you iz da greatest. Nice to be back in a less-stressful capacity. - Lucky 6.9 22:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

I'm not really sure what a Wikireader is, but I have a fairly good knowledge of World War II, so if there are any articles you would like me to write, edit or comment on I am happy to help out. You might note that I am gradually writing a series of articles on Marshals of the Soviet Union, which are relevant to your topic. Adam 23:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

World War II cryptography[edit]

This is a good suggestion for an overview article anyway; I've dropped a note at the cryptography WikiProject. — Matt 00:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Taking the union of WWII, Cryptography, and Shakespeare, we can quickly generate the first English microreader... +sj+ 02:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your removal of POV-article from list[edit]

Hi Raul 654 - You removed the article "Gender Role" from the NPOV-list. I suggest it stay. When you look at the talk page + archive of "gender role" and its history, you will see that numerous attempts have been made to hint at the almost complete lack of neutrality and political correctness in this article. (I have also complained.) However, my predecessors have all left the scene pretty quickly - some have obviously never even come back to this site. So I am the only one who has taken on the drudgery of trying to restore neutrality in this article. And I'd appreciate help - the best way to get it is on the NPOV-page.
I am working slowly and have deliberately not posted any of the "hot" topics on the talk pages for about a week. Let things calm down, there was a difficult phase only about a week ago. During this week I made no real changes or suggestions, just some structuring. Right now it looks like no-one cares or disputes anything, but this may change quickly. If they do dispute, I appreciate their feedback. If they don't dispute it might mean they see my point and appreciate me working the POV out of this. In any case, it will be a long process and will stay POV for a while.
An alternative suggestion would be to put it on the page where the articles are that permanently need to be watched for POV. Discrimination of women is certainly always a topic where you have to be on the lookout for bias. I also think that the lack of response to the POV-tag is due to there not being enough women on this site. --Fenice 10:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Raul 654 - I have given reasons for the POV/accuracy - boilerplate:
  • it lacks a theoretical (i.e.sociological) basis
  • its superficial even in the examples given
  • you can clearly tell the text was written mostly by men and transgender people (that is to say from their point of view)
The people who wrote the story have not asked for any more explanations, I assume that means they let me go ahead because they did ask for clarifications before when others disputed the text. If I make larger changes I will ask on the talk page and we will see.
As to the PC-thing. I believe that other contesters of the neutrality of this text ran away from conflict because they were scared of by the political incorrectness in the text. (Someone said, he or she feels "insulted" by this article). By mentioning this aspect I just named a problem, it is not the only reason why I want to change/add to the article. We cannot turn this into a decent article just by turning it pc. (I do have more theoretical basis than that to offer). I also doubt that you would call me a PC pusher if you knew me. I will still try to be pc and I think most others are also trying.
It will still take a while, I will not get into an edit war, this problem can be solved by discussion. You think it is a problem to have the boilerplate on it for a few weeks? I think it could cast a shadow on the credibility of wikipedia if it were not there. Having this boilerplate is no shame, its a sign we're working on it.--Fenice 11:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Images and Template:Feature[edit]

I'm afraid Anthony is sometimes right. Middle-earth should not have been on the Main Page in its present condition because all of the images are designated for non-commercial use only. Such images are officially against Wikipedia policy. [1]. This is different from our policy on fair use, though I can understand if Anthony's objections sometimes start to sound alike. It's a natural error, and hopefully we can avoid repeating it. Keep up the good work, Mr. Featured Article Dictator/Overlord/Director/Coordinator (whatever you are). --Michael Snow 18:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware of that announcement (I said they're off-limits when I wrote the Copyright FAQ). However, Jimbo has said (in person, at the meetup) that he intends to revisit the issue. →Raul654 19:06, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge[edit]

Hi Raul, compliments on your diligent work on the Battle of the Bulge article! TeunSpaans 20:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why thank you. I'm going to nominate it soon on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. →Raul654 08:45, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


I just wanted to be the first to wish you good luck in your new role on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Congratulations! Angela. 00:29, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • RAAAAAAAAAUL!!! Yeah! I knew you would win. Congratulations. I must admit, I'm rather proud of myself for going 2 for 2 with my endorsements. Anyhow, good luck dealing with the crazies! blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations on winning the election. Good luck with it! Danny 00:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. In the absence of my preferred ticket (the Heph and RickK wikideathsquad) y'all make the perfect additions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other Congratulations[edit]

Sign here to congratulate the guy:

  • Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, and good luck. Oh, what's your bank account number? Just in case. --Slowking Man 00:55, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Mwhahahahah! One of us, one of us!! --mav 02:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • All hail the Featured Article Overlord! (oh, wait, that's your other hat) Michael Snow 02:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • We are not worthy! Neutrality 02:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! --MerovingianTalk 05:08, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. I'm glad you're touched if you mean moved. It can also mean crazy, and I hope you don't switch to that meaning after a few months on the ArbCom! JamesMLane 09:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Congratulations Raul! I hope that you will be a fair and just member of the AC :)--Plato 04:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • HANG THEM! HANG THEM ALL!! - David Gerard 11:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks you all for the wonderful message. I'm touched. :) →Raul654 08:45, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto, hadn't realized the vote was over. Good luck using up all that time you already didn't think you had. You are a real trooper :). マイケル 21:03, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Way to go, goombah! Badda-bing! - Lucky 6.9 05:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


OK, sorry about the misunderstanding; I wasn't sure whether to count the withdrawn objection as a support. Aditionally, congrats on your election. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:22, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush[edit]

Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK. shouldn't ship names always be in italics, though? how do you do that in a link? SpookyMulder 14:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Bush vote now under way - please vote[edit]

Here [2]

Rex071404 16:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I've noticed the entries for the MacArthur text in Worldcat with the two public domain maps that you found for the Downfall page. I've poked around their site, and I cannot find any obvious place to search to get hold of records for books other than the one you cite. If there is such a page I would greatly appreciate knowing about it. David Newton 00:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow - if you are talking about - I didn't use it to find those maps. I got them off a umass website ( or scanned them directly out of the MacArthur reports themselves (my University library is a government depository library, which means it has TONS of official US gov't docuements). →Raul654 00:56, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz article[edit]

Hi! Did my article make featured status? I didn't see it on the discussion page...but it wasn't on the list of features, either.

While I'm at it, thank you SO much for your support during this crazy admin nomination process. I only wish I could have won so that I could hack off nonsense at the roots. - Lucky 6.9 01:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It got accidentally overwritten in this edit. I have restored it. →Raul654 01:56, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Olympic news[edit]

You deleted Template:Olympic news as "Obsolete". That template was being used on the Main Page. I restored it. If it's actually supposed to be gone, then make sure it's not being used on the most visible page on the site before you delete it again, okay? :) -- Cyrius| 06:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • 'D'OH!! Sorry - my bad. I was cleaning out my watchlist, and thought it was one of them disposable ones I used when making my test main page (my test main page was what Mark Ryan used to re-do the current main page as you see it now) →Raul654 06:30, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Credit goes to Hemanshu for spotting the deletion. It was gone for 10 minutes. Guess that shows how much attention heavy users pay to the front page. -- Cyrius| 06:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now you must copyedit 3 articles as penance. Kate | Talk 06:36, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Re: Whack![edit]

I'll take my lumps if I deserve em, but I don't get it. All I did was comment quickly and save. If you look at the diffs of my edits, I never removed anything. What gives? - Taxman 12:09, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Lir, arbitration[edit]

  • You stated: I read the evidence list and your defense in full before posting here.
    • I respond: Well, its impossible to have read my defense in full, for two reasons:
      • It isn't complete (I haven't even had time to read the lengthy list of complaints)
      • Martin deleted part of it, without even bothering to tell me (just leaving it for me to find out, oooo, a surprise!)
  • You stated: Do you have any evidence to back these denials up, or (in lieu of that) can you present a reasonable alternate theory to explain them (such as how all those accounts got the same password as you)?
    • I respond: Well first, I do have to remind you that its not my responsiblity to prove my innocence; it can be rather inappropriate to ask a defendent to provide evidence to support their claim of "not guilty" -- rather, you should be asking for evidence to show that I am guilty.
      • In regards to other accounts having the same password as me, I am surprised there are not more -- I tend to use a password which is ill-advised, since it is an extremely common password. I take offence at Tim Starling's page, since it is a breech of my security; in all my years of internet usage, a website has never released information about my password.
      • If you have specific questions about other incidents, the best thing to do is specifically ask me; as you did on this topic.
  • You stated: I'd also like to know how you respond to the allegations that you have been abusive ("Hey, fuck you Theresa" et al).
    • It is a shame that Martin continues to abuse his power (without any sort of check from his peers); because, I wrote in regards to this yesterday...but, he deleted it (its so rude, I don't know how people can be so petty).
      • Yes, several months ago, I became rather frustrated after a user was banned (without being brought before this committee) and while he was gone, his work was deleted. I did a great deal of research to verify the user's additions, and was met with an attitude (primarily from Theresa) that her POV was acceptable, and that NPOV was not the goal of the article. [3] (as Theresa explained, "I didn't delete because I thought they were bullshit. That would be POV. I leave a lot of stuff in that I think is bullshit. See my edits to reflexology for example. I deleted it because it is bogus, A lie, not true, made up. Do you see the the difference?") She later went on to call me a "puppet".
      • I was also bothered by the fact that each time she requested more proof, and I provided it; she simply decided that more proof was need -- essentially, she was trolling and deliberately wasting my time. For instance, she said, "Great, now we are getting somewhere. Point me to your sources, if they check out I'll be happy to let you add the stuff back in."; yet, when I provided sources, she choose to question whether the university cited even existed decide for yourself. After demonstrating that it does exist, she simply decided to "raise the bar" again -- demanding that I do even more to satisfy her. Eventually, in order to summarize all the proof I had found, I decided to create a wiki page -- it was immediately put on votes for deletion, which was obviously rather upsetting (much as Martin's deleting of my defense is upsetting).
      • I apparently became upset and once, during the course of two years (and many moons ago), I told a user to go "fuck themselves". While it is regrettable, at no time did Theresa pursue mediation in regards to the complaint; nor has the arbitration committee ever shown one iota of interest in dealing with the numerous personal attacks thrown at me. As a general trend, I make very few personal attacks of any kind; and I feel that this issue is only being brought up, because nobody can find anything recent to complain about.

Congratulations, you are the only arbitration committee member to contact me; hopefully, the others will start doing their jobs. Lirath Q. Pynnor

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Proposed decision. Martin 17:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Im not really interested in hunting through talk pages, trying to remember where a certain debate occurred. I don't have any faith that the arbitration committee is interested in "seeing justice done"; Martins behaviour only reinforces that belief -- as such, I feel like I have already put a great deal of effort into a defense, which seems fairly pointless since even if the arbitration committee does not ban will hardly make the necessary effort to get other users to stop harrassing me, deleting my work, and banning me from the IRC chanel. I feel like I am being patronized and that there is no desire, whatsoever, to "work with me".
    • Numerous users (mav, 172, wik, jtdirl, adam carr, RK, 168, Zoe, Theresa, Ed Poor, Sam Spade, Snowspinner, Tim Starling, Larry Sanger, and name a few) have made insults in regards to my mother, my intelligence, my status as a person, my politics, my sexuality, my religion, my psychological state, my honesty, my education, my lifestyle, my writing style, and/or my patriotism. Even Jimbo has made personal attacks against me, which I am sure he will confirm; although, on his behalf, I will concede that he has apoligized and been forgiven.
    • The wiki really has no hard policy against vulgarity, or such; leaving any potential admonishment up to the biased and rarely active arbitration committeee. As such, I find it inconcievable that you could doubt that personal attacks are readily made against a number of users; especially users such as myself, who are labeled as "trolls" (which is a deragatory term, often used in wiki personal attacks).
    • I have had death threats made against me, and I expect the arbitration committee to order the removal of my name from the site and the mailing list. I take offense at the fact that my name was introduced by other users; and I do not like the fact that the wikipedia is enabling some of its more violent members the ability to track down other users. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir - I don't want a rumination on how you think you have been wronged; I want you to cite specific incidences (page diffs) where other users made personal attacks against you. If you're not interested, fine, but refusing to offer evidence to defend yourself doesn't help your case. →Raul654 22:53, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Good to be back, thanks for noticing. SheikYerBooty 03:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Cute dogs[edit]

Thanks for noticing! Three of them live or have lived in my household :-). ...And I'm not even the one who nominated the article! Elf | Talk 23:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Next topic--You're the 2nd one to change "slogan of HJ Heinz company" to "slogan of HJ Heinz company ketchup" in mixed-breed dog. I changed it back the first time but now I'm wondering whether there is something obscure going on with Heinz that I'm not aware of. The company started out making various condiments and preserves--all or mostly all related to vinegar, I believe--and I'm almost certain that the slogan existed years before they ever started marketing ketchup. They *still* make many different things not related to ketchup. That's what the slogan is about. So what am I missing about "everyone" thinking it's associated only with their ketchup? Inquiring minds want to know (before they change it back again...). Thanks for the nice summary intro, BTW. Elf | Talk 05:13, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Wow! Two featured articles in one day. Life ain't shabby, and the fact it's a Friday sure helps. THANKS! - Lucky 6.9 23:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the AC[edit]

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, welcome! All our tasks are tracked at Template:ArbCommOpenTasks and some members of the committee find it useful to put {{ArbCommOpenTasks}} on one of their frequently-visited user pages.

Detailed (and possibly slightly out of date) arbitration policy is at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. But a typical case follows this procedure:

  • A user requests arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
  • All major parties in the matter give a brief summary of the events
  • ArbCom members vote on hearing the matter at the ====Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sub-section. An absolute of 4 votes are needed to formally accept or reject a case.
  • If the case is accepted, then any ArbCom member can use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template to create a subpage for the case (all the comments in the request section for that case should be moved to the appropriate sections on the subpage).
  • That same AC member informs all parties involved that the case has been accepted and for them to place evidence at the evidence subpage for that case (see the template).
  • After at least a week (oftentimes more), any AC member can propose Principles (general re-affirmations of existing policy that pertain to the case), Findings of Fact (what the AC has found to be true by a preponderance of the evidence), Remedies (what should be done to rectify the situation), and Enforcement (guidance on how the community should enforce the ruling - this section is not always used). This is done on the Proposed decision subpage.
  • In rare cases a user may be so disruptive that a Temporary Order may need to be enacted. This most often is an order to one or more users to not edit one or more articles that are the focus of conflict while the matter is in arbitration. It is especially important that all AC members vote as soon as possible on temporary orders. This is done on the Proposed decision subpage.
  • Then as soon as any item receives a simple majority of Active AC members (see that number and keep your status up-to-date at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee), then any AC member can declare that item passed. To do that, copy the ruling from the Proposed decision page to the ==Final decision== section on the main subpage of that case. Do not copy the votes, but do indicate the number of votes for the item out of the number of active AC members. Also write the date and mention that voting is still going on.
  • If a ruling affects a particular user, then inform that user of the ruling that affects him/her.
  • If some type of sysop-action needs to be conducted, then request that that action be conducted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. Do not perform these actions if you are an Administrator. Let somebody else do it.
  • Any arbitrator could then propose a Motion to Close the case on the Proposed Decision subpage. An absolute number of 4 votes in favor are needed to close a case.

I look forward to working with you. --mav

Fan mail[edit]

I really like the "Tomorrow’s Featured Article" — it's been very useful in catching errors in featured articles well before they're featured. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:53, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your technical expertise is needed[edit]

Could you have a quick look at the first part of disturbation area. It is now on the translation page, it was originally in German, we translated some of it, but cannot translate the technical terms in brackets. --Fenice 20:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've given it a scrubbing over. It looks much better now. →Raul654 21:19, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thanks.--Fenice 07:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Could you drop me a line on my regular e-mail? Thanks. I need to ask you something off-site. - 00:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Uh, who are you? →Raul654 03:28, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Federal depository libraries[edit]

Cue article: Federal Government Depository Library, according to a link on Troy Public Library. Go on, you know you want to. best wishes, --Tagishsimon

I've stubbed it at Federal depository library.

User:Brettz9/videoscript typo fix[edit]

Thanks for correcting a typo at User:Brettz9/videoscript. I neglected to spell-check and I noticed a few more errors which I've since corrected...Thanks! [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 20:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spamming and Spam (e-mail) are not duplicate articles[edit]

You posted a merge between these two articles as duplicates. They aren't; they are intentionally separate, and in fact part of the same series -- see Template:Spamming for the others. Spamming is the general overview about spam in all media; Spam (e-mail) is about the specifics of spam in one medium. Arguably the latter should be renamed to E-mail spam to go with the other articles in the series ... but it isn't a duplicate--FOo 05:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The business and economics forum[edit]

Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 19:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge[edit]

I’m working with a ton of sources, so I’m pretty much writing item by item as I research and look into each of them separately. GeneralPatton 21:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi. I've added (or will in a moment) a link to Wikipedia:Today's featured article by email to the main page template. Can you add this to the new templates when updating the FA for the next day? Thanks 21:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

DNA repair FAC[edit]

Considering that there were no objections on the DNA repair article does that mean it can be promoted to FA status? prometheus1 01:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It looks like it has the votes to be promoted, but the nomination has to stay there at least a week before being promoted (it's been there 5 days). I usually do them in batches every few days, so don't be upset if it takes until day 8 or 9 before I promote it. →Raul654 01:13, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Featured article question[edit]

I am once again in need of your sagely advice. I have an article up for self-nomination as a feature, specifically Ridge Route. No matter what I say or do or no matter how clear I make a certain statement of fact regarding the difficulty of the road's construction, I simply can't get one user to go along with the statement. I've exhausted every online resource and I feel this article is more specific as a sum total than anything else I've found on the Net. Could I ask you to take a look and to tell me what you think? A couple of us have busted our backsides too hard to let this fail due to a lack of consensus. Thanks again, MP. - Lucky 6.9 18:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WWII Project[edit]

I was reading the pages related to the WWII WikiReader Project. Is it too late to join and help? I don't spend too much time on pedia but I would be happy to assist in any way I could. What is the current status of the project? LUDRAMAN | T 20:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can join. Right now, the project is some-what idle, while I am busy. One of these days (soon) I am going to sit down and organize it. →Raul654 20:54, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


Hi Raul. Sorry to do this to you, but I've just learned (on very short notice) that I'll be away Sunday morning when the next FA is meant to be sent. I've sent the actual article to the list (based on what's in Tomorrow's FA), so it's sitting in the moderation queue waiting to be approved. If you could just briefly log in and approve it some time in the morning (around 5AM UTC, but if it's a bit earlier or later it's not a problem), that'd be wonderful. Ta Kate | Talk 08:26, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC) (P.S. I guess we should work out some kind of planning in case this happens in the future).

argh - and monday and tuesday. crud. Kate | Talk 10:08, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)


Well, I never know where to go for admin questions, and I think you're the only one I remember. Just came across that whole Wikibomb thing, still on this users profile: Should we be worried? I have no idea. It just sounds scary to me, and unless maybe someone reasons with them that they are not propaganda, something will happen. Do you think it's a bluff? Should all of wikipedia be protected for a day? :/ Lockeownzj00 18:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I personally suspect it's a hoax. Even if it is not, those claims are either wildly exagerrated (such as crippling us through bot-based vandalism) or totally bogus (such as getting sysop privileges through exploits). In short, don't worry about it. I informed our devleopers just to be sure, though. They're not worried either. →Raul654 19:42, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

FAC archives[edit]

Raul, I appreciate your concerns about instruction creep, and I'll gladly do whatever is necessary to avoid increasing work for FAC maintainers (primarily you, for now).

First, though, let me explain why I refactored the FAC archives in the first place. I was not trying to make more work for you or for anyone else. Nor was I aiming at making the archive "prettier" — I was aiming for basic usability. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations was over 600 kilobytes long. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log was quickly approaching 300 kilobytes. Supreme waste of bandwidth and time for anyone wanting to check back on a single discussion.

Now, as for a solution to both problems: I propose reverting both archives back to a simple, flat format that's quick and painless to update. To archive, cut and paste the discussions to the end of both pages, just like it was before. Move the archive pages that I refactored to "/Summary", and add a disclaimer to that page noting that newer nominations are listed only on the main archive. Infrequently, a maintainer (namely myself, or anyone else who feels like it), would move discussions from the main archive page to into my harebrained (but pretty and, I hope, useable :-)) archiving scheme, updating the /Summary pages and leaving the main archive page temporarily empty of discussions.

Does this sound like a workable solution? If so, just let me know and I can implement it. Thanks, • Benc • 21:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Implemented. FWIW, you've gained a disciple for the opposition of instruction creep. I never considered its existence until you told me. Best of luck for grad school, • Benc • 03:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IRC access to #arbcom[edit]

I've set the channel to invite-only, so you'll need, the first time you try to login, to get yourself invited; if no-one is about at the time, use:

 /msg chanserv invite #arbcom.wikipedia

... and then:

 /join #arbcom.wikipedia

... as per normal. Once there, perform:

 /mode #arbcom.wikipedia +I Raul654

... and you won't have to get invited again.


James F. (talk) 04:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


It's only been a year? :) --mav 05:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Happy anniversary! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow, did you have me worried. Instead of your smiling face, I get a cheesecake. Happy anniversary!! - Lucky 6.9 17:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Raul, I know you're into photos for wikipedia. These are far from lively, but some are pretty compelling.

I could see using some, like Pascal or Newton, on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I have no idea of the copyright status of the photos: [4].

-- orthogonal 22:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, crap, it's even more fascinating that I thought. We have to have some of these. -- orthogonal 22:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, here's how I think it works (Note, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairy sure about this). Let's say I make a death mask of someone. That qualifies as a creative work, and copyright attaches to it. So let's say it's a really old death mask (pre-1921) -- the copyright would have expired and the mask itself can be considered public domain. Ok, what about photographs of it? Reproductions of 2D public domain works are public domain as well (under the Bridgeman case) because there is no "creative" effort there worth rewarding with a copyright. However, 3D objects are different, because the decision of what position and angle to take the picture at counts as "creative" effort, and thus pictures of public domain 3D works do get copyright. Since those pictures don't look like they're pre-1921, the photographer owns the copyright on them. You'd have to get his/her permission. →Raul654 23:11, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


Raul, forgive me because I am a little new here and havent trudged through all the documentation yet. But I belive you are an admin and might have the power to fix this. The list of users has 2 problems. First, it only lets you jump 500 names at a time. This is a little silly with how many users there are. I used the URL directly on my way to the "S" and never got there because, secondly, it appears to have exceeded the 64K limit that was put on it. ended somewhere in the "O"'s. In any case, thanx for the help, let me know if three is a better way to alert this sort of problem. dave Cavebear42 23:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi Raul. I added your email address to daily-article-l-owner so you receive mails to this address. It shouldn't be at all high traffic, but feel free to remove yourself again if you want (it's under 'general options'). Kate Turner | Talk 19:41, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. I suspect Jazz will be a good front page candidate again in the near future, but didn't feel comfortable about being able to take care of what was needed in a day. Keep up your good work! Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 19:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


(Copied to User:Ingoolemo).

Thanks a lot! _Iñgólemo←_]] 20:58, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)


If you check the history of Guanaco's talk page, you will see that every time I tried to discuss it with him, he deleted it without comment. RickK 05:16, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Standing orders Anthony[edit]

Hi, Raul. I've been worrying about what to do with a complaint I have against Anthony DiPiero, without personally starting up a whole RfM or RfArb process, for which I don't have the time, or the knowledge, or, frankly, the energy right now. An exchange between you and Anthony on his talk page in July suggests that there may be somewhere, if the "Standing orders" that you drafted are actually in force. This is not a matter of conflict between Anthony and me: we have had no contact beyond an argument on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reverse sexism, which was reasonably civil on both sides. But I think A has made a sneaky vandalism edit in the form of deliberately re-posting deleted copyvio material, and want to bring it to the attention of the Mediation committee's (if that's the right one?), because I see it as an attack on the quality of the encyclopedia. Anthony's a seasoned user, he knows about copyvio. Of course I have details and links, which IMO make it very hard to assume good faith in this case, if you can tell me whether there's anywhere to take them to. Best regards, Bishonen 13:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Hello again, Raul, I've just e-mailed you, at least I hope the "e-mail this user" feature worked. I've heard of people who've had trouble with it. If my message doesn't reach you, it would be a kindness if you'd have a word with Geogre on IRC about ways of contacting me. Bishonen 19:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what Bishonen is talking about. Bishonen, I'd appreciate it if you contacted me about your complaints before taking them to someone else. anthony (see warning) 23:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bishonen - First, I never got your email. I tested the email-this-user function on my page, and it worked fine for me. (I've made the developers aware of the problem). Check the arbitrators page to find my email address and email me directly (since I don't see Geogre on IRC). Second, I think Anthony is correct in this case -- the best thing to do is to talk to him directly. However, I'm willing to hear you out if that's what you would prefer. →Raul654 00:07, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry to say I can't find your e-mail address on the page you link to, Raul. :-( Can't see any e-mail addresses there, and can't see your name. That may be me being stupid from it being 2:30 in the morning here, and at this time of night I'm about ready to forget the whole thing. If I find your address and if I find the time, I'll e-mail you tomorrow or the next day. If I don't, I guess I won't. Bishonen 00:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From my conversations on IRC I've learned that Bishonen seems to be talking about this edit, which as you see was not made by me. anthony (see warning) 02:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • You're absolutely right, Anthony, somebody else added the Hitchens quote. I got confused by the History. I apologize for thinking it was you, I'm very sorry. Bishonen 02:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was an accident[edit]

Sorry, I must have clicked on the rollback without even realizing it until after it happened. [[User:Bkonrad|olderwiser]] 02:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's what I suspected - same thing happens to me. No offense taken. →Raul654 02:35, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

No problem.[edit]

No problem, thanks for explaining. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gender bias and no-longer-accepted psychological terms in featured article[edit]

The featured article for today is the Milgram experiment. It is not entirely acceptable because contains gender bias such as the use of 'he' when the sex is not specific. It also contains the term 'subject' which is often regarded by psychologists today as an unacceptable term, the accepted term for that role now is 'participant'. Ironically the terminology is particularly important in the context of the Milgram experiment.

I made edits in the article itself, and in the subsection used in the template. Would it be possible to change it over on the basis of what I have said?

Many thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 09:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not entirely acceptable because contains gender bias such as the use of 'he' when the sex is not specific. - this is your opinion, which is not necessarily shared by other Wikipedia contributors. In formal written english, there is no 3rd-person gender-neutral pronoun ("they" is often used in informal situations, but some (myself included) find it inappropriate for Wikipedia). "He" is a generally accepted alternative, and is in fact recommended by more conservative style guides. Going around demanding that it be changed will likely get you labaled as a PC-pusher, and the way other people react to you will be unpleasant. (PC-pushers are, generally, not warmly recieved here)
As far as "subject" vs "participant" - I admit my knowledge of psychology is poor, so I can't speak with any authority on the subject -- however (as a native english speaker) it sounds like you are trying to whitewash the language. Substantively, I don't see a difference between the terms. But if you can give or point to a substantive justification behind it (give the URL of a psychology style guide somewhere that discusses the use of the words) then I don't think anyone will object. →Raul654 16:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
I am certainly not trying to whitewash the language, merely correct two flaws in the article that are not compliant with modern psychological guidelines. The British Psychological Society style guide. See '10.2 Inappropriate labels' for the subject/participant issue, and '10.1 Sex-specific language' for the issue about using 'he' when sex is not necessarily male.
The American Psychological Association (APA) also has a style guide. I understand that the subject/participant issue is in 'Chapter 2 Guidelines to Reduce Bias in Language' and it says something similar to: "Terms like participants,respondents, or students should be used instead of the term, subject". I cannot give you a URL, but it is referred to in the APA FAQ I've noticed that subjects is often changed in copyediting, most often to participants. Why?
Trying to help. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, like I said, WRT subject vs participant, it looks like you have a fair case. After reading what you cited, I wouldn't have any objections. →Raul654 02:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

One point is clear though; this FA is the worst in standard since heavy metal umlaut. I'm sure you are not offended, since I think it's I and we wikipedians that should keep track of Tomorrows featured article and spot such problems. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 17:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thanks Raul. I'll try not to break anything :-) Kate Turner | Talk 02:43, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)


I would like to complain about this user. No, this is not regarding the India map caption. Rather, this has to do with the Non-resident Indian article. Before I mention the specifics, I'll say that when I get into debates with people, I may argue but a compromise is always reached. Heck, I've been known to change my mind (Calcutta naming deal). However, Rrjanbiah has consistently failed to see any point but his own and is extremely quick to spew vitriol at people. The NRI (Non-Resident Indian) page is but one example. He places strange "phenomena" with names that apparently are meant to be 'describing issues' that Indian expatriates have, including absurd titles like "X = X + 1 Syndrome" and "NRI Syndrome"; there are others that require major qualification and/or balance regarding multiple views. You may be able to guess that, as a native Indian, Rrjanbiah clearly has major gripes with NRIs. I told him that he can't just slap random titles and list completely unexplained 'syndromes' (whose validity & objectivity is in doubt anyway) on a page, thus rendering it both ugly and biased. I shifted the titles to the Talk Page and asked that he write something to justify their existence. I'm not going to write about NRI syndrome because there's no such catalogued and major syndrome. Frankly, it sounds like a lot of prejudiced nonsense. Regardless, I told him I have no problem letting this things on the page but he needs to write something. He's made no effort whatsoever to 1) explain what the heck he means by these titles 2) to write anything explaining why they're there, what they mean, and how many people, moreover experts, subscribe to these often insulting labels. He's verging on super-insulting and also somewhat irrational. I'm sorry I'm going on, but it's frustrating and this is the first time that a dispute regarding article content has forced me to go to a third-party. I'm usually able to work with people, but this kid's very stuck in his ways. Thanks a lot for listening. --LordSuryaofShropshire 06:41, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'll look into it and see what I can come up with. Honestly, if he refuses to respond, it makes things quite a bit simpler from a dispute resolution point of view (IE, it pretty much tanks his case). →Raul654 06:48, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

- :: Thanks a lot... my follow-up is that he's now placed ridiculous 'explanations' which have no basis in any accepted cultural social science or anything!!! I couldn't resist venting my spleen (not too badly) on the Talk Page of Non-resident Indian where I announced my decision to place an npov notice up. But again I'm grateful for your action. --LordSuryaofShropshire 06:55, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Lord, first of all you are the one who called me psycho, childish, etc and so I called you same. Second of all, I didn't write the whole titles as you complained me in the talk page. Third of all, I have written enough info now.
Regarding other conflicts with Indian English and Ramayana, I'm getting help from a.u.e.
Your remark that I'm kid and native Indian is too much for anyone who knows me personally to agree with.
So, what are you complaining to this sysop? --Rrjanbiah 06:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I called you psycho after WEEKS of your telling me I'm a 'nationalist', hyper-'patriot' POV 'vandal' and demonstrating a complete lack of communication skills. --LordSuryaofShropshire 06:55, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Anyone can check your edits and your discussions to decide about your disputes. --Rrjanbiah 07:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for stating the obvious, buddy. But remind them to look at the Ramayana and India (in particular the AIT section) pages as well. --LordSuryaofShropshire 07:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely, *if* they have knowledge about the topic and knowledge about what are you trying here. (BTW, what Sari has to do with "Hindu philosophy"? sigh) --Rrjanbiah 07:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1) It's not about being knowledgeable: you don't seem to understand everyone's point that you're a pugnacious individual with little room for civil discussion; you failed to ever discuss things and just pointed a finger at me and called my writing fictional; you then argued about changes which didn't even contradict anything you said! Perhaps this is because your English isn't so good, but you need to read and try to understand what people are saying. 2) Hiranyagarbha and the ideas of the Supreme Being of NatyaShastra are Vedic principles that are part of the Hindu metaphysical framework. <Sigh> --LordSuryaofShropshire 08:09, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
*sigh* --Rrjanbiah 08:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Please explain to me what I am doing wrong so I can stop. No one has explained this to me, as soon as someone says "You ought to do X", I do X, such as including information in my summary tags. This reeks of hazing, and I do not appreciate the immaturity shown by the staff. Husker007 18:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you doing wrong? Well, (1) the information you added to Blue Whale (the first time) was blatantly false. You got reverted, then you changed your claim, and this time your own source contradicted you. (2) On perenium, you're demanding the removal of a picture which everyone else seems to agree is appropriate (at least until something better can be found). (3) Your edit summaries have generally been personal attacks (such as "reverting vandalism by User X", where X is a user who has been here a long time and we know is not a vandal), (4) This edit is blatantly POV. So that's 4 seperate pages on which you have caused trouble, and I'm pretty sure I've barely scratched the surface. If you do not discontinue adding POV or false information, if you do not cease to make personal attacks, if you do not stop demanding the removal of pictures as pornographic, and if (in general) you do not stop making a nuisance of yourself, you will be banned. →Raul654 00:07, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Raul, when you say to Husker007 that "you will be banned.", are you speaking as an editor, a sysop, a bureaucrat, or a member of the Arbitration Committee? Do you mean banned via an Arbitration Committee ruling, or via other means? I ask, because it may be unclear, especially to a new user (or to any user not unaware of the high offices you hold here) whether or not you can ban by your personal fiat. Thanks in advance for clearing this up. -- orthogonal 00:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In this case, I am speaking as a run-of-the-mill sysop who is telling a new user that if he refuses to follow Wikipedia's policies, he will be banned as a vandal. →Raul654 00:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale[edit]

Hi, I've tried to modify the intro section to incorporate your suggestions. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, it appears that the article has stabalised, with emphasis being taken away from the literary references (which were never the main part of the story to begin with). I've tried to accomodate everyone's suggestion to the best of my ability, what more can I do here? Are you happy with the changes to the lead section? Does everything else look OK to you? I'd really like to know if I've satisfactorally made enough changes for you to be able to withdraw your objection! - Ta bu shi da yu 17:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that[edit]

I added a couple of those back that I thought were really good. Sorry for overloading the page — should have thought a bit more before I did that. Johnleemk | Talk 01:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat stuff[edit]

Hi Raul, please remember to add people you turn into sysops to the list of administrators. Thanks. Angela. 17:17, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Yes, I'll be more careful about that in the future. →Raul654 17:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


Why do you have a sandbox on your user page? --Patricknoddy 20:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 20:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)User talk:Patricknoddy 16:20 September 13, 2004 (EDT)

CPU cache[edit]


I've written essentially all of the CPU cache page. I was surprised when it got nominated for featured article... I wasn't familiar with the process. Now that it's in the featured article list, it appears that the (relatively minor) feedback that people had left on the candidates page has vanished. Where did it go? Should it go on the :Talk page?

I could really use some good criticism on this page, and time to respond (like a weekend), before it goes on the front page.

Iain McClatchie 04:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) For articles that are promoted to featured status, their nominations are archived to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log. (2) In general, there's a lag time of about 2 months between promotion and being featured on the main page (I try not to pick recently promoted articles for the main page). →Raul654 05:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


I think I've pulled a disaster and messed something up in the Wikipedia:Village pump trying to remove the "Regions of Italy" section. The section still appears on the page, though the diff section says it's removed. Etz Haim 05:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nah. Look at this - it's an old version of the page. "Regions of Italy" appears on the page twice - TOC numbers 32 and 67. It probably got accidentally duplicated at some point in the past - this is a fairly common problem with the mediawiki software. Just remove the other section, and you should be fine. →Raul654 05:59, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


I'm verry sorry for having so many self-nominations; in the future, I will restrict myself. But two of the nominations will soon disappear: George I of Great Britain is due for promotion today, and James I of Scotland for the same tomorrow.

Shock site[edit]

Hey, Raul, I reverted your edit to Shock site because it was done while the page was protected. Feel free to make the edit once the page is unprotected, but it isn't right to edit a protected page (except to put the protection template on it, of course.) RickK 00:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Rick - I knew it was protected. However, it was protected due to vandalism -- no one is actually debating the contents of the article -- which is why I saw no reason not edit the article. →Raul654 00:27, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


Apologies, I only noted the tag after I saved. Feel free to overwrite my edit.--Eloquence*

Ok, thanks. →Raul654 06:06, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Disinfopedia template[edit]

Are you sure that it broke the template? I didn't even have time to check and see if it worked before you reverted. - Nat Krause 06:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes - every single page that used it suddenly started coming up with garbage. Make a test template using the previous versoin, and put it in a sandbox somewhere - you'll see that it comes up garbage. →Raul654 06:18, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Have Star Trek be the Featured topic for October 8th[edit]

October 8th is when the new season of Star Trek begins, so make Star Trek be the featured topic that day. Gamingboy

It was already featured on May 22 of this year. We don't repeat articles. →Raul654 17:49, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Tank man[edit]

There is little point in insisting on a link to Wang Weilin, as nobody knows who he is, and no other pages but Tank man link to him. We can't have a bio on him because nobody knows who he is. :) Should the page be created, it would be nothing but a permanent substub with only one useful outgoing link – to Tank man. Surely you don't want to encourage the existence of such a page? — Smyth 20:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to prove everyone wrong, I've gone and written it. It contains 7 internal links, 2 external links, and 3 sentences - quite a bit more than a substub. And there's more room to grow. →Raul654 20:20, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Right, so we now have two articles under two pseudonyms of the same person. The new article contains one new piece of information, which should be incorporated back into the original article. The rest is straight duplication.
This is what redirects are for. – Smyth 20:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tank man should contain information about the suspects (who Tank man could be), and the impact (being on Time Magazine's top 100 most influental people). The Wang Weilin article should be a striaght biography - it could talk about what university he went to, the fact that he was the son of two factory workers, etc - none of which belongs at tank man. →Raul654 21:01, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
If any actual, real, substantiated information was known about Wang Weilin personally, or if he was a notable person in some other way, then I'd agree. But we only have the vaguest hearsay about who "Wang" was, assuming he actually existed, so there is no useful purpose in having a separate article for him. – Smyth 21:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Uh, no one is disputing the claim that he existed, or that he was a student, etc etc. The claim that he is tank man might be wrong, but he definitely existed. →Raul654 21:28, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure lots of people called Wang Weilin existed, and lots of those were students, and probably one of those students were in the Square on that day. But we don't add a page for every person who exists, we add a page for the Tank Man because he did something worth writing a Wikipedia article about.
I suppose my point really is that there is no prospect that any new information will ever be added to the Wang page which would not equally belong on the Tank man page, because there is nothing else known about him except the barest rumors. In such a situation, having two pages seems unjustified. – Smyth 21:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To reiterate what I said above - The Wang Weilin article ... could talk about what university he went to, the fact that he was the son of two factory workers, etc - none of which belongs at tank man. Tank man is about the tank man persona. We can't say for sure that it's Weilin, tank man shouldn't go into depth about his life -- that would be awkward. On the other hand, Wang Weilin is about Weilin himself. There is definitely information that belongs in the latter and not in the former. And with the barest of google searches, I turned up several facts that were usable. If someone wanted to, they could find a lot more info than that. (all they would have to do is email the professor who reported that he had died after 14 days). →Raul654 21:56, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
I've reconsidered my position. I suppose it could go either way - in general, yes, it's a horrible idea to have two articles about the same thing, but this case is odd, since we don't know that they're the same thing. I'm fine with it as is, but if you want to merge the two, I don't think I'll have any further objections. →Raul654 23:35, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What arbitration case?[edit]

Statement by affected party[edit]

I just found out today that there was a formal arbitration case against me. It is improper to do this without me being part of it. RK

Be aware that Simonides was himself nearly banned for his non-stop damage of several Wikipedia articles? He launched into abusive polemics against nearly everyone on the Philosophy and Anti-Semitism articles. We must note that many people are upset with the way that Simonides's kept hurling ad homenim attacks at so many people, so many times. Since I was one of the many people who did not allow him to unilaterally rewrite all of our articles to match his own peculiar POV, he tried to ban me. Just check out the archives of these pages, especially the anti-Semitism page, You will find that I have not been harassing him, or anyone. The reverse is true, and he is just trying to ban me to get his POV in. RK

As for Zero, we rarely have any conflict. He does have anger towards me, and I suspect that he is a sockpuppet for another user. I requested that in the one area we have a significant difference, we mediate (the Israel Shahak article.) As for all the other articles that we could have had disagreements on (relating to the Arab-Israeli wars), I removed nearly all of those articles from my Watchlist. That's right, instead of arguing with Zero and others, for many months now I have totally let them have their own way on over a dozen articles. Compare this to the behaviour of other Wikipedians with arbitration cases; I don't know of a single user like myself who has been so generous in just totally removing themselves from a large number of contentious articles. RK

It seems odd to me that so few are willing to actively participate in mediation, but wish to push charges against me. And have they dropped any articles from their watchlist? Nope. I can't see how I am the bad guy here. RK 20:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Irish theatre[edit]

Hi: I have expanded the lead section somewhat. Will this do or do you think it needs more? Would it be better to see if Abbey Theatre makes it to FA and main page it this centenary year? Filiocht 08:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Much better now. Look to see it on the main page sometime this week. And don't worry about Abbey Theatre - there's still plenty of time left in the year to feature it on the main page. →Raul654 08:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Right so. I'm happy to see Irish theatre make it as I started that page under my previous username. Filiocht 08:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ohhh, so you're what became of Bmills! I was kinda saddened to see he hadn't contributed in a while, but now I know why :) -- you might want to make User:Bmills a redirect to User:Filiocht. →Raul654 08:49, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Have done. Filiocht 10:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan[edit]

What is happening with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan? It's been nearly a month. Mintguy (T) 17:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Willy on wheels!' return[edit]

Yes, your userpage was moved again. It has been moved back. -- Grunt   ҈  22:30, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Enigma machine on the Main Page[edit]

Hey, I noticed that Enigma machine is up for the main page on the 22nd. On the 23rd, I'm going to a lecture demonstrating an actual surviving Enigma, and I was planning to take a bunch of photos to replace the somewhat nasty black-and-white NSA pictures in the article — it might make sense to delay it for a couple of days. — Matt 23:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll delay it a few days. →Raul654 01:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


Guanaco's right about it being policy. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations says "If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL" with the assumption that you are "in a position to grant this license". And it's said this since AxelBoldt rewrote the policy in June 2002 [5].

I think this needs to be changed somewhat, as many of the Creative Commons licenses are not only acceptable for images in a legal sense (under the GFDL's aggregation clause), but from a moral "free encyclopedia" standpoint as well. -- Cyrius| 14:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section[edit]

Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mixed-breed dog[edit]

Thanks for the heads up! What fun! I'll be prepared... Elf | Talk

1 million articles notice colors[edit]

#darkgray and #lightgrey (with the hashes) appear as black in IE/Mac, making the text unreadable. If those are intended to be commented out, /* ... */ should be used instead. Goplat 01:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thanks. Hyacinth 05:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I see you've removed Tintin from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and archived it, may I ask why?

"If there are no objections/referals after approximately a week, the article may be promoted to featured article status. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived."

What objections still were there were being worked on. {Heliophile} 07:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I counted 2 supports (Xiaopo and Fern) and 1 objection (Ta bu shi da yu). 2/1/0 definitely isn't consensus. →Raul654 12:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Poetry of the United States[edit]

I saw your note on the talk page of this article and have expanded the lead section. Do you feel it still needs more work? If you leave any further suggestions on the talk page, I will try to address them. Filiocht 10:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's looking much better. →Raul654 12:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
While I'm on a roll, are you aware of any other FAs in need of a better lead section? If you leave a list on my talk page, I'll try to get to some of them at least. Filiocht 12:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the birthday wishes. RickK 20:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

"Licensed under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright/license"[edit]

Yes, I mean the GFDL. At one point the upload instructions seemed to suggest that as the preferred wording.

I hereby assert that every image uploaded by User:Dpbsmith that indicates a) that the image was taken by me, and which contains an assertion of copyright by Daniel P. B. Smith, is released under the GDFL. The assertion of copyright means that the image is, in fact, mine to release. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Hi Raul, you're right "Fair use for non-commercial usage" doesn't make sense. It was probably one of my first attempts to explain a copyright status. The copyright holder simply agreed for it to be used on a non-commercial basis. Regards PHG 06:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll tag them as non-commerical for the time being, but that means that unless you contact the copyright holder, they'll be deleted eventually (probably). →Raul654 06:55, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Raul. The copyright holder just agreed to release Image:MenanderCoin.jpg in the Public Domain. Regards.PHG 13:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Hi Raul! Thanks for your interest in the Banshee airplane article I originated. The copyright for that photo is owned by Michael Baldock, who gave me full permission to use it in a non-commercial way. He saw the page and he loved it.

I have copies of his e-mails giving me permission, so dont worry, its all taken care of.

Thank you and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio La Cosa Martin"

DNA labels.jpg[edit]

Hi Raul,

I noticed your comment on WP:FPC that the .png encoding of Image:DNA labels.jpg was 4x larger than the .jpg. I thought this was surprising as I've always been told that .png is better for compressing areas of flat colour (presumably through run length encoding). So tried compressing the image myself. And yup, it came out 4x larger using .png in 24bit mode. But there are also 8bit, indexed colour, .png's which did save a little space and would probably do even better and give a sharper result if it worked on the original rather than the slightly smudged .jpg. I don't know whether all graphics packages support 8bit png encoding though and it might not be worth the effort. -- Solipsist 12:10, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I didn't upload it or cite, User:OldakQuill did. All I did was cut the file size by two-thirds. :) - Hephaestos|§ 15:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Ectopic pregnancy.jpg[edit]

Hi Raul, does this image mean we can now use ADAM images on Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 20:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put it into the article because it wasn't in use. I just checked, and the site contains this "Copyright 2002 A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited." So, the pic needs to be deleted :( →Raul654 20:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
If you check the page history, Diberri removed it himself after noting the same thing. I've listed the image on WP:CP so this won't repeat. -- Cyrius| 20:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've already listed it on IFD ;) →Raul654 20:46, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Whatever. I figure there's less chance of it slipping past CP :) -- Cyrius| 21:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latham photo[edit]

Please see my note about photo copyrights at the top of my Talk page. Adam 06:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have placed it at Wikipedia which means I am happy for anyone to use it anyway they like. If you think it is important, tag it any way you want. Adam 06:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I didn't know I had to wait a few months. Sorry about that. --Gamingboy 18:48, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

You don't *have* to wait a few months, but it's bad form not to. →Raul654 18:49, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

In the matter of Snowspinner v. orthogonal[edit]

Raul, while I of course believe you to be a man of the foremost character, I wonder if it would not be best for Wikipedia to avoid even the appearance eof impropriety in matters before Arbitration, and so respectfully suggest you consider recusing yourself from the case Snowspinner v. orthogonal.

So as not to unduly surprise you, I should note that I have outlined on the arbitration page particulars of the case that would tend to suggest this to be the most delicate course of action. -- orthogonal 17:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Frankly, I expected that you would in fact recuse yourself as a matter of course, and so had desired not to bring up these facts at all. Given your love for Wikipedia, however, I think we all understand that it was excess of duty and not neglect of duty that no doubt impelled you to attend to this matter without first attending to your own reputation, and I will be the first to argue that no fault attaches to you. -- orthogonal 17:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Thanks for recusing yourself. In this situation, I think it was definitely the right choice. --Michael Snow 21:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Am I Jason?[edit]

Or were you referring to someone else in your comment about Kenneth Alan? ;-) I assumed you meant me, and found it amusing -- of course, as Jdforrester and I have the same first name, there's no good way to reference me. Since he goes by James F., perhaps I should adopt Jason as a moniker, to avoid making people spell my username. :-)

Oh, and so you know, I think recusal was wise also, and I'm glad you did, although I agree with orthogonal that I didn't have any actual concerns that you would show bias. I don't think I'd have any problems either, but I figured it was best to step aside rather than risk bad appearances. It has the added benefit, of course, of reducing the number of cases you and I need to attend to by one. :-) Have a good evening, and keep up the good work; Jwrosenzweig 23:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad ;) -- Yes, I meant you, "Jason" ;) →Raul654 00:05, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Relisting featured articles on FACs[edit]

I've noted your comment on talk:FACs, but would welcome comments on my comment why there is not a note at the top of the FACs page saying to check the FA page (or the talk page of the page you want to nominate) before adding it to FACs.

As a new wikipedian, if I wanted to nominate something, I'd read the instructions at the top of the FACs page and follow them. I doubt that I'm the only one. Also, I doubt that my suggestion is controversial, despite its being ignored to date. May I ask your thoughts? Jongarrettuk 00:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Simply put - I try to avoid unnecessary page instructions wherever possible (see instruction creep). If someone accidentally nominates an already-featured article, then others can just go ahead and delete the nom when they notice. →Raul654 00:54, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Still here (sort of)[edit]


I am still here, just a lot less active. I finished school in early Sept, and have just started a new job. I hope to continue to be active, but not nearly to the level of before.

Burgundavia 05:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Feature article nominations[edit]

I am curious why you deleated strategic management from the feature article page when it has no objections against it. mydogategodshat 16:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1 support and no objections is not "consensus" (the nominator doesn't count). On second thought though, because it had no objections, I should probably have given it a little extra consideration and left it there a bit longer (just in case someone would have supported). I'll relist it on the FAC, but if no one else supports, it's getting removed again. →Raul654 02:35, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Um, it was 2 support when I added it to Featured articles. I read the article, and I support it. The FAC page says nothing about requiring more than 1 support anyway. Jrincayc 14:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The FAC is not a first-past-the-poll vote -- operates based on consensus. Con·sen·sus (k…n-sµn“s…s) n. 1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole or by majority will. - one supporting vote does not a consensus make. →Raul654 17:25, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Where does it say consensus? As I read WP:FAC, a consensus is merely required if there are objections. To quote If there are no objections/referals after approximately a week, the article may be promoted to featured article status. There were no objections, and a week had passed, and I agreed that it was worthy of FA, therefore, I promoted it to featured article status. Jrincayc 23:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is there sufficient consensus now (4 support)? Jrincayc 02:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for moving Strategic management to featured articles. Jrincayc 20:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Featured articles on the main page[edit]

Er, oops. I wasn't attempting to circumvent your authority or anything, I guess I failed to read to the end of Wikipedia:Today's featured article, and just looked at the numbered guidelines. Seems I missed the policy change and I don't tend to assume any area of Wikipedia is "off-limits". I apologize for the oversight. Sarge Baldy 03:44, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

No problem - I figured it was a simple misunderstanding. Anyway, if you have any requests, just drop me a line. But as I said WRT Mount St. Helens - it was up there <3 weeks ago. →Raul654 03:51, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Daily article mail[edit]

Hi Raul. I'm going to be away tomorrow (Saturday) morning, and possibly Sunday, so I won't be able to do the featured article mail. Could you be an angel and maybe handle sending it instead? Thanks a lot  :-) Kate Turner | Talk 07:23, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Sure - will this be like last time, where you write them up and queue them, and I OK them at the correct time? Also, since the queue doesn't go till sunday, I'll have to add another article to the queue - I'll do that later today (it's 3:30 AM local time and I'm heading to bed). →Raul654 07:28, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
If I have time today (which I think I should) then I can write them up and send them (as long as there are enough, of course). If not, er, I won't. :-) Kate Turner | Talk 07:32, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Kennth Alan[edit]

Hi. May I suggest that you change the time placed on Kenneth Alan's page to either 00:01 or 23:59, so it is clearer on which day the ban expiires. Thank you. Mintguy (T) 21:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remove that porn picture[edit]

Please that picture is clearly from a porn site this is supposed to be an encyclopedia!!!--198 23:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hi Raul, Image:Insulin.jpg does not look much like insulin, which is only 51 amino acids long. Is this the insulin-responsive glucose channel, perhaps? JFW | T@lk 23:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PDB says it is a sliding clamp of the DNA polymerase. Something must have gone wrong... JFW | T@lk 23:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You are correct. I am re-rendering it now. →Raul654 23:59, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Restoration of a featured article[edit]

On 29 January of this year, the article Representative peer was promoted to Featured Article Status after receiving the necessary votes. I later removed the article, which had by then been merged with another article (Peerage), itself of featured status. (There was no formal removal vote; in fact, no one even requested the removal.) Now, however, the article representative peer has become its own article again. Its content is the same as that prior to removal, with a few minor grammatical changes. As the only reason the article was removed was its merger with another article, and because this reason no longer exists, I have re-added representative peer to the list of featured articles. If, however, the restoration is deemed inappropriate, I would not object to the removal of the article again. -- Emsworth 01:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had noticed, and I was going to ask you about it later. If it's identical (more or less) to what it was after it was approved as a featured article once, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be reslisted. →Raul654 02:17, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
All right, thanks for the input. -- Emsworth 02:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revert on Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians[edit]

Sorry about that - I saw the username "Guano & Co." and figured it was a sockpuppet causing trouble. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 02:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Leyte Gulf[edit]

Is there a reason why you removed the Japanese characters from the article? Grant65 (Talk) 14:55, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Uh, the only edit I've made there in months is this one, and I don't see any Japanese characters. →Raul654 15:06, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise there was an edit between mine and yours.Grant65 (Talk) 15:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


Could you cite specific pages? I mainly thought about nominating her for adminship because I personally have not had problems in interactions with her, and I noticed she seems to make a lot of edits, many of them detailed. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:02, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


Could you block his IPs too? Or would that require a procedure? Gadykozma 22:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He is using AOL, so blocking them for long periods of time is unfeasble (because it blocks *A LOT* of people at the same time). I blocked all of them for 15 minutes. If he returns, I'll consider doing it again for 15 minutes. →Raul654 22:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship[edit]

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


In that case, I change my mind. :) Thanks, Mark. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:53, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's nomination[edit]

Hi Raul,

If you wish to promote Neutrality I won't try to stop you as it will be your responsibility. However, please consider that we've just another disputed promotion by a mostly-inactive bureaucrat and this may fuel the fire even more.

Neutrality's is a very difficult situation and I feel badly for him, but there are many reasoned objections. IMO, he needs some more "seasoning," especially his communications skills, and he may well succeed next time. I think you should consider his wisdom in gracefully bowing out. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia - I show a nominal support of 77% (which is well within my margin of comfort), and my normalized count (IE, discounting troll and sockpuppet votes) shows it at around 82%. Once again, well within my margine of comfort. →Raul654 03:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
PS - (a) I believe I promoted someone to adminship last month, and (b) when the position of bureaucrat was created, I helped draft the bureaucrat guidelines (specifically, I wrote the poll that defined them). So I'm pretty sure I know what I'm doing. Those guidelines give bureaucrats discretion in handling such matters. While I realize that this is a controversial nomination, I'm OK in making the promotion. Also, (C) if you don't want bureaucrats "coming out of the woods" (so to speak) I strongly suggest that when someone requests bureaucratship, the RFA regulars be more discriminatory than they have been previously (this is something that I have been advocating for a while). →Raul654 03:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I am not at all doubting your sincerity and ability. I just think this is a bad time, since there are so many passionate objections. I am sure you are quite capable of articulating your reasons. I did not take any position on the nomination, and I'm not taking one now, but if there is an upset over this it might negatively affect Neutrality's next bid, while as it was, he was bowing out gracefully. It wouldn't hurt him to learn to communicate better, as that is the nub of the objections. Maybe more votes will come in and shift sentiment. I respect your call and hope I am wrong as to what might happen. Sincerely, Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In re: your opinion on bureaucrat promotion, perhaps you might express it at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Standard_for_Promotion_to_Bureaucrat? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd also have to question how you think it will look for you to promote him in this case, considering you've already voted to support him. I would say it's a conflict of interest, and this sort of case is exactly the kind that a non-involved, and more experienced, bureacrat decide. I'm not sure whose votes you are "factoring out" as trolls, but you have had to recuse yourself in ArbCom from hearing cases involving some of those, and I think that shows bias. -- Netoholic @ 03:20, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Netoholic, please do not try to influence the decision here in this way. Let's trust the bureaucrats to decide, and not make accusations of bias or conflict of interest (bureaucrats vote to support the people they promote often, and often remove those they voted against as well). Thanks, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:24, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Why do you choose to address me here, now, and not on the vote page as I've asked? Why don't you accuse Cecropia of trying to influence the decision? -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
It will look like I'm using discretion, which is why I got it in the first place. Also, it's not a conflict of interest, because I have no vested interest in seeing Neutrality promoted, other than I think him capable - which is why I voted for him in the first place. And, as I said above, I helped define what a bureaucrat does when the position was originally created, so I don't think my "inexperience" is an issue here. →Raul654 03:24, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
That may be true, but you have only promoted admins 3 times. That may be fine if this was a cut-and-dry case, but I would listen to the advice of Cecropia, who I'm sure has had to weather more "storms" than you in the past. This one may not be the time. Let Neutrality reflect on the comments in this nomination and his previous one and finally make some positive choices. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
That may be true - it is true.
but you have only promoted admins 3 times - because shortly after I was promoted, about a half-dozen other people requested and became bureaocrats. They are quite a bit more vigilant about promoting/removing nominations quickly. Suffice it to say, that does not make me any less compentent to judge them.
That may be fine if this was a cut-and-dry case - 83% (normalized) is fairly cut and dry, according to the beaurocrat poll.
but I would listen to the advice of Cecropia, who I'm sure has had to weather more "storms" than you in the past - with respect to my fellow administrator, I've been here a fair bit longer than Cecropia, and I suspect I've been through more disputes. And, Netholic, while you are entitled to your opinion, I do not have to abide by it. →Raul654 03:44, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you, Mark. You will not regret this. The grateful... [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:19, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thank you[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion log

19:29, 13 Oct 2004 Neutrality deleted "Wikipedia:Be bold" (Delete to make way for page move.) 
16:21, 13 Oct 2004 Neutrality deleted "Image:Bean conrad.jpg" (Obseleted by [[Image:Apollo12Visor.jpg]]) 
04:38, 13 Oct 2004 Neutrality deleted "Image:Ukrockall.jpg" (Obsoleted by [[Image:Map_location_rockall.jpg]]) 

None of these look to be speedy deletion candidates. I leave it to you, since you promoted him. -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Deleting redirects to make way for a page move is not against policy. (AFAIK, it shouldn't even have been required to delete it - moving pages over a redirect with no history automatically deletes it, even for non-sysops). Why are you taking this up with Raul rather than asking Neutrality why he did it? — Kate Turner | Talk 21:02, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I did let him know (Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Page renamed) and quoted the CSD guideline. Since Raul vouched for Neutrality, and stepped in to promote him, he is responsible to make sure Neutrality plays nice. This is a bad start. -- Netoholic @ 21:07, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
Kate is dead-on correct - deleteing redirects prior to page moves is not against policy. Also, deleting obsoleted images (that is, images for which larger versions are available) is a very fine point of policy - not knowing better, I did it routinely until less than a month ago. Netholic - stop trying to stir up trouble. →Raul654 21:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
If by "stir up trouble" you mean "point out problems", I don't think that I can stop. Deleting redirects for page move requires consensus. Since that page has lived in that location for a long time, Neutrality has the burden of proving that he has it. As for the images, it is not a "fine point"... images deletions must go through WP:IFD (which Neutrality said he was going to help with). The only "speedy" solution for them is if they are thumbnails or exact byte counts. There is a very good reason, because images cannot be undeleted. Whatever you think, his actions as an admin will reflect on you, and you should be the one to point him in the right direction. -- Netoholic @ 21:53, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
Netoholic, I know you will be watching Neutrality like a hawk, but you'll have to do better than that. There are certain housekeeping chores on Wikipedia that an admin can do, indeed should do, without referring the issues to ponderous chewing over. Sometimes a good admin needs to be a bit aggressive when the action is in good faith, and respond if there is reasonable criticism that the action is incorrect. The items you are citing are well within that concept. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well then, I am at a loss as to why we have these policies written up, if its so common and accepted that they are ignored. Neutrality is going to be watched over, probably by every single person whose concerns were ignored by this promotion. I am actually trying to be a bit constructive by pointing out these early "missteps", since a lot of people expressed concern over his impulsiveness. If I try telling him this, it's going to be flatly ignored (as I have been before by him), but coming from the friend of his that promoted him will make a bigger impact. The deletions I mention are problematic, and his idea to move a well-established page (Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages) was impulsive and not the result of any discussion. Criticize me if you want, but I am sure you see it too. I will leave it alone, as long as Raul accepts that he needs to act as a mentor, since it was his interference that lead to Neutrality's promotion. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Motion to close on RK[edit]

Two of the currently active arbitrators are recused as to this case. I believe 4 votes is enough to support a ruling. --Michael Snow 16:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fred and Martin have recused themselves, taking the number of arbitrators from 9 to 7. Thus, 4 votes is a majority. Thank you for noticing this, Michael. →Raul654 16:30, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


I liked your point regarding the COTW by subject and interest. And I especially love your article on laws of wikipedia. I've only been here a short few months and I've already experienced most of these in one form or another. Jpittman 16:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you :) →Raul654 01:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Pic at Evergreen[edit]

Hi Raul - I've had a look at your pic at Evergreen; my idents/conclusions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Little job - MPF 22:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look. →Raul654 01:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Margin of error[edit]

Hi Mark. I just wanted to check in about the comments I and others made about having the article featured on the main page before the US election. I understand that there are a large number of featured articles that have not yet been on the main page, and if there is a "seniority" aspect to this, then of course I understand. There is certainly something to be said about giving an article time for more people to comment and edit before it risks the reputation of the project. On the other hand, I do feel that the article could inform people who report on and interpret polls in ways that will benefit the voting public. If it is to be on the main page soon, I also wonder when the best time would be to feature it. In the mean time, if there's anything I can do about the blurb or the graphic to make it more main page-friendly, I'd look forward to your suggestions. Best, Andrew (Fadethree), 00:48, Oct 16 2004 (UTC)

Don't fret - I take requests, and I always fulfill them or give good reasons for not doing so. Margin of error is fine - I have scheduled it for the 19th. →Raul654 01:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)


Hi - I recently discovered that you got that image of part of the Mandelbrot set promoted to a featured image. Cheers! But I just uploaded a much bigger version in its place. Unfortunately I'd lost the original settings I used the first time round, so the colours aren't an exact match. Still, tell me if you think it's acceptable/better... Evercat 22:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Never mind; I found out I had a bigger version of the original on my hard disk. Uploaded that now - it's substantially the same as the one voted for... Evercat 22:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It looks almost the same to my eye. And I definitely like the higher resolution. In short, it's quite acceptable to me. →Raul654 22:58, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

You might like Image:Mandelpart3.jpg as well... Evercat 00:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More FAC[edit]

You removed tropical cyclone from FAC, but didn't make a note of it in either Featured article candidates/Featured log or Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. -- Cyrius| 05:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. It should have been archived into the failed noms. →Raul654 05:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

"no meta data"[edit]

What exactly do you mean by "rv - No meta data in articles", and why is that a reason to remove a perfectly reasonable warning? --Cantus 00:35, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

We have a very strong policy of not including meta data in articles. Meta data (which we have a good definition of at Metadata (computing)) is information that does not pertain directly to the article topic itself, but is wikipedia-related in nature. This includes (but is not limited to): wikiproject tags, FAC or featured article tags, etc. We do make exceptions for very important meta data (the VFD or cleanup tag), but {{sex}} is not one of them. In the past, when people have proposed disclaimers, not only have them been widely reviled, but also (in this case) directly against policy. →Raul654 00:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Huh? There is a huge quantity of such "meta-data" message boxes all over Wikipedia. Protection notices, Spoiler warnings, Stubs, Disambiguations, Other uses, Current events, etc. Take a look around and give me the real reason why you are removing my messages. Or direct me to where can I learn about this "strong policy" you speak of. --Cantus 00:49, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
(a) It is not up to you to arbitrarily decide to add more to that, and (b) In the past when this has come up, nobody has supported it. →Raul654 00:51, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Corrected error on FAC page[edit]

There's been a duplicate "Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination." line on FAC all day so I decided to be be bold and remove it. I know that page is your baby so I hope you don't mind. Zerbey 23:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's fine - mistakes like that happen, and I appreciate other people pitching in to help keep that page sane. →Raul654 00:51, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
PS - the salary warning on your user page cracked me up :) →Raul654 00:51, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Lee Atwater[edit]

Hi, just thought I'd seek your help. The edit I reverted on Lee Atwater, about his AIDS quilt entry, duplicated some info from a previous edit which I assume was vandalism, stating that Atwater died of AIDS (diff). Thus, I assumed this entry was a reiteration. The link is broken, it appears to me, so I can't check it. Is this legit? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Forget it; I'm an idiot. It's subtle vandalism, and I got duped. He definitely died of a brain tumor. That link is actually a redirect to another website. →Raul654 00:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
PS - Thanks for keeping me on my toes. →Raul654 00:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Baseball FAC plug, thanks for your hard work...[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure of the whole nomination/FAC approval process, but I wanted to put in a word for Baseball, which I just renominated. This would probably be good to get it as a featured article in the next few days/ASAP, because the World Series starts on Saturday Oct 23 and it would be quite timely. I'm betting there will be widespread support for it, so I was hoping to get it up there. Three or four of us have been honing it for months now. What do you think? --Locarno 14:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Baseball FAC[edit]

Hey Raul

Baseball is on WP:FAC right now, and has gained some support. Depending on the votes for tomorrow, I'd suggest setting it as the "Today's Featured Article" over this weekend since the World Series starts Saturday. Just thought it might be nice, but of course I have a certain bias, as a major contributor to the article.

siroχo 00:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


Raul - I would like to request, as nicely as possible, that you please stop assuming bad faith in my edits, calling me names (like troll), and showing bias against me. Your recent attitude has done nothing but make me feel very uncomfortable working here, and I don't believe that someone in such a position of respect in this community should act so uncivil.

I spend the vast majority of my time here making very productive enhancements. At no time do I ever make any edit, or begin any discussion on IRC, with the purpose of causing strife. Unfortunately, I got off on the wrong foot with a few members here, and that has been perpetuated beyond what is called for - leading me to try and defend myself from the particularly fashionable practice of "troll-bashing". I look to you, as someone who has the respect of many users here, to help me stop this. If I make a mistake in the future, I certainly ask and welcome that it be discussed with me respectfully. I think I've shown often in the past that I am willing to make changes and come to agreement. In return for your help in stopping this, I will commit to listening more closely to those suggestions and admit fault when I don't.

I really do think that you and a number of other members here have the wrong idea about me, being perhaps jaded by previous encounters. I hope that, with this note, you will see that I am actually a pleasant and hopefully valuable member of the community here. -- Netoholic @ 15:18, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

PLEASE please just stop. Let me put it back in as the proposed text which has been stable since Oct 4th. Even though I've asked you very nicely, you still feel the need to do things just to aggravate. Please stop. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I have requested mediation in an attempt to stop this "cold war". Its my hope that if you're unwilling to discuss with me directly, that having someone facilitate will help. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how to reply to this for a while (I've been writing this for almost several hours; long before your previous 2 comments above), so here goes. First, I do not assume anything; I judge each edit on its own merits. And, of the edits of yours that I have seen, very many of them looked to me as if it were designed to cause as much conflict and anger as possible. Now, intention is implied by action. What are your intentions, since (many of) your actions seem designed to cause problems?

You complain that being called a troll makes you uncomfortable. If you really don't want to be called one, THEN DON'T ACT LIKE ONE. You say that you do not like someone like me to be uncivil. I am perfectly civil to people who behave properly. You have not been behaving properly.

Further, I believe there are two possible reasons you made this post:

  1. You are a user with good intentions who has made some very bad, very anti-social (IE, very trollish) mistakes and has been labelled a troll as a result. You find this label upsetting, and would like to change it; OR
  2. This whole post has been made in bad-faith, as something for you to point to later as an attempt to 'be nice' and work with others.

It would not be the first time someone has tried it.

The latter is particularly believable considering shortly after you made that post you went right over to the Speedy deletion page and started an edit war with me there, along with 2 others, by trying to add a policy that doesn't have consensus. When told this, you simply stated that majority is necessary - WRONG! If you were *actually* trying to work with others, after the first time you were reverted, you would have tried discussing it; instead, you edit war with multiple members of the community.

On the other hand, I looked at your user contributions, and I did see quite a few good edits there. I concede that this is almost never the case for true trolls (I certainly cannot think of an exception). As such, I am willing to believe it is as you said - that you made some mistakes when you got here, and you didn't really mean to cause all these problems. I will wipe the slate clean, and treat you as I would treat any other user in good standing. In return, I expect you to behave as we would expect all of our editors to - to be curteous, civil, and when reverted, to DISCUSS rather than edit warring. In fact, I *strongly* suggest you do what Anthony has done and limit yourself to 1 revert per day.

Do you find this offer acceptable? →Raul654 06:26, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, your offer is not acceptable. How can it be when you spend more time in the above response pointing out edits of mine in an attempt to discredit me, levying suspicions about whether my intent is good, and directly saying that you believe I'm a troll because I "act like one"? If you had written the above response and left out all but the last paragraph, I would believe that you were returning my offer in good faith yourself. At this point, though, it looks only like your response above was crafted to address other people who might read it, and not me nor my concerns. -- Netoholic @ 15:27, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
I am not attempting to discredit you - you've done a fine enough job of that by yourself without any help from me. I *am* trying to convey my thoughts on the matter, so that you (or, yes, whoever else might read it) can understand what is going on in my head and why I say and do the things I do. It also shows that I have absolutely no hidden agenda - I'm saying exactly what I'm thinking. And if you want me to change my mind, you know exactly what issues to address. Furthermore, yes -- if you act like a troll, you probably are one -- only a fool would say otherwise.
Now, to address your complaint specifically, you can believe my offer was geniune because I have earned a credible and honest reputation around here. In the past, I made the same offer to Plautus (he refused), and then I said I'd ignore him and I abided by it (until he broke the "cease fire" and began to harangue me on my talk page). So, if I say that I intend to treat you like any other user, you can be sure that I intend to abide by it.
On the other hand, I'm beginning to suspect that it is you who have the hidden agenda - that you want this compromise attempt to fail, so long as it shows that you "tried" (and I use the word lightly). For evidence, I cite your reply to my long, well-thought-out response and offer to work with you with a short, accusitive, trite one of your own that didn't actually address a single one of my concerns. And hours after you made the original post, you went right onto another edit war with multiple other users. Your actions since your initial message have not helped your cause nor have they made you any more credible.
So what will it be? Yes or no, do you not accept my offer? To re-iterate, I will treat you as I do any other user, so long as you start behaving like a reasonable, civil, curteous user, who DISCUSSES rather than edit warring. →Raul654 16:27, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
This response is exactly what I expected from you. More jibes at my character, no concession, and no compromise offered other than for me follow some rules of conduct which you yourself do not.
It takes two to "edit war" - An objective look at the conflict you refer to shows me making a minor wording change as a result of a majority position of support, and no indication any controversy. As the only two dissenting voices, you and Ambi reverted me without discussion, except for the snide edit summaries. I invited you to the talk page first. Even after I capitulated, and wanted to restore the original "proposed" text, you rollback'd me. Rollback is an admin tool for vandalism resolution - using that and failing to explain your reverts is an insult and no better than treating me like a common vandal. This, combined with the sudden appearance of a logged-out user getting involved after you had hit the Three Revert limit, shows a lack of respect from you - all after I had contacted you asking for your help. -- Netoholic @ 18:02, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, so I'll make it clear here - your character *IS* the issue here. Your reputation is not like a boomerang. If you trash it, if you you throw it away, it does not come back to you.
Now, to respond to your statement (and I note - you have not actually addressed a SINGLE one I have made). Let's dissect what you said:
This response is exactly what I expected from you. More jibes at my character," - I really don't care if you expect this or not. Nor should you be complaining about me making jibes at your character, since you're character (or lack thereof) is the prime issue here.
no concession, and no compromise offered " - no, I am not making any consecessions here. You WILL follow the rules, or I promise this will become much more unpleasant than "snide remarks".
"other than for me follow some rules of conduct which you yourself do not." - as I will show below, it is you who is not following the rules.
"It takes two to "edit war"" - No, it doesn't. All it takes in one person intent on making bad edits (and a lot of people trying to stop him). In such a case, the edit war is the fault of that ONE person and no one else.
"As the only two dissenting voices, you and Ambi reverted me without discussion" - (a) You were reverted by myself, and Ambi, and Blankfaze, and the anon. (B) Furthermore, Ambi and I gave discussion when we registered our objections weeks before. Our votes were the 2 dissents out of 5 total votes. 3 supports out of 5 is NOWHERE near consensus.
"except for the snide edit summaries." - let's look at those summaries. After you added the proposal, the summaries are:
  • Me: rv - 2 objections and 1 support does not an successful proposal make
  • You: add to case 4 "such that further research and expansion is not possible." (3 support, 2 oppose) at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion#Case 4 addition
  • Me: Even if you count the votes that way, it still does not have consensus
I counted up the votes (and I ignored your vote, because it is common not to count the person who makes the proposal) and accidentally missed the one that wasn't indented properly, so that should have said 2 objections and 2 supports. You reverted, because you counted them differently, at 3-2, a fair enough statement to make (some people count the nominator, some do not. Not really a big deal). Even 3-2 is still not consensus, so the policy should NOT have been added. But (I believe) this can be explained by saying that you were ignorant of the rules, which means so far, this is an honest misunderstanding.
  • You: replacing text in Case #4... majority is sufficient. Opposition to the Talk page please, until consensus reverses
Wrong! And since this statement shows you obviously do not know how things work, you should not be saying it as if you did. In fact, you should have ASKED on the talk page what the burden is before something becomes policy. "Good" users (IE, people who are not out to cause trouble) would so something like that; "Bad' users (people who are out to cause trouble) would continue the edit war. Let's see what you did.
  • Me: No, that is NOT how things work around here. You DO NOT add new policy until you get CONSENSUS of people to support it, and THEN you add it.
Totally, 100% correct statement. Hopefully, this educates you to what the rules ACTUALLY say instead of what you think they do.
  • You: rvt. user is one of only two dissenting voices for this change.
Since you are no longer ignorant of the rules, this and subsequent reverts is nothing short of willfull disobedience to the rules and to the people enforcing them.
I invited you to the talk page first. - I notice that during all of this, you used the talk page just as much as everyone else did - 0 times. I also notice that you are the ONLY person who is trying to make this a policy. Everyone else (Ambi, myself. Blankfaze, and the anon) was reverting against you.
Even after I capitulated, and wanted to restore the original "proposed" text, you rollback'd me - if you want a literal interpretation of the rules, it did not achieve consensus, so therefore it fails and is should be removed. However, as I said on the talk page, I am OK with keeping it as a proposal text.
"Rollback is an admin tool for vandalism resolution - using that and failing to explain your reverts is an insult and no better than treating me like a common vandal" - since I did explain multiple times why what you were doing was against the rules, and yet you continued doing it, you have no right to complain about the auto-rollback because obviously explaining it didn't convince you to behave properly. And while you do not fit the literal definition of a vandal, your edits weren't very far removed from it, either. What you did was stupid, ignorant, combative, obstinant, and TROLLISH. And, all of this after you come to my talk page, asking for me to stop assuming you are a troll.
"This, combined with the sudden appearance of a logged-out user getting involved after you had hit the Three Revert limit"- Ah, an unsupport accusation that I used an anon to get around the 3RR. I had a developer look up the IPs I've used over the last week (which is as long as they keep records for). You can find them at User:Raul654/Last IPs - note, all of them use either comcast (for my house) or my university (when I'm at work). This user was probably an experienced user who was editing while logged out, which is a fairly common occurence and does not violate any rules. On the other hand, you have exactly 0 evidence to support your accusation, so I suggest you stop making it.
"shows a lack of respect from you" - we give you respect when you are a new user. We give you even more respect when you have been here a while and demonstrated you are a good contributor. Once you have trashed your reputation (as you have done with such proficiency), you are no longer entitled to respect.
"all after I had contacted you asking for your help." - so you drop a message on my talk page asking me to stop assuming bad faith in your edits, and then you go and start and edit war during which you show that:
  1. You don't know the rules
  2. You insist you do even when you don't
  3. You refuse to listen, even when the rules are told you you in plain english
  4. You don't know that old bit of common sense, that when everyone else reverts you, you're probably doing something wrong
...and I assume bad faith? Hrmm... why would I possibly do that? I'd also like to say that this is THE MOST optomistic interpretation I can come up with. A perfectly valid alternate theory would be that you are doing all of this to cause trouble. Both theories fit the facts.
Now my proposal is to set aside the bad things you've done and treat you like I would any other user. In return, I expect you to obey the rules and start conducting yourself as we would expect our user to. And regardless of whether or not you accept my proposal, you *will* obey the rules or you will be banned. →Raul654 19:50, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
You were reverted by myself, and Ambi, and Blankfaze, and the anon. - I'd just like to point out that additionally, User:Bkonrad has expressed his objection to Netoholic's changes on the talk page. Netoholic, you did not and do not have consensus, and now (though I suspect it has always been the case) you are in the minority. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And me. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:33, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps that was a bit harsh. Continued on Netholic's talk page. →Raul654 21:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing that out. BTW, it seems to me the paragraph of instructions (If there are no objections/referals after approximately a week, the article may be promoted to featured article status. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.) is rather confusing and seems to contradict itself. Would I change the meaning if I changed the last sentence to If the candidacy period of one week passes without objections being resolved, nominations...? Tuf-Kat 22:49, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

The whole paragraph needs a working over (there are other issues that have been raised in the last couple weeks that I need to tweak it for). Give me a few days and I'll take care of it myself. →Raul654 22:56, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorism" straw poll[edit]

Raul, there is a straw poll going on at Straw poll on use of the term "terrorist" on whether or not to use the term "terrorist" to describe the 9/11 attacks. I'd be interested in hearing your view on the subject. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 23:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


Just letting you know that Netoholic is on the rampage again regarding that box. Ambi 04:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sigh.... →Raul654 04:26, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Anthony admin rights[edit]

On the mailing list you wrote "Give Anthony administrator rights the same way we give them to everyone else." Please explain to me how I could have possibly made it any plainer that I was not suggesting that Anthony be given admin rights. Deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote is really annoying. (It wasn't just you, Charles Matthews did it too). Pcb21| Pete 06:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I was mischaracterizing you at all. You want to do exactly that - set the admin flag on his account, thus giving him all the powers of an admin, albeit with the understanding that he doesn't use them. And I for one strongly oppose that. This is backdoor promotion, because hell will freeze over and thaw again before Anthony has a chance of being promoted on the RFA. And it sets a HORRIBLE example for everyone else - if you troll long enough, you too might become an admin (with the promise not to use your powers). →Raul654 06:56, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mount Cook[edit]

Hi, just a friendly note that Mount Cook, in your favpics section, is in New Zealand and not Australia. This is tantamount to suggesting that Mount Logan is in the States :-) Ziggurat 04:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Danny's contest[edit]

Dear Raul654,

please contact me specifying the amount of WikiMoney you require for my victory in the currently running Danny's contest. Alternatively I would be willing to pay in kind.

Yours, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:47, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II[edit]

If you are interested please cast a vote in the straw poll.

Rickk arbitration case[edit]

Why do you believe it is ok for users to be banned, even when their edits are factually correct and not in any way construable as vandalism? Wert

No. I have given my reasons on the arbcom page. →Raul654 18:22, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

at his talk page, RickK has been contacted over the issue and has not responded. Furthermore, you can see for yourself that he has never used Talk:Larry Sanger. Banning a user is a very serious issue and you should not expect the banned party to show proof that arbitration is needed to unban them; rather, you should expect the banner to show proof that the arbitration committee should have been bypassed. Wert

You are expected to work out your disputes according to the dispute resolution process. The arbitration commitee is not a babysitter. If you have not attempted to solve your problems via the dispute resolution process, then the arbcom is well within its rights to reject your request on that basis alone. →Raul654 18:27, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sir. a user was banned. You are quite correct that users should work out their problems via the dispute resolution process, however that process requires that sysops do not ban users solely because they disagree over an edit conflict. In this case, neither vandalism nor the 3-revert rule apply -- this is a clear cut case of sysop abuse. Banned users are informed to take their case to the arbcom, so why do you refuse to accept it? Wert

Talk:Battle of Berlin#Battle Box[edit]

Please have a look Philip Baird Shearer 15:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Celtic Tiger[edit]

Your objection to the Celtic Tiger article on WP:FAC have been addressed, please strikeout your objection, or if still unsatisfied explain why. Thanks. CGorman 17:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good work![edit]

Nice new article. :) --mav 20:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Identity theft?[edit]

User:MichelHardy looks like his username is designed to impersonate you, but it could be a coincidence. →Raul654 04:38, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see. Michael Hardy 02:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Promoting FA candidates[edit]

Isn't it about time Lake Burley Griffin and a couple of others were promoted? Unless I can't count, I believe they're a couple of days overdue. Ambi 05:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that - I tried yesterday but the extreme slowness stopped me in my tracks. I'll get to it in a few hours. →Raul654 05:05, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I just realised that Jeronimo accidentally killed the nomination for Economy of Africa here. It had gone through its seven days, with twelve supports, many of them emphatic, and two disputed objects. The first one, that a graph couldn't be read by the colourblind, seems to be a bit frivolous to reject an FAC for, and the second was because it didn't have sub-articles. Is that enough to prevent it from being featured? It seems to be right in the area of your discretion. Ambi 09:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

department of fun[edit]

hey there just wanted to invite you to be a member of the Department of Fun as i saw you on a linked page we have as a judge, feel free to add your sig./timestamp in the members section. --Larsie 17:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

hey is it possible to give anymore info on that jeopardy style activity you were working on. oh and did you want to add your name to the members list in the department of fun? --Larsie 21:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Kobe Bryant's accuser#Poll about moving the page to Katelyn Faber[edit]

Raul, you jackass, you've messed the whole page up, there's like 5 or 6 duplicated votes now. Fix it! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly appreciate being called a jackass. →Raul654 02:18, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Although I see from your talk page that this was not meant to be taken as seriously as I thought it was. →Raul654 02:26, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, Raul, I thought you would get the joke... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't take votes from one poll and move them to a different poll. That's just a really bad idea. anthony 警告 01:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Netoholic[edit]

I'm rather disappointed to see you making critical remarks about my actions in a forum unrelated to me. Also, I would suggest that you review the protection log and the full history of events in this situation before leaping to such conclusions. --Michael Snow 23:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Lol. It's not unrelated to you, silly. You're involved in this protection/unprotection controversy with Netoholic and Deb and others. What "conclusions" do you speak of, if I may ask? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a discussion about whether Netoholic should be an admin, so I can understand why Netoholic's communications with other users might be relevant. But the fact that those messages are about userpage protection doesn't make that controversy itself the subject of discussion, and certainly doesn't explain why my actions should be up for review. There are other, far more appropriate pages to have discussion about the protection issue itself. Currently the discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, and it has additionally appeared on the village pump, though I've tried to redirect that discussion to the protection policy talk page as well.
    • As for conclusions, I simply mean those implied in his remarks, which strongly suggest to me an unawareness of the fact that I was responding to a request, a failure to review the reasons I provided in the protection log, and an incomplete understanding of events in this controversy. --Michael Snow 23:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm quite sure Raul knew of the request. I think the point that Raul was making was that it was inappropriate of you to grant that request. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Raul. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NYC on November 13?[edit]

Come up to the City the weekend of the 13th! See Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. +sj+ 21:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A general note to arbitrators[edit]

Hello -- I'm writing this once but it's addressed to each of you, my colleagues. :-) I don't know if anyone's noticed, but we are under increasing criticism from Wikipedians because we are slow in judgment -- indeed, we have cases that were accepted 3 months ago still languishing in voting paralysis. I'm not writing this to necessarily chastise you -- two or three of you are ahead of me in keeping up with things, I know! But I see many pages where I and a few others have considered, proposed, and voted -- we are waiting for the rest of you. Please do so soon. If you are too busy to be on the AC (I often feel that way myself), perhaps it is time for new elections, but until that happens, I urge you to vote. We have a few tireless arbitrators doing a lot of work crafting some good proposals, but they're not getting attention, and the community grows restless. I hope we can ease some of the grumbling. I apologize for the impersonal message, and again, I'm not no a high horse here. I do think it's time for action, though. Leave me a note if you have any quarrel with my comments here -- I meant them well. See you at WP:RFAr... Jwrosenzweig 22:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note from 172[edit]

I don't care if you're a member of some kangaroo court, you're not in the position to state that I'm not a legitimate editor... Unlike you, your predecessor on the Arbitration Committee understood that we were writing an encyclopedia. [6] BTW, do you even write articles any more? Or are you too busy playing judge? 172 01:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As the case is still active, I am not in a position to comment. →Raul654 01:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Since you rewrote your statement concerning the finding of fact in question, the tone of my response above is no longer called for. So I retract my comments above. At any rate, if arbitration is a 'fair' process, I believe that I am entitled to the opportunity to defend myself. On that note, are you in the position to read my response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172/Proposed decision? This is the first time that I have responded to the committee in length. I'm just asking you to read my response, not to respond to me about it. Regards, 172 08:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have already read your comment in its entirety, although I have not yet acted upon it. →Raul654 08:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2004[edit]

Hi Raul. I have added the article about the Japanese toilet as a featured article for November 10, which is also the unofficial Toilet day of the Japanese Toilet Association. Let me know if there are any problems with that, and feel free to make any changes to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2004. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 15:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

That's fine, but in the future, I'd prefer if you asked me first. →Raul654 17:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
No problem, in the future I will ask you first. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:16, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Typo fix[edit]

Oh you thought I wouldn't mind did you? :) Actually, reminds me I should probably make a little less awful user page now that I've been around a while. Thanks for the fix. - Taxman 22:10, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, not you too...![edit]

And I wonder why I just can't stay away for long. Gonna have to face it. I'm addicted to Wik. Regards, Tony Baritone aka Lucky 6.9 07:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zuiderzee Works[edit]

The satelite picture in IJsselmeer shows one of the polders created with the Zuiderzee works. Maybe that's a good picture? I already mentioned it on Tomorrow's featured article talk. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:59, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't had a lot of experience with expanding lead sections, so it might take a while before I get it right. So be advised to have some articles stocked to feature until then. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

My subpage[edit]

I did. Netaholic moved it and put it up for speedy deletion. I can't even lock it because Kate won't let me. What do you suggest I do? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry you had to get involved in that. Immature I know (on my behalf as well!) but I wanted to keep an archive to see what both I said and other said. I hope you don't have to get involved in my petty squabbles again. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's no big deal, really - just glad I could help out. →Raul654 05:21, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

AC administers slap to Zero0000[edit]

Hi Raul654. Thanks for the notice. On balance, I think it is a good thing that the AC is getting tougher. Cheers, Zero 03:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence[edit]

Raul, I just want to clarify if I've made a mistake. I added some evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence, however Netoholic has told me this was inappropriate. Have I made a mistake over doing this? I'm new to arbitration, so this might be the case. If it is, could I have some advise on what to do with this evidence? Netoholic has stated that I should file a Request for comment on this issue. If this is the case, then I will do so. Thanks mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic asked me the same thing after he told you that. And I'll tell you what I told him - there's nothing stopping you from adding to that page - arbitration evidence pages are open to everyone. →Raul654 06:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


...for fixing that jibberish that appeared on my mini profile of Mike Sodrel. I'm still wet behind the ears and haven't figured out yet how to revert! Katefan0 07:40, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Katefan - anyone can revert by going into the page history, selecting an older version of the page (by clicking on the time/date that version was saved), and saving that old version. However, administrators are given a button to shortcut this process, so that if someone starts behaving badly, we can revert all of his edits very quickly.

If you have any more questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Or, you can ask on the help desk. →Raul654 07:46, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, Raul! -- RyanFreisling @ 08:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

temp injuction[edit]

I'm assuming this poisting is allowed as it's releated to my arbcom case so I'm putting it here(don't know how else you'll read it): How do I go about getting a temp injuction on the anon ip user:User: (who doesnt have an account, and seemingly gets new ips rather easily) then? Chuck F 09:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and just following along with that, isn't there someway to appeal this injuction? It seems kinda silly that I have to wait for these people to reformat the evidence page, so I can reply to it(as The arb case is against me now, can you set some type of deadline for the temp injuction if people don't reformat the evidence page). it seems to me it's an effective ban if they just never bother to reformat the evidence page Chuck F 18:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The current temp injunction applies to all sockpuppets of both you and Reithy. Our policy WRT the use of sockpupets to evade bans is to ban them and punish the person suspected of using them.
As far as appeals, Jimbo has reserved the right to grant clemency, but (I assume) that would have to follow an arbcom ruling, not just a temp injunction.
I'm not sure why you think Jimbo's rulings on anything would have to follow anything else. — Kate Turner | Talk 09:06, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
Regarding the evidence page - arbitration will procede whether or not they reformat it. If they wait too long, I will summarily remove it, and that can only hurt their case. →Raul654 01:59, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
This temp injunction against me is ridiculous compared to the other temp injunctions you have on arbcom page... other people are banned from doing more then two reverts per day on certain subjects. I'm banned until there's a ruling. and based on this [[7]] it's obvious that the admins didn't even bother to check whatever or not their temp injunction was merited or not.
I have to say the person who requested the temp injunction of me. was the same reason I got blocked in first place(along with them), and they've obviously been trolling me to get me to engage in revert wars with them so they could add that to the evidence page: [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]

[[13]] (all the same aoler anon ip). it's insane just because I opened an arbcom case against someone else, that I can get injuctued because some guy would be completely unreasonable with me(notice in the contribs there how he said he refused to read anything by me in talk until I apologized). And that arbcom wouldn't even check this.

I'm not going all out Like Reithy and engaging in blatant vandalizing of pages/stalking people. (as stated by the users who signed the request for temp injuction, it was for a temp injuction of Reithy, not of me), why do I get the same injuction as him? (again, this arbcom case was requested by me! other users haven't even gone through the dispute resoultion process with me, for pete's sake I'm still in meditation that hasn't finished.)
all my revert wars have me placing facts on talk and having disagreements with users(the one I mentioned above that refused to talk at all) I don't see how I'm any different then the other users who got their temp injunction not to do more then two reverts in a day. - User:Chuck F

Re: Featured Article Tagging[edit]

My mistake. I'd seen that done before, but I guess I was just following someone else's bad example. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks for pointing that out to me. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


Understood. Will fix. When can we get some action on this? I normally wouldn't ask for a speedup, but the controversy generated by this user is getting out of hand, and its effecting the quality of articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can always request an injunction. →Raul654 03:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Er, sorry to sound stupid, but how do I go about this? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Go to the talk page for his arbcom case and make a request there. →Raul654 04:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have contacted Jimbo about this insane injunction, but it's likely he won't get involved, congratulations. You should at least be embarrassed if not ashamed, but you're probably not either. You should also apologize for your remarks to me, but I expect you won't. And you might consider offering to recuse yourself for the reasons I noted, but that's even less likely. Maybe if you get the chance between irrational injunctions against major contributors you could issue that temporary order against Turrican. Yeah right. So sad. VeryVerily 12:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um. I'm the one who put forward the injunction on Netoholic. Raul only told me how to do it. I suggest you check the talk page again. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not referring to any injunction on Netoholic, I'm referring to the injunction on me. I'm getting lumped in with trolls, and Raul654 is making insulting comments to someone who has been here longer than he has, and is issuing irrational, overbroad, overharsh injunctions having no bearing on the issues at hand. VeryVerily 09:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Can you explain this to me?

The first paragraph indicates an indefinite (perhaps a day, perhaps forever) ban "from editing Wikipedia articles which concern the Palestinian-Israeli conflict." The second seems to indicate that if Lance6Wins "edits Wikipedia articles which concern the Palestinian-Israeli conflict", then at that time Lance6Wins "shall be restricted from editing articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a term to be decided at that point."

How does one reconcile, logically understand, the two statements? Lance6Wins 18:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  • Lance6wins is banned from editing Wikipedia articles which concern the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Accepted 7-0
  • In the event Lance6wins is unable or unwilling to conform to the requirements in the arbitration rulings above, upon motion by any user to the Arbitration Committee and presentation of proof of such failure Lance6wins shall be restricted from editing articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a term to be decided at that point.
Accepted 5-2

P.S. Lance6Wins did add incidents and references for those incidents to Violence against Israelis (various pages) today, before seeing this decision.

Because arbitrators propose remedies in parallel (that is, without knowing what the others will propose or which ones will be passed), this does occasionally happen. Since the first one is more specific, I believe it supercedes the latter. →Raul654 18:40, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration nomination[edit]

Both you and ambi personally have my support in your candidacy for arbitrartor, regardless of how my own nomination for candidacy goes. I don't think there is any doubt as to whether you'll get it, however. Damn. It looks like I'm sucking up, but that's not why I wrote this. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please ban VeryVerily[edit]

Please ban VeryVerily. In violation of the injunction issued by the arbitrators, he has reverted List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 three times in the past twenty-four hours. (The last time was also a violation of policy, for he added "twoversions" after restoring his own version.) Shorne 20:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Avala case[edit]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Avala/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies. Still two proposed remedies that do not have your vote. --mav 21:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


You seem to be a good Wickipedian. I am too. I tried hard to fix the main page (FelixTheCat/Porn), and my edits (temporarily) worked. Being new, I'm uncertain whether my claims can be checked or not. I deleted the lines in the source code generating the image repeatedly, and the changes repeatedly worked. My very first user talk entry? A threat from yourself. Seing as, of the time of this entry, the main page still looks disguisting, I imagine you're realizing I'm not the cause of this. In the absence of your apology, here's a reminder you've been a little heavy-handed. rmbh 23:13, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking....[edit]

I'm thinking that your answer on Wikipedia:Reference Desk regarding maltose and sucrose is wrong. Either that or mine is. Take a look and see what you think. - Nunh-huh 05:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right and I'm wrong - I misread the sucrose page. →Raul654 05:41, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Excellent, Smithers! Now where did I put that glass of maltose solution?<g> - Nunh-huh 05:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez[edit]

Re: [14] Since the "Ruy Lopez, Shorne, VeryVerily" request was merged with this case, I don't think there's really any question that issues involving Ruy Lopez can be handled as part of the case. --Michael Snow 06:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added my comments regarding me and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. The summary is the only user where there has been a lack of communication in terms of myself has been between me and VeryVerily, for reasons including he requested I get "off of [his] talk page"[15] after which I decided to comply with his wishes, and stopped attempting to have a discussion with him, as I thought writing to his talk page against his wishes would have been more provocative than conceding to his wish of not having a discussion. Ruy Lopez 10:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My expansion, clean-up and NPOV template additions[edit]

If you actually had the patience to wait a few moments, the talk pages will gain the respective sections. Have you any idea how long it takes to edit 53 talk pages? CheeseDreams 23:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noted. Then go right ahead and add your reasoning on the talk pages. →Raul654 23:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Elections[edit]

You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course I support having you oversee it. →Raul654 01:13, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wikistress Evolution[edit]


--NoPetrol 04:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Male circumcision[edit]

Thanks for fixing my typo to the protected template at Male circumcision. I was in a rush, running out the door :-P BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abusive emails[edit]

Out of interest, what do I do about Reithy sending me abusive emails via Wikipedia email? I just got one entitled "fuck you maggot"! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I got one of those too. So did at least two other members of the arbitration committee. Just ignore it - we're aware of the issue. →Raul654 07:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Death (Discworld) fun[edit]

Hey Raul,

I have a messy case here. I listed this page as a copyvio by User:Jkf6030 some months ago. He rewrote the temp page, but not before the article was deleted. Thus User:Jimregan recreated the stub. Thus I need a fact before I can procede:

This edit by an anon is a copy from Death (Discworld)/temp. I am wondering if this is the same ip as 6030 above.

Burgundavia 23:18, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Burg - you'll have to ask one of the developers. In general, they're very reluctant to give out that kind of information unless you have a good reason for it. →Raul654 07:43, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic for adminship[edit]

I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#MacGyverMagic and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:36, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


Should this page still be locked? Is it really still in use? Filiocht 10:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

No, thank you for unprotecting it. The site crashed last night while I was in the process of promoting some candidates, and I couldn't get the page back to unprotect it. →Raul654 17:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

noob deletion question[edit]

Hey, I noticed someone copy and pasted an article in order to move it, and then proceeded to make some edits. The edits are minor compared to the edits made before the copy/paste. Should the page be copied and pasted back to the original location, notes made in the revision summary, and the other page deleted so that the correct move operation can be made? What do you think? If I'm right, should the new page be listed for speedy deletion or VfD? The pages in question are Pennsylvania State University (the old page) and The Pennsylvania State University (the page that received the copy/paste). Thanks for your time!

forgot to sign - woops Spangineer 19:11, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
I took care of merging the histories. -- Cyrius| 19:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK Soda[edit]

Just curious, how did you count the votes at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations#OK Soda? The way I counted them, it looked like the votes were 3 support, 1 oppose; i felt the oppose was not exactly actionable, in the way that the data was simply unavailable. Is there any way that this vote can be reviewed? Cheers. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:10, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

After 11 days on the FAC, I see 1 support (Zerby) and 1 objection (Taxman). →Raul654 09:13, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess I looked at Michael Snow and Lupo's votes as implicit supports, but you're right, they don't say support. I guess I can never get the data that Taxman was looking for, so I dunno if this article will ever be FA material. Oh well, thanks for the diligence in all of this. Cheers again. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:54, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Wikifun round 4[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you competed in a previous round, so I just wanted to tell you that Round 4 of the Wikifun trivia quiz is now running... -- Eugene van der Pijll 22:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit]

Why have you started locking featured articles before they appear on the main page? —Wereon 19:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I started doing it because of the vandalism on Felix the Cat last week (when someone uploaded the goatse image over Felix's image). There's been some discussion of the matter on talk:main page. People are protecing the image (which, given issues with image caching, I am 100% in favor of), but I'm not totally sure I like having the template protected. It prevents vandalism, but it also prevents non-admins from fixing it. →Raul654 20:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Celtic tiger cartoon.jpg[edit]

I have the tag added, looking forward to seeing it on the main page! CGorman 20:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question regarding your role as Arbtitrator[edit]

When you promoted Neutrality to sysop in your role as bureaucrat, you noted that the normalised vote was 83%. You said that "normalised" meant excluding trolls and sockpuppets, but you did not state which voters you considered to be "trolls and sockpuppets". Since you did not state who were the sockpuppets and trolls you excluded from the Neutrality account, it is not clear whether you think Gzornenplatz is a troll or sockpuppet. You have been voting recently as Arbitrator on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. This brings into question whether you can arbtitrate fairly and objectively on Gzornenplatz, or whether you have pre-judged him so that you cannot be seen to be considering his case fairly. I'd welcome your comments. jguk 20:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I was not thinking of him when I made that comment. I didn't know anything about him until I sat down to review the evidence in the case. →Raul654 21:02, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I don't want to go back and re-open old arguments, but would request that in future, if you are "normalising" a vote that you are explicit in which votes you are not counting. That also allows others to question your "normalising" if they feel you have made a genuine mistake. jguk 21:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copyright FAQ[edit]

I don't see where the Copyright FAQ addresses photographs of items that never had a copyright, or whose copyright is long since expired - antiquities, statues, paintings, sketches, and calligraphy over 100 years old, etc.

Under what law does a museum claim intellectual property rights when there is no copyright for the item in question?

--DV 20:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A few things - first, obligatory IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Second, copyright laws vary from nation to nation. Some nations did not get copyright laws until very recently. If those nations did not pass retroactive copyright laws, then anything public prior to their enactment would be public domain (for example, anything published in the Soviet Union prior to May 27, 1973 is in the public domain)
In the United States, under the Bridgeman case, the copies of 2d works that are in the public domain (taking pictures of musuem paintings, scanning old pictures out of art books, 'etc) are also in the public domain. 3d works (statues) are not covered by this.
In the United States, a musuem has no basis in copyright to prevent you from copying a work they "own" (physically posses) but which is in the public domain; however, they may control the terms under which you can view the work. For example, let's say before you enter, the museum makes you sign a contract prohibiting you from taking pictures of the works. Even if the pictures you took where in the public domain, you could not take them without making yourself liable for civil tort. If they do not give you any notice, then I don't think they have any legal basis to stop you. In other cases (such as posting notice but not requiring you to consent) I don't know what the outcome would be in that case. →Raul654 21:35, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks from hydnjo[edit]

Thanks for the fast reply about templates. Hydnjo 21:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome :) →Raul654 22:00, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
It'sWikipedia:Template messages/All and as you said, it's very long. Hydnjo 00:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lee Atwater[edit]

Thanks for the nice comments on my user talk page. Regarding turning free speech zone into a featured article, sure! You certainly don't need my permission to do so. As far as I'm concerned, any material on the Disinfopedia is fair game for copying into Wikipedia or for any other use. On the more general topic of cooperation between Wikipedia and Disinfopedia, I'd like to see more of it. I personally use the Wikipedia often as a research tool. Sometimes I use it to look up information, and sometimes I like to paste material from Disinfopedia into Wikipedia and see what happens to it here. (The Wikipedia has a larger and more diverse contributor base, so a Wikipedia workover often produces some useful fact- and rhetoric-checking.) --Sheldon Rampton 02:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use of "Hero of Socialist Labor" and "Purple Heart" as barnstars on Wikipedia[edit]

Greetings ! ClockworkSoul and myself were wondering wether you would happen to know more about the use of "Hero of Socialist Labor" and "Purple Heart" as barnstars on Wikipedia (documented on Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia). Especially, we would be specially happy if you could help in any of the following matters :

  • Confirm wether you initiated the trend
  • Confirm the date when the irst usage occured
  • State the reasons why such an award may be awarded
Thank you very much ! Rama 08:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't say anything about barnstars - using them is a very old practice. However, I do believe that I gave the first Hero of Socialist Labor (although I called it Hero of the Soviet Union). I believe I gave it to Finlay McWalter (see this). Now, if my memory further serves, I gave the second one to RickK (who has it on his user page). →Raul654 08:52, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I gave it to Finlay as an alternative to the Barnstar because he already had a barnstar. →Raul654 08:53, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

::::::::::::URGENT REQUEST::::::::::::::::::::::::^[edit]


                              ; \

Tables of images[edit]

Hi, sorry for the delay, but I've been out for three weeks and just came back. I've updated the table using the new database dump and all (I think) new tags, but they are too many to show them all, the table would come out about a mile long. :-) Alfio 20:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC=GY76U8I9

Gross Abuse[edit]

The user, and Pename are the same person.

See this guy (( recent post here (last paragraph):

If this kind of behavior doesn't deserve permanent ban, then what does? OneGuy 07:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since most IP addresses are assigned dynamically, there's no sense in permanently banning them. But I would say that a 24 hour block is warrented. →Raul654 07:14, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Dave Mills[edit]

I'm totally amused that Dave Mills is your advisor. Next time you see him, tell him that Noel says "hi"! Noel (talk) 20:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 17:56, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)