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


Motion to provide voting rationale[edit]

Please see [1]. Thank you. Rangerdude 18:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Hamster Sandwich[edit]

You have a great reputation for not cowering before supermajority percentages, so I am asking you, as a bureaucrat, to please handle this user's nomination personally, to weigh the arguments and come to your own conclusion. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:20

  • Nevermind, already done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 01:23
    • I did it :) Raul654 01:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 02:01
        • My thanks in the work you do in expiditiously closing RfA's. I realize that there were a number of oppose and neutral comments attached to mine, and although I was briefly inclined to argue the points that those editors brought up, I thought it better to just let it play out in a natural way, without appearing to campaign. It's supposed to be no big deal, and so I was treating it as such. One of the opinions I hold is that there is a constantly growing need to have a growing base of volunteer administrators, who have shown there trustworthiness to the community, because obviously as WP grows, as its user base and editor base grow, so to will the need to ensure the quality of the resource. Thats all I want to try to do, in whatever capacity I can. I can only hope to work at as high a level of competancy as the vast majority of WP's existing administration. Peace and happiness Raul, see you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 05:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No ...[edit]

Your removal of it is over the line.

Jay could very easily respond to any of the questions posed to him. You can look at how Fred Bauder responded to even more personal and accusatory questions, and ones based on false information. It is very easy for an honest person of reasonable intelligence to answer even unfair questions. "I don't know," is often a good answer. So is, "I disagree with your assertion of the facts," or, "You have mischaracterized my actions." Do you think that someone who is unable to deal with critical questions really belongs on the Arbitration Committee?

I've written a couple hundred words at most in questions to Jayjg. He could very easily have responded, as I have noted above. His pointed non-responses to any critical questions merit scrutiny. And now you have deleted a question that bore scrutiny on his non-response.

I suggest that you revert yourself.

Marsden 19:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't reverted yourself, Raul. I'll give you another 15 minutes before I restore the question myself. Then you can do whatever it is you think you need to do. Marsden 20:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The questions directed at Fred were provacative, but not personal attacks. Your comments were personal attacks, and I will not be restoring them. It is his right not to respond to your comments; his non-response does not give you permission to violate our policies. Raul654 20:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments were not personal attacks. It is his right not to respond to my comments, but do you really think it's his right to have his non-responsiveness tidily swept under the rug? Marsden 21:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, why would you even bother beginning your original comment to me with, "I'm usually pretty conservative in applying the no personal attacks policy ...?" Statements like that from a stranger invariably mean someone is trying to sell something. Marsden 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
My comments were not personal attacks. - I will be/am the judge of that, and yes, they were. (2) As to his non-responsiveness, if you wish to make a note of that somewhere (besides that page), you may do so. (3) As to my statement, it means exactly what it says -- that (unlike some others) I don't try to apply the NPA policy outside a generally limited set of circumstances (and that your comment is clearly one of those cases I consider to be a personal attack). Raul654 21:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article[edit]

Hi - I'm sure you (along with most of the rest of the world) have either been bored stupid or found it hard to keep yourself from laughing out loud at the inane debate on Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. It should be moved to a subpage and adding to WP:BJAODN. In retrospect, perhaps the voting was easier... at least that was limited to "support" or "oppose".

Anyway, we have all had our fun, but I'd be grateful if you would choose the Main Page featured article for 25 December sooner rather than later, otherwise we are going to run out of space. Preferably something that noone has suggested. And then the debate about your choice can start. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • And why do you propose that Raul654 should listen to your specific opinion stated here over everyone else's opinions? Do you think him unable to choose of his own volition? (I'm not suggesting that you are, just that you should clarify your statements). Whatever his choice, everyone will accept it. There's no need to try influencing him by going directly to his talk page presenting sensibility. And I don't particularly consider being lambasted for my alleged "motives" to be "fun". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 20:38
    • The discussion have moved to subpages so I have suggested the four other possiblities that have been canvassed in the discussion. I think my position is reasonably clear. I don't intend to reply to this, nor, indeed, to contribute to the debates on this issue at WP:TFA or its subpages any further. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I was gone for most of yesterday (quiz bowl tournament at Princeton) but I will be settling this dispute today. Raul654 11:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not agree with your bypassing of discussion and attempts to supplant your own nominations, feigning "compromise", when it is simply a compromise to knee-jerk opposition. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 13:47

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rl[edit]

What do you think about what happened in this nomination? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 05:19


You noted awhile back that phishing had been requested for the main page but had no free images. I moved the ensuing discussion to WP:FAR (and now the article's talk), and there is now a free image. If you happen to have an offline list of featured articles without free images or that are otherwise unsuitable for the main page, could you post it at WP:FAR? Or if you run across any in the future, send 'em over. Tuf-Kat 07:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I noted that there were no *good* free images. The picture you refer to (Image:PhishingTrustedBank.png) would not look particularly good on the main page. I had an idea recently that someone could take a screenshot of a GPL'd spyware removal program; the screenshot would be GPL'd and we could use it. Raul654 10:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you take a look at [2] they have a whitepaper posted by Department of Homeland Security linked on the top of their homepage. In there is a graphic that illustrates the steps involved in a phishing attack. Would that work as public domain and front page quality? --ZeWrestler Talk 15:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Heck, typing 'anti-phishing' in the search box at gives some interesting results around several US government agencies. --JohnDBuell 22:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I got nothing to appear on google for this. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Concern on quality of FA[edit]

Hello! I am a bit concerned about the process for selecting FAs. I think there is a risk that not necessarily the best articles are selected and that some of those selected are not that great. First, the process (seems to me - most likely I am wrong) depends on an article being submitted for consideration. I think there are some very good articles that are never submitted for consideration. If the article doesn't a have a godfather that is in love with the article, it may never be submitted. Sadly, I have no suggestion on how to solve this first issue. Second, it seems the major hurdle is being submitted for consideration. Regardless of how good the article was initially, people tend to favor any article proposed -on the basis that the article is long and informative (basically almost all articles will be informative as most people will not be familiar with the subject). Those that initially object, are then somehow compelled to change their vote when they see their specific comments being addressed by the article's godfather. Now, this does not mean the article became a good one all of a sudden. It just means some specific issues were addressed. I fear that inertia and "group stupidity" makes people at the end go ahead with an "ok, go ahead" attitude. Articles that are very young in age and that people have not gone through in detail and over which they may not know many details (as to object) on specifics may end up being selected. I do not have any specific solution to propose -besides perhaps raising the initial requirements before an article can be submitted for consideration. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 22:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Like it's not getting harder all the time to turn an article into a featured article? Sheesh! :) The standards ARE constantly being revised and 'the bar is being raised' on a regular basis. If the article I had submitted as an FAC now had been ready six months ago when I DID get an FA through, I probably would have had them both pass. I'm not complaining, but it's interesting to see how the criteria are evolving, and I for one think the system is working fine. I would say, however, that we could use more reviewers for Peer Review AND FACs! --JohnDBuell 22:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, sadly I think some articles get approved based mostly on format and not content. Some articles have wrong information and this does not prevent people from voting on them, as they vote based on how "thorough" the article seems to be. Problem is people do not know how to reject what they do not know much about. They worry that their ignorance may make reject a good article, thus it seems easier to say "support" the article is well written, rather than criticize specifics. Som,e even fall into what is call group-stupidity. Just my not so humble opinion and concern. BTW, what is the percentage of articles aproved out of those submitted for consideration? I bet way over 50%. --Anagnorisis 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You've repeatedly said "some". Can you cite specific instances where articles were supported which had obvious false information? Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 05:46
You are right. I should mention them. However, the one I know for sure is at the moment in the middle of a vote. I see people voting for it without knowing much about hard facts. Perhaps I should wait to see what happens and then mention it by name. However, the pattern of people showing support based on an article appearing to be right concerns me. What if I was not having a go at it picking for small factual errors? It seems people would simply support it based on writing style and lot of quoted sourced. Now, I think one interesting statistic would be what percentage of articles submitted get chosen as FA? I am afraid that what matters most is that the article makes it as a candidate. Once someone likes an article a lot, and knows how to work the process, that article has far greater chance to be selected than a much better one without a godfather. Again, I am failing to provide a solution. I do not have any proposal at this time. However, I want to voice my concern on this. --Anagnorisis 08:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, what is the percentage of articles aproved out of those submitted for consideration? I bet way over 50% It should make you feel better to know that in November, 71 FACs failed and 37 were promoted, meaning that only 34.3% of articles were approved. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
If you know for sure that a FAC says something that is incorrect then you should object. That is how the system works. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree with this (the original) comment. One way to partially summarize the problem is to note that, in practice, FAC is being used as an article improvement area. I stumbled on the FAC process only a couple of weeks ago. In that time, I've posted many, often lengthy comments, and spent a great amount of that effort in supporting my initial objections. It seems quite clear from observing the general FAC proceedings (here, I'm talking about the last two weeks, as that's my experience ;) that, for quality control, the onus is mainly on the objectors to provide clear objections, and then to vigorously support ones own objections, often in the face of one or more determined proponents of the FAC. There are various tactics (deliberate or otherwise) that make this very time-consuming. For example, an example provided to illustrate a certain objection may be treated as the sole instance of that objection, "fixed", and then the whole thing tossed back to the objector who has to reexplain the objection; if no reply is made, my impression is, the original objection may then appear to be diminished in weight. This sort of thing is a serious problem when an FAC is quite far from the standard, but strongly supported, and that seems to be the case in at least half of the nominations. (The alternative is to not respond if an objection isn't sufficiently answered and "leave it up to the judge", the arbiter of consensus, but that is "unfair" (particularly, for said judge), as, in many cases, subject-specific specialized knowledge is required to decide whether an objection is in fact reasonable or has been met.) In the end, I find using FAC to do wholesale improvements on articles puts inappropriate requirements on those wishing to help to identify "the best", but not necessarily to participate in protracted improvement sessions. The process is certainly interesting, but not entirely clear, nor efficient. It doesn't seem simple tweaks would change much, only an overhaul of the FAC model. --Tsavage 18:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Tsavage, I couldn't have said it better. I agree with all you said above. --Anagnorisis 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

All this probably belongs on the FAC talk page, not Raul's talk page. ausa کui × 14:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


I've moved the overflowing discussions to overflowing subpages to prevent your brain from experiencing overflow errors. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 06:21

I assume by now that you are aware that a full blown civil war is being (verbally) fought over when to put Christmas and the Omnipotence Pardox on the main page. I lew of this I suggest that we as a community adopt some sort policy about the timing of articles so as to aviod such a problem in the future. It doesn't have to be a set in stone kind of thing, but I think it would be good for all of us so as to set a few ground rules. Your thoughts? TomStar81 08:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because a discussion is long doesn't mean it is a "war" and people are "fighting", so please don't characterize it as such. You have only replied once to the discussion, so I am in doubt that you have read any of it, since your only comment was to compare it to featuring Adolf Hitler on Hannukah, thus fulfilling Godwin's law. In any case, I don't agree with your bypassing the entire discussion to get Raul to create rules that favor your personal outcome. It would be wiser for you to read through the discussion, understand everyone's reasons, and reply as such. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 13:43

I really like your 3D meter![edit]

I really like your 3D meter. So I decided to take that annoying grey line off the right of it. JedOsLily the white poodle (transparent background).png 12:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I award you

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar may be awarded to those who work tirelessly to provide Wikipedia with free graphic files, either original or a version of a known design (e.g. a country's flag).

This award was introduced by Redux on August 15, 2005 and was designed by Sango123.

JedOsLily the white poodle (transparent background).png 12:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Video conversion[edit]

Hi, I've just shot a video of a gun salute celebrating the birth of a new Prince in Norway. Could you please help me converting it into a properly sized Theora video? The original file is a 30 seconds long 6.1 MB AVI file.
For an image from the same event: Image:Kristiansten Fortress gun salute.jpg kallemax 13:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

All right. First, give it a try using the very easy-to-follow directions I wrote here. Raul654 13:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the link! kallemax 13:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Nope, I just get a bunch of error messages. Could you have a go at converting it? kallemax 13:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok - I need a link to download the file. Raul654 14:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
(Also, what license should I use when uploading it?) Raul654 14:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, forgot the link: [3]
License: {{PD-self}}
Summary: Gun salute on December 4, 2005 celebrating the Norwegian Prince that was born the previous day. Video shot and released into the public domain by User:Kallemax. (and if you want to, "video converted by...") kallemax 14:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is only a guess, but I think the avi file there has some kind of encoding error. So when I ran ffmpeg2theora on it, it gave the error you described. I used virtualdub to re-render the avi file, and then ffmpeg2theora to convert it. See

Raul654 14:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great. kallemax 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comment[edit]

Raul, if you have time, could you please take a look at the re-re-nomination of Hollaback Girl on WP:FAC? Bishonen | talk 15:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that while I was out. Raul654 16:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Beethoven 5th[edit]

Hello Raul,

Sorry not to reply before now. Some time ago I made a promise to myself never to make any edits except on Sundays, so when you posted on my talk page on Monday it produced the maximal delay. In any event, it looks like you found the references ok.

While I have you on the line, let me point out a small edit I made just now to the Beethoven 5th article: I labeled the sound files as being a particular performance by the Fulda Symphony Orchestra (see new article), naming the conductor and date. I felt that this was the right thing to do both for the purpose of giving credit where it's due, and also for providing important information to the reader. Since you are the leading promulgator of classical sound files on the Wikipedia, I'm hereby lobbying you to similarly label the files when you post.

Yours very truly,
Opus33 16:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do believe in giving credit where credit is do - the template for every sound file links to the info page which should include a full description (what the file is, who preformed it, what the copyright license is, 'etc). These are broken at the moment (since about 24 hours ago), but should be fixed soon. Raul654 16:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Concern over Roy Orbison as TFA for Dec 6[edit]

I don't find that the Roy Orbison article meets FA criteria. There are several reasons that I'd identify were this an FAC. However, the "main" one is the lack of coverage of Orbison's craft as a singer/musician/songwriter. I have noted this on Talk:Roy Orbison. I'm particularly perturbed about this trend of sorts of putting non-comprehensive pop music articles on the Main Page. This happened recently with "Cool" (and that, right in the midst of the FAC review for "Hollaback Girl", another song by the same artist, a flawed article that followed the identical "Cool" article format). Among other things, this sets a bad example, particularly for other pop music-related FACs. It also is not a good example of the best of Wikipedia... I'm not sure where to post this, as the article meets the TFA criteria, since it's already an FA... Is there a more appropriate way to present this concern? Thanks! --Tsavage 19:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I can barely imagine how busy you are with all this FA/FAC stuff, still, it is really disappointing to see Orbison on the Main Page. Many readers coming to the article off the Main Page will not notice any obviouis problem, but I have no doubt whatsoever that many will find it rather atrocious (and it really is not good at all, and so far from the best that Wikipedia has to offer...). Oh, well, I guess it's all part of the...process! --Tsavage 04:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hamster Sandwich[edit]

Hi Raul, I'm trying to understand why that RfA was closed early. Any chance of an explanation? Please bare in mind I'm asking you directly, as this is only fair! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Doh - I promoted it about 8 hours early, didn't I? I think I might have made a mistake when converting timezones. Raul654 01:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there may have been a whole extra day, also, although that was probably a mistake in the date entered originally. -- SCZenz 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Cheers! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Xanadu House[edit]

Xanadu House, an article I asked you to briefly review on IRC a few days ago, has now become featured!, Can I add it to the Architecture articles section at Wikipedia:Featured articles? (I'm not entirely sure on this part of the FA process, I mainly pay attention to just the peer review and FAC pages). Thanks for your time. — Wackymacs 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I already added it to the technology section of that page. Would you prefer it was in the architecture section instead? Raul654 16:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh I didn't notice, sorry about that. Yeah, I think its more related to architecture than technology myself. Thanks! — Wackymacs 18:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 16:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information[edit]

Excellent news. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 20:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The POTW RFAR Closure[edit]

Thank You! Finally this can end...karmafist 03:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I just put up two articles by this user for AfD and I realized maybe I should give my opinion to someone more important than myself. User:Zora and I have both had problems with this editor in editing articles but more recently it has been in rampant article creation. Here is my list of articles he's created. Not all are bad but the complete mass of them and some like Muslim Christianity scholars are ludicrous. The user has moved important pages like Ulema to [[Muslim Islamic jurists] without discussion. I recommend asking Zora since she is far more eloquent than me. To get the whole breadth of what I'm talking about you'd have to see things like the Sahaba page before we cleaned it up again and other projects just like that. He often threatens Zora with an RfC which I really wanted to see but it never happened. I don't want to be itchy on the trigger but it has gotten to the point where I spend as much time fixing his mistakes as I do adding something useful. Thanks. gren グレン 07:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The muslim islamic jurists thing is almost laughable (the name is so ridicuolous), and the version of Sahaba he created is pretty bad. Threatening other users isn't the best way to operate either. I suggest you try to inform him about our policies (specifically, why his edits to Sahaba and Ulema are not acceptable, and why threatening other users is unacceptable). If he persists, go to an RFC (and if necessary, arbitration). Raul654 16:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
He knows our policies by now. Okay, thanks. I'll start and RfC at some point, or, go read a book. gren グレン 05:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

== pls unblock me ==[edit]

i have more than 3000 edits, see "user contributions" - i was blocked for no reason. User:Haham hanuka

I'll defer to the people more familiar with your situation -- [4] Raul654 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, posting the same message on a bunch of administrators' talk pages asking to be unblocked is considered spamming and is not looked upon favorably. Raul654 16:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

raul, please see my comments of the madman theory page.

Request from an admin[edit]


Could you please look over the discussion on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost.

I have reason to believe that a small number of people have been attempting to use Wikipedia for narrow partisan ends, writing glowing articles on figures from Britain's far-right. This is potentially a matter of some importance for Wikipedia's credibility.

Thank you, CJCurrie 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Little cleanup problem[edit]

Hello Raul!

Many thanks for your cleaning of my media insert in the Boccherini page:

It is of course much better in such a way! However, there is a little problem. Opus 27 of Boccherini represents 6 string quintets, namely: Op.27 No 1, Op.27 No 2, Op.27 No 3, Op.27 No 4, Op.27 No 5, Op.27 No 6

It was an habit of this time. Later an opus will show only one work (e.g., the piano sonata op. 111 of Beethoven). Is it possible " String Quintet op.27 " by " String Quintet op.27 No 3 " to replace? I plan namely to insert a recording of the Op.27 No 1 as the next work in Wikipedia.

Best regards User:Quinbrid

I've made the changes. [5] Is that satisfactory? Raul654 14:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        Very good, thanks!

FuelWagon and Ed Poor arbitration[edit]

Hello, Raul654. I hope it's not improper to contact you on your talk page about a judgment in an arbitration case. I just want to point out that you said here that Ed had correctly cited the "No Personal Attacks" policy. In fact, Ed directed Neuroscientist towards Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks (see here). I suppose it doesn't really matter, except that the "No personal remarks" isn't policy, and FuelWagon has repeatedly claimed that Ed accused Neuroscientist of violating "No personal attacks", which is not true.

I want to add a statement, but I'm busy at the moment, so I hope it will still be possible to do so over the Christmas holidays. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A valid point. I've tweaked the finding to take your observation into account. Raul654 19:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello - Your image has no copyright info and has been listed for deletion in 7 days. I'll spare you the giant template :-) -SCEhardT 01:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Youre right there ... eight minutes later. Don't you ever sleep? Thanks, Heidi 'n Joe :-) 00:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Museveni FA[edit]

There's a much better picture available for Yoweri Museveni, who is a FA on 19 December, in the Commons at [6]. I would change it but I can't as it's been locked :-( TreveXtalk 02:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Done in the article, at least. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

2 anon IP's fixed many reference problems in Terri Schiavo FAC[edit]


2 anon IP's fixed many reference problems in Terri Schiavo FAC: recent history.

-- 05:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Photo credits on POTD[edit]

Hi Marc,

Since it is partialy a Main Page issue, you might be interested in joining the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Please: let's discuss refraining from crediting names

Living bio & date of birth[edit]

sorry about the rv on Ralph Lauren 15:13 . . Raul654 (Talk) (rv to Bhumiya - this is the correct format for someone who is still alive) I had seen both styles used and had not seen a statement of 'format' in the style guidelines for a living person. I did find the reference now and stand corrected. Thanks Doc 21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

'rm idiotic template'[edit]

(sarcasm removed before hitting the 'save page' button.) Perhaps the next time you unilaterally remove a template and characterise it as 'idiotic', you might want to give a brief explanation as to why you think so. // Pathoschild 01:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for insulting you, but the template is awful. It should never have been created, and never have been used. It doesn't add anything to the article, and doesn't inform the reader of anything particularly useful. Raul654 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I can see how it may seem useless, but it was intended to be a last-resort measure on high-profile pages before protection. I see you've put it up for deletion, so I'll present my arguments in favour there and let the community decide. // Pathoschild 01:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi - just checking that you are ok. I have noticed that the gaps between rounds of promotions and deletions on FAC have grown recently - last two on 6 December and 30 November, rather than a couple of times a week as we have become used to. Unfortunately, given that you are the FA tsar, it all (WP:FAC, WP:FA, WP:TFA, etc) revolves around you! Is the new schedule likely to continue? Is there anything that others can do to help? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The new schedule is not going to continue. My christmas vacation starts tomorrow afternoon :) (which is why my editing has been clumpy lately).
One thing that would be helpful is if someone could take over for user:Frazzydee in sending out the daily featured article emails while he is on vacation. Raul654 05:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Today's featured article on the main page seems below standard to me[edit]

Does this article really belong here? Did you see all the redlinks? Do you honestly think it's well written?

I count two straight run-on sentences here in the same paragraph:

She also interned at a casting agency, and one of the tasks she was given was to read the lines at auditions for people looking for small roles in film and television projects in the area (a job that would land Strickland her first film role). After graduating with a Fine Arts degree from the University of the Arts, she was schooled in New York City for a time under the tutelage of Maggie Flanagan (to whom Strickland refers as her "Jedi Knight"), who would instruct her students to watch films with the sound turned off, to gauge a good acting performance by how much one could understand the story.

If you truly believe that second sentence is edited as well as it can be, we may well have different standards.

Who is this woman? How did this land on the main page? BYT 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


I responded to the message you left on my talk page. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nature data[edit]

As expected, I completely screwed up :) I've fixed the data: We have 1.3 errors per 2KB, versus their 3.6 errors. Our article length is still over 2.5 theirs. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 07:36

This is my second request for information on KaDee Strickland[edit]

I'm a little confused about why you are ignoring me on this.

  • Did you notice the redlinks on the article?
  • Do you feel it was well written?
  • Do you disagree with my assessment of the run-on writing problems?
  • How exactly did this get selected as a mainpage article?
  • Are you aware of the number of totally unsourced quotes that we were pointing people toward in this article?
  • Are you aware of the fact that the article appeared on the main page on the actress's birthday?
  • Did you place the article on the mainpage for yesterday knowing that doing so coincided with the actress's birthday? BYT 13:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It is not Raul654's job to review articles in detail when they are nominated on WP:FAC: the community reviews articles on FAC, and Raul654 just decides whether there is sufficient support for promotion, and whether objections are sufficiently important and actionable for the nomination to fail. Neither is it Raul654's job to review articles in detail when they are suggested on WP:TFA: if an article is featured, then in principle it is suitable to go on the Main Page.
Presence or absence of redlinks is not a criterion for featured articles. The content and writing style of the article should have been addressed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KaDee Strickland. The article received pretty overwhelming support (and even negative comments about the number of references). I imagine the article got on the Main Page because (i) it is featured and (ii) someone suggested it at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Although it is not a rule, if is opriften approate to feature an article on the Main Page on a date that is in some way relevant to the article, such as an anniversary or a birthday. If you look at the history of Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/December_14,_2005, you will see that Raul654 originally selected U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, but then replaced it on 2 December, presumably in response to this request by Extraordinary Machine on Wikipedia_talk:Tomorrow's_featured_article.
If you have concerns about the article, the best place to bring them up would be the article's talk page, or WP:FARC. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, then let me draw attention to a potential system problem here. This article is a puff piece about a movie star, and the people most likely to have commented on it, or viewed it in the first place, were people who like puff pieces about movie stars. They are (apparently) likely to avoid questions like:
  • Did this actress ever receive a bad review for any of her performances?
  • Was any source other than one likely to be highly complimentary to her ever cited (or even consulted)?
  • Where, exactly, do the quotes from the actress come from? Are they accurate?
  • So yes, maybe it is my responsibility to monitor everything that could conceivably turn into a featured article, and raise these kinds of questions beforehand.
  • By the same token, though, it has to be some admin's responsibility to confirm that basic encyclopedic standards have in fact been adhered to, particularly in an article we
  • a) identify as one of WP's best (a laughable designation in this case), and
  • b) put on the main page.

Wikkipedia is not a propaganda machine, meaning that all articles should be written from the neutral point of view. And your 'puff piece' commentary aside, the Kadee Strickland article is, in fact, neutral. As to the rest of you comment, I'll defer to ALoan's insightful response above. Raul654 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you point me toward a single sentence in that article that suggests (for instance) that she personally has any limitations or shortcomings as an actress? BYT 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I've got to agree that the FAC process has system flaws. Since anyone can object, you can not resolve both objections when they are diametrically opposed. For example, if objector A likes layout A, and objector B likes layout B, you can not resolve both objections and one will remain unsolved. I could cite more examples dealing with style preferences, etc too. There should be more standardization in the FAC process. Rlevse 15:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Another point, the Canadian House of Commons FA has refs, but no footnotes. Some FAC reviewers insist on them, others don't...WHY THE DIFFERENCE?? Rlevse 19:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Featured articles are required to have inline citations. Footnotes are one acceptable form, but not the only one. Anyone insisting on footnotes is told politely but firmly (by me) that such an objection is invalid. Raul654 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And: to what extent ...[edit]

... is a request like this one um, bogus? The actress's birthday was in no way relevant to the (sycophantic) article that somehow made it onto the main page. BYT 15:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not at-all invalid. There is nothing wrong with requesting a date like that. Raul654 15:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
How, precisely, is her birthday related to the article content? Other than her being, you know, wonderful in general? BYT 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
BYT, I agree with you on the fluff factor in the KaDee Strickland piece. However, you should reconsider your challenge to the choice of date for its placement on the main page. People can request specific articles for specific days for whatever reasons they choose, and sometimes Raul654 complies. It's as simple as that. I'm not sure why this is a problem. — BrianSmithson 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, the article looks suspiciously like a birthday present. BYT 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor[edit]

Me and User:Fplay did the thankless job of attacking the Special:CrossNamespaceLinks mostly to reomve the hundreds of mainspace pages that have a four-tilde author signatures in them. We are only up to the letter "O" so far. Obviously, nothing can be done about Image: references.

We also noticed that some editors want to credit themselves for their non-text contributions (photos, interviews, jounal papers, other acknowledgement that a Wikipedian is involved with the subject) but that there does not seem to be any standards for this yet. So we created Wikipedia editor ("Wikipedian" being already taken) and changed a lot of pages to point to this "Wikipedia editor" page rather than to User: . Can you point this out to some people who can draw up some guidelines about Wikipedia authors making self-references?

Oh, Fplay also whacked down Special:Uncategorizedcategories from about 700 to about 200. We think it really should be zero, what with cycles being allowed.

Oh, and check out that killer lead section Fplay put into Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (after renaming the page). Some Engineering dweebs had loaded it up with acronyms and numbers to 5 decimal places and stuff.

Ooops! I was not logged in. This is Emact.

-- Emact 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic now permitted to edit Templates?[edit]

Has Netoholic's ban on editing Templates been lifted? I ask because of this, this and this. These were shortly preceded by this and this. Oh, and a little while before that there was this. I take some exception to the peremptory tone of these comments and the abrupt nature of the reversions.

I understand that WP:AUM is Neto's particular little Hobby horse (his "favorite topic, to which he constantly reverts") but I object to being ordered around like some small puppy who has just widdled on the carpet. This is particularly true when the "rule" I have apparently "broken" is a guideline which has repeatedly failed to be promoted to policy status.

I already asked Ral315 and Snowspinner, and I thought I should ask you also, because the three of you seem to have some knowledge of the situation, and possibly some influence over Neto himself.

Yours hoppingly-mad but nobly self-restrainedPhil | Talk 15:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Avoid-metatemplates page is a guideline in the sense that it doesn't absolutely prohibited metatemplates in all concievable situations; on the other hand, unless you have a REALLY GOOD REASON, you should never use them. So Netoholic is on 100% solid ground where policy is concerned. On the other hand, (1) no, his ban on editing in the template domain has not ended (although he has currently requested we end it), and (2) His delivery sucks. I'll have some words with him about it. You, however, should bear in mind that even if he's abrasive, as I said, he's absolutely 100% right. Raul654 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
PS - I have modified the AUM page to make the above distinction more clear. Raul654 16:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi there David, Im SWD316. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66 and Pwner.) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? SWD316 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

the page for request[edit]

that I mentionned in the email... I am getting a bit embarassed because some editors are requesting an account, while I have never heard about them. Mostly worried for editors of very small projects, who say they are sysops... while I know very well we made them sysops just a couple of weeks ago in a nearly empty project, with no vote whatsoever :-( They might just as well write wrong stuff on the website and we would have no idea since we do not speak the language. It is a bit scary...

But well... the other thing is... can you check the requests done by a couple of editors who say they are from en (or participants partly on en), to see if you know them at all ?


I've replied on your talk page. Raul654 16:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert war[edit]

Hello Raul654, as an admin I was wondering if we could get your point of view on a revert war on Baha'i persecution. Thanks -- Jeff3000 03:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Point of Order[edit]

User:Neutrality suggested that you arr the expect on Arbitration, and that I contact you. I've just started an RfA and see that it now includes an "outside statement by Dunc". Are outside statements allowed at this stage? --Iantresman 16:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 16:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Silent Lamb[edit]

Hi, I just posted in WP:AIV, but I'm not sure if I did it right. Silent Lamb, I think, is being sock-puppeted by Silentlamb, who created an account 15:19, December 17, 2005. I'm not sure how to do the {{Sockpuppet}} thing with evidence, so if you can look into this for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!--ViolinGirl 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Opps, never mind. FireFox took care of it already for me. Thanks anyway!--ViolinGirl 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

TFA - Dec 23rd[edit]

Sorry to bother you on your talk page. A few users have requested that the newly minted feature article Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. be used on December 23rd, the 200th anniversary of his birth - and worked hard to get it to feature status before that anniversary. Since the 23rd is less than one week away, I was wondering if you could make a decision whether you can swap it out for the current article slated to appear that day, Fauna of Australia. Thx in Adv. Trödel•talk 03:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

ThxTrödel•talk 14:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Felix Navidad[edit]

O.K. Raul654, so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 05:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church Talk 20:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedy[edit]

Hi. I have a question regarding the proposed remedy since it seems to apply to a conflict which no longer exists and participants who have not had any contact with one another for months now. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Proposed decision "Consensus version". Ultramarine 20:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There is also another problem, please see the talk page. Ultramarine 06:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Point of Order 2[edit]

My accused party has just responded to my Statement by inter-mixing his reponses with mine. While I expect a response to my comments in due course, is it acceptable to inter-mix comments in an opening statement in this way? It would be pretty difficult to read if I then counter-replied to his? --Iantresman 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits to a completed AfD[edit]

Do you happen to know: are things like this edit allowed? Looks rather inappropriate to me. If you aren't sure, do you have any suggestions who I might ask? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled over this question while perusing Recent Changes, and I've been bold and reverted the change to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people described as Stalinists. I might not have done anything if it hadn't been for the fact that the change deleted -- for no discernible reason -- one of my very own edits. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pre-pending votes like that makes it easier to count them; however, in this case it was done pretty sloppily. Also, people shouldn't be editing archivedVFD discussions. Raul654 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Esquire Article[edit]

Sorry; I'd been under the impression that those changes were actually made to the article Jimmy Wales, and that the text was in the page history somewhere. --AySz88^-^ 19:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


You edit conflicted me unprotecting it! Believe me, I patrol RFPP every day and tell people that often. Knew I'd make that mistake sooner or later. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 20:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Please read this and this; and then contribute to the discussions here and here. Uncle G 23:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet checkuser request[edit]

I made this request from Jayjg a few days ago, but he also hasn't been around for a few days, so I've gotten no response. I'm going to simply copy and paste what I posted on his talk page. Since I made the request, two of the accounts in question have convicted themselves, and I have put together the following page of evidence: User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence. What follows is the request I put on Jayjg's talk page, with only the signature updated.

To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:

IP law girl
Steven Wingerter
Lucille S

I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein 11:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard O'Connor[edit]

Thank you! And please accept this humble offering...Cheers!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Sorry to have come to your talk page (maybe it was better to ask on the FA's talk page or something, but I didnt know if you'd answer). There's this current FAC —Céline Dion — and there are currently thirteen supports and one oppose. The opposition is based on the user's belief that a featured article "need[s] at least one free use image". (All the images in the article are tagged, with rationales provided on the description page). Many other voters (myself included) believe that this opposition is invalid as 1) Images are not mandatory for articles to become featured, and 2) many (if not all) other featured articles dealing with pop culture have images of the same nature as the Dion article. With this said, Is this objection valid? Also, if it is not resolved, will it impede the success of the candidacy? Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Please see the discussion on this page. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 21:58

Personal Attack Violations from user above[edit]

[Note: The following wildly-out-of-context quotes are from a lying, convicted, and subsequently confessed sockpuppeteer whose sole purpose in life appears to be to instigate trouble. See User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence for more.]Tommstein 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Negative personal comments & "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

“stop giving pubescent 15-year olds administrative powers”

"half a day has been pissed away because of administrator laziness"


“revert ignorance”

“demonstrating him to be full of crap”

"you're just flinging crap all over the walls"

“Cairoi's dumbass threat”

"Just for asking that dumbass ad hominem question"

“Stupidity is not a defense”

"idiotic, factless, rambling"

  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.

“Watchtower Society has told them they are to think is just some stupid dumbass”

“refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as 'ignorant numbnuts'”

"part of your religious shunning bullcrap"

"Go find some old lady to preach to that you can try to abuse into submission like a good Jehovah's Witness, or kick your dog, or beat your wife or kids or something"

  • Profanity directed against another contributor



More examples available upon request


... is about to be demoted [7] on account of its being (IMHO) manifestly not ready for prime time. Can we please put something else on 12/25/05? BYT 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this again, but could you indicate on WP:TFA and/or WP:FARC whether Christmas is still going to appear on the front page on 25 December or whether you will deploy the backup Main Page featured article. For my money, the FARC is reasonably split (2:1 in favour of removing featured status) and the article has been improved in the past few days, and the vote will go on until 2 January 2006, but some certainty would be great (unless you are deliberately leaving us on tenterhooks, of course). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so promptly on my talk page, and apologies again for troubling you with this. As I write, there is just over 52 hours before the page goes live, plenty of time for the FARC debate to swing one way or the other. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RfArb query[edit]

Opinion I know that you are under no obligation to discuss your vote in my RfC, but I really don't get it. You say that "no previous steps of the dispute resolution process have even been attempted", and yet in the section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried", I summarised 5 points, of which 4 are taken directly from dispute resolution page, together with links showing exacty where they occured, including TWO RfC's? What am I missing? (cc. Kelly Martin) --Iantresman 20:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Raul....[edit]

Dear Mr. Raul,

I would like to enquire about obtaining the passage of the recently passed Dinosaur article to the main page. This was my first FAC & I am a bit amiss about what to do now. I thought I should contact you to see how I can get the article to the main page. Regards, Spawn Man 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 16:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is my second request for a discussion with you about Christmas[edit]

Christmas is about to be demoted [8] on account of its being (IMHO) manifestly not ready for prime time. Can we please put something else on 12/25/05? BYT 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article (yet) so I have no strong opinion, but I would say that a good tactic here would be to find another "cute" article to run on that day, perhaps something Christmas-themed but not Christmas itself. (I mean, it ran last year, so we should obviously try to do something else this year.) I dunno if there is time to get another article up to speed in time, though. --Jimbo Wales 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo - glad to see you commenting here - regardless of whether it runs on the front page or not - do you have time to quickly review the Christmas FARC and comment on what our goal should be in reviewing feature articles for removal? Trödel•talk 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Gosh, we are honoured ;) On a point of fact, the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 25, 2004 was Shroud of Turin. Christmas only became a Featured article on 24 December 2004 (see its FAC nomination) which was not far enough in advance for it to be scheduled for the front page last year. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I previously commented on Aloan's talk page, I don't feel any need to run another relgious article in the place of Christmas (and, more to the point, there aren't really any acceptable ones). I've switched it to Ido. Raul654 05:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You're going to feature that Ido article on Xmas day? I'm not religious, but that just sucks. You should feature something more magical, such as an article about a fairytale or a Disney cartoon. That article is so damn boring. Bah! --Anittas 06:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

what an amazingly un-interesting article Ido is............ I mean damn... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Umpire sets strike zone. Umpire calls balls and strikes. Umpire doesn't change strike zone for one team's at-bats. Umpire doesn't let crowd call balls and strikes. BYT 13:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You may have missed this on User:ALoan's talk page[edit]

(... so I am placing it here, too. These are important questions and I really would appreciate your addressing them directly.)

It hardly seems fair to allow your perceptions about one user's behavior to outweigh all the objections that have been raised by many others on that page.
The distinct impression I got from the whole KaDee Strickland dispute was that if people lodged substantive complaints with you ahead of time, there would be a fair hearing concerning mainpage placement issues. I'm not really sure that's happening here, and I can't help feeling you've been avoiding dealing with this issue so as to avoid having to address it before December 25.
Let me ask you frankly: Do you feel we have any obligation to run an article about Christmas on December 25 on the mainpage? If so, why? BYT 17:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for acting responsibly on Christmas[edit]

If the article survives its FARC, I will be happy to help improve its quality, and maybe then you'll feel it's appropriate to put it back in the rotation. As an author of a book on the subject of the history of Christmas, though, I felt I had a duty to speak up about the piece's shortcomings. BYT 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I was editing pages for a purpose[edit]

I was trying to edit both composers Mozart and Beethoven and getting rid of those terrbile midi files they have. Some of the files of are real people playing and not computer midi files. That is why I deleted them, I don't feel as if midi files can represent classical music and they don't.

(1) Many of the files you removed (More than half) were *not* generated from midi files, and (2) While a midi-generated file is not great, we consider it better than nothing, and (3) unexplained removal of music files like that is likely to get you blocked for vandlaism. Raul654 17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Midi/Real performance files[edit]

I am terribly sorry then. I just want Wikipedia to be the best website ever (which it is) and I think that real is much better than midi. Midi just bothers me and my intentions were just to help out. I didn't mean any harm. I love this website and I was just doing my share to help. I have expanded some articles in the past and edited things to make what in my viewpoint is better. I hope you don't take it the wrong way (which you did by deleting the Beethoven midi files) but for example since I'm such a big fan hearing midi is almost an insult and I rather have school kids listen to the real thing and not computer generated files.

I thank you for your time, it was all for the good of harm was time I will provide an explnation on what exactly I was trying to do. I did not know it was necessary to do this.


Since I know you are the king of featured articles I figured I should redirect you to my proposal of sorts and get your opinion on it. Thanks. gren グレン 20:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I am well aware the protecting the FA is to be avoided. However, this has been getting a serious vandal wave. I was having trouble even reverting it, not to mention that some good edits may have been reverted in the chaos.

I hope this is well watchlisted. I will certainly keep an eye out for it. I wish someone would delete that stupid unsourced copyvio penis picture from Wikimedia Commons. Reverting this stuff is such a waste of time.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith[edit]

Why did you unprocted the Joseph Smith article? It's a featured article which is being constantly vandalized today. The protecting seemed to help a great deal. The Jade Knight 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This question is asked often - see User:Raul654/protection for info Trödel•talk 23:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac and Karmafist[edit]

Hello Raul,

Well, rather than repeat what i typed to Fred, I thought I might just point to it. I dunno if it's group think or what, but if Wikipedia cannot get a hold of the problem of abusive admins who demand respect, but show no respect, it will lose talent (that it's had at a bargain pay rate). Like you, I'm an electrical engineer (was a Ph.D. candidate from Northwestern in the 80s) and I really hoped to do a lot of work in the signal processing articles (my thing is audio signal processing, I review manuscripts for the Audio Engineering Society), both cleaning them up and adding some good content, but you guys simply do not understand that among the many good, fair, and careful admins, there are some very rude young snots who act like they own WP and really let their position of admin delude them into thinking they can do no wrong. (Of course, I'm referring to Karmafist, in particular.) You guys really need to have better sensitivity (shall I be so bold to say "fairness") and control of your cops, if you expect people of talent to hang out here are provide free content for the encyclopedia. I guess this (and the so-called "anarchy" referred to by the other extreme) is and will continue to be one of them endemic problems of WP.

At least, thank you for reading my RFAr even if you cannot see the seriousness of this abuse (and, frankly, dishonesty of those who should be taking some responsibility). Good luck with your Ph.D. and have a nice Christmas holiday. r b-j 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. From reading the description of the case, I believe that both sides (you, and Phroziac/Rchamberlain) could have acted better, so as to avoid this problem. However, with that said, it really is a tempest in a teapot. It was obviously a misunderstanding between three good users, and seeing as how arbitration can't turn back the clock, it is very unlikely to produce an outcome satisfactory to any of the parties. That is why I think Fred's comment (apologies all around and bury the hatchet) is probably the best course of action. Raul654 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately Raul, there is no sign of any interest from Phroziac, Rchamberlain or Karmafist for a round of apologies. and there is no sign that this is expected of them. i did not name Rchamberlain as a respondant in this RFAr (only as a possibly involved party, along with User:NicholasTurnbull whom i think is an excellent admin) even though his initial incivility is pretty clear. my present issue is with Phroziac for not checking this out nor contacting me about anything before summarily blocking me and with Karmafist for his obvious harassment at Phroziac behest. Karmafist is being poisonous here and it's beyond belief that you would countinance that. When you sum the tempest in my little teapot to those of many other Wikipedians (this you are aware of), it's a big tempest. He is simply a rude, patronizing, harassing, troll who accuses others of that very sin (and in my case, there is no evidence of any sort that i harassed Phroziac, but he just makes that an axiom in what he has said). he demands "you will be civil", yet he does not act as that applies to him. I'm just incredulous that you excuse this. Karmafist is poisonous. Malignant. Can you not see the danger this is for the Wikipedia community? respectfully, r b-j 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

St. Petersburg Meetup[edit]


Thank you for the notice on my talk page. While I'm in strong disagreement with the recent arbcom decision ruling against me, I look forward to meeting you in person in mid-January at the St. Petersburg meetup, where I can share with you my concerns over synarchist control of some articles on Wikipedia and what I perceive to be an unfair arbcom decision. If you're up for it, I'd gladly buy you a drink at a downtown establishment or perhaps at St. Petersburg's nearby famous dogtrack, Derby Lane.

Your friend, Cognition 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool Places on WIKI[edit]

I was posting at User talk:Jayant412 some ways to find cool people and cool places, such as how to use the Search to find who had been awarded Barnstars for great work in areas of interest to ourselves, when I stumbled across your award of a Soviet Medal to Finley, which cracked me up.

I lack your great Wiki experience but hopefully I will survive long enough to make some notable contrbutions in time. User:AlMac|(talk) 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Finlay is a funny guy. That comment I left him was in response to this very funny comment he (Finlay) left on the reference desk. Raul654 02:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-linking of dates on Christmas[edit]

I'm wondering why you relinked the dates on Christmas. This seems to go against the guidelines specified in Wikipeda:Make only links relevant to the context, which states that only full dates should be linked. Anyway, it's ridiculous for December 25 to be linked 20 different times on that page. It's unnecessary and it's ugly. And I'm not buying the argument about "date formatting preferences". People from Europe are not going to be confused by "December 25" and people from America are not going to be confused by "25 December". --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) is clearly more specific and relavant. In particular, it's not about confusion - it's about not overriding preferences. Linking dates means the article has a consistent feel which specifically uses that person's preferences. Raul654 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it says/said in the Manual of Style somewhere that it only works if the date also has a year which is linked. Is that outdated? --AySz88^-^ 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Never mind - the Manual of Style wasn't being self-consistent. I fixed the information on the linking page to match the larger explanation in the page about dates and numbers. --AySz88^-^ 02:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do that again[edit]

Please stop vandalizing my user talk page with your abusive violations of Wikipedia policy, thanks. Wyss 01:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Notifying parties of arbitration acceptances and decisions is standard produre; claiming that such notification is vandalism or a violate of policy is an outright lie and if I see you do it again you can expect further sanctions. Raul654 01:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
This is all old news to me, I'm only watching my former user page to keep it clear of graffiti and other unhelpful posts. Like it or not, know it or not, you're in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you cared, you might look into the history of this matter for yourself to find out why. However, I understand that you likely don't care and that your investigation and discussion abilities are apparently limited to making threats. That's ok too. Let's drop it now. Look at my contributions and you'll see that my activity as a WP user is strictly limited to responses concerning the violations of WP policy I've been subjected to. Thanks. Wyss 02:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, we may as well block you? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Action can actually be taken when someone is repeatedly calling stuff vandalism that isn't? What action might this be? I've been having a sockpuppeteer with an army of sockpuppets do that to me (who is, incidentally, continuously blanking parts of this talk page), but I figured it was just part of the seedy underbelly of Wikipedia that we had to live with.Tommstein 19:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What for? Wyss 02:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Disruption comes to mind. If you are not here to write an encylopedia why should you be allowed to edit? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm truly not disrupting, but I understand why you're concerned, so I'll limit my edits to keeping my name space tidy. I could start editing again if WP ever implements academic sourcing standards. That said, I invite you, too, to look into the history of this incident for yourself to see why all those involved in the official side of the process have, knowingly or not, rather egregiously violated WP policy. Wyss 02:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Raul was 100% correct in posting what is standard information and is acting 100% in accordance with WP policy. Wyss is acting 100% like a moron is his reaction. Frankly his behaviour towards Raul and others should be raised elsewhere. His behaviour and attitude is bordering on trolling. (He's the second paranoid eejit I've come across tonight. Where does WP find these people? lol FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 02:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds abusive to me and this is my last post outside my name space until WP does something about its lack of academic standards. Wyss 02:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!![edit]

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Raul654/archive8! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I protest![edit]

I protest against your recent selection of Ido for being Feautured Article on X-mas Day! You seem to only care about the way the content is written, not about the content itself. Call it a subjective opinion, but that article is boring as hell. Who the hell cares about some stupid, artificial, wanna-be language? You could have, instead, featured something more magical, with some meaning in it. I'm not religious, but featuring Saint Nicholas, or a Disney fairy-tale - or in case you wanted to make people aware of certain things - bring their attention about people who are not doing so well as the rest of us do. But no, instead, you picked that boring-ass article about Ido. That language sucks! I don't care how well-written the article is, the subject in question is boring! Boring!

Happy Holidays!--Anittas 02:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you too; and you can see my reply below. Raul654 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Me aplaudas vu![edit]

Me aplaudas vu pro selektir l'artiklo pri Ido aparor frontispice! Ne lasez ulu dicar a vu ke l'artiklo esas tedanta. Olu, e la linguo, esas interesantega a multa person, ma evidente ne omni. Kom linguisto, interliguisto, ed specale Idisto, mea dankas vu.

I applaud you for selecting the article about Ido to appear on the main page! Don't let anyone tell you the article is boring. It, and the language, are very interesting to many people, but apparently not everyone. As a linguist, interlinguist, and especially as an Idist, I thank you.

DavidMann 04:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you telling him that he shouldn't listen to my opinion? I thought that a guy in his position would be interested in hearing the different opinions from the community. Am I wrong? That article is so damn boring! ZZzzZZzzzZZ!!! --Anittas 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's simply a phrase I used intending to give him a very different opinion from the one you expressed. No offense intended. I'm sure there are things you find fascinating which I would find extremely boring. DavidMann 12:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The same applies to pretty much every article I put on the main page. For any article I put up, there will be people who are happy about it and people who don't like it. I can't make everyone happy, and I accepted this a long time ago. Raul654 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Final statement[edit]

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. So, you had "made" me an administrator! --Bhadani 15:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Mark & request for intervention[edit]

I am Jon-Erik Beckjord, and have an article page on me in Wiki. I am trying to edit the Bigfoot page, and keep running into opposition from a non-expert, and skeptic named DreamGuy. He doggedly keeps reverting my edits, claiming my knowledge is a self-serving plot. His pov is nihilism and negativity. And example is that he keeps insistng that the alleged Bigfoot (which I have seen five times in 30 yrs) has small eyes, and a small head, which is false. He offers no references for his point. Many authors take the other position, yet DreamGuy keeps reverting,reverting.

Second is that he resists any info that allows people traumatized by Bigfoot sightings, (and this can happen)to contact any groups or websites that can help. Also to record contacts. Yet, In WIKI, the UFO page lists orgs that take sightings reports, and also the BIOLOGICAL WARFARE page, has instructions on who to contact in emergency, as does the FIRST AID page.So why not the Bigfoot page?

He will NOT talk to me, by email,phone, or his own page, and he appears intransigent on the matter.

I request your assistance to settle this.

beckjordBeckjord 20:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Request action on 3RR ? issue... three reverts.[edit]

DreamGuy at the Bigfoot page.

beckjordBeckjord 21:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy will not discuss[edit]

Note: "If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page."

DreamGuy reverts and runs.

beckjordBeckjord 21:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Stats for FAs[edit]

Hi, I was the one that nominated Ido to be the FA. I don't suppose there is a place to see the number of visitors a page has received in a day? I'm curious. Mithridates 08:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not think we have individual article counts, nor are we likely to get them back. If you want a rough estimate, take the number of hits on the main page (millions) and multiply by 0.17 (when they sampled it, the devs found that roughly 17% of the hits to the main page clicked on the featured article). Raul654 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


A image you uploaded Image:Prison.jpg has a uncertain copyright status and may get deleted in 7 days. Please find proof of the copyright on it. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 19:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

While a handful of state put their work into the public domain, I don't think that Washington does and I was unaware of this when I uploaded it. So, it should probably be deleted. Raul654 03:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit war solution on Evolution?[edit]

This is to let you know that I've replied to your comment on Talk:Evolution#Semi-protection. Would be nice if you could elaborate on your curt statement there. - Samsara 19:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have further elaborated my comment there. Raul654 03:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal featured articles[edit]

Portal:Tropical cyclones was created from {{box portal skeleton}}, so any fixes you want to make you should probably put in there too. Jdorje 03:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The box name is passed as a parameter from the portal page. So all the portals needed ot be changed (which I have done). Raul654 03:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Treating people like children[edit]

By the way, you will win nothing more than bitterness and resentment by talking down to people, throwing your authority and intellect around as if you are the master of the universe. I would be more than willing to be swayed by your argument, and changed things, until I actually saw that you went in and changed it yourself.

Treat your co-contributors on this site as equals and stop stepping on people's toes. Because you're not winning any friends this way. astiqueparℓervoir 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

All right. I think the basis of our dispute is this - you believe that "featured article" is a generic term, whereas I believe that when people see "featured article", they specifically think of wikipedia:featured articles. Raul654 04:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Raul, I think a better term is recommended article, at least for my portal. But if I go back now and see selected I'm changing it back to featured. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for a substantial amount of time and just because I'm not an administrator doesn't mean that I couldn't be one if I tried. I don't have the patience for people like myself. astiqueparℓervoir 04:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, quite frankly, I don't care if you use "Selected" or "Recommended" or "Spotlight" or "Article of the week" - whatever floats your boat. I do care if you use "featured" because it means something specific. Raul654 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a very good point. You should care what we use if you're going to go around making us change things. In fact, as featured is otherwise the ideal word of choice, except the use of that term has been copyrighted by your department and prevented from use anywhere in the Wikiverse except where you approve it. No other word adequately conveys what it is. So you better take the time to help out and find another one, because you are responsible for making people's lives miserable in searching for it.astiqueparℓervoir 04:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't really think finding a synonym for "featured" is the Herculean task you make it out to be. Here's what a quick check of a thesarus turned up: italicize, accent, accentuate, focus on, highlight, illuminate, mark, play up, point, punctuate, set off, spotlight, stress, underline, underscore. Nor did I say you couldn't use "featured" - I just wanted you to use it with actual featured articles (which, I note, there are plenty of Irish ones for the Ireland portal). Raul654 04:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Nineteen, to be exact. Mostly literature related. It makes featuring articles difficult when the vast majority of Irish articles, are in fact, geography related. astiqueparℓervoir 05:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On changing "Featured" to "Selected"[edit]

Hey, you changed "Featured article" to "Selected article" on Portal:Biology. I changed it back because, at least for the time being, I'm planning exclusively on running actual featured articles. The current Featured article is Antarctic krill, which is also a Wikipedia Featured article. Just letting you know so you don't change it back. Thanks. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed - looks good to me. Raul654 04:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Yesterday, you've added this entry to DYK - "... that Lake Karachay in Russia is the most polluted spot on earth?" The right way to list it on DYK is to first list it on Template talk:Did you know. Also, no entry is removed unless it is featured for atleast six hours - however, you've removed an entry that was barely there for 3 hours. Clear instructions are available on both the template and template talk about the updation. I'm disappointed with what you have done as you are one of the guys I look up to on Wikipedia, especially, due to the multiple roles that you play. However, I believe that the procedures must be same for one and all and that WP:IAR does not apply here. Surely, you'd appreciate that you'd not like someone changing the FA to someone's own article? Same is the case with DYK as well as there is a process for listing on DYK, just as in FA. I am sorry for the longish message but I felt that it is important that I make myself clear. I also felt that I should let you know of the procedure as the actions of admins and b'crats are subjected to stricter scrutiny. Thanks for your time, --Gurubrahma 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

All right - I'll be more careful in the future :) Raul654 05:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre promotion of Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article[edit]

I really find this promotion inexplicable. The proponents of the article's candidacy pretty much refused to make substantive responses to serious objections and personalized the issues involved, and several sets of objections remained unresolved. Frankly, it's insulting to those of us who take FAC criteris seriously. It's not quite so bad as promoting the article that asserted "Dinosaurs still exist today," but it's really not consistent with what Wikipedia policy says. Monicasdude 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to split 9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

User:Blackcats has proposed splitting the 9/11 conspiracy theories article into Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. If you're interested, please comment here. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've expressed my strong disapproval at re-splitting the article. I've already fought this battle once. Raul654 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Istrian dog[edit]

responded on my talk pg. Elf | Talk 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. :-) Elf | Talk 00:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice. How about I dig up some pictures? Raul654 00:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Added one to the article. While I was flipping through my dog book to get to the right page, a picture of an Italian Spinone popped out at me that also looked just like your dog. One photo here: here but the one in my book really resembled the face. So who knows... Elf | Talk 05:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That "arbcom clarification request"[edit]

That you cleared out the other day - the one by Zordac asking for clarification over the Rachel Brown sock puppets. It was probably this edit which made Zordac think it was an arbcom matter, specifically the Evidence was presented to the arbcom bit, which made it sound like part of a case. Dan100 (Talk) 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow. The edit you linked to was by Mindspillage, not me; and the only requests for clarification I removed were these three Raul654 00:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

Oops! Sorry about that! deeptrivia (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)[edit]

Hi, sorry to disturb you. Since now the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) is promoted, Monicasdude claims the article contains weasel words and the factual accurancy is disrupted. Could you please take a look at the article whether the claim is true. Thank you. --Terence Ong Talk 07:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Dennis promoted with objection unaddressed[edit]

I understand you used your executive discretion to deem my actionable objections to the Hurricane Dennis FAC not worth taking into account for consensus. I realize this can be a fine line, however, it really undermines the motivation for working towards standards like "comprehensive" and "compelling even brilliant writing", when (it at least appears that) one person can bindingly decide for all of Wikipedia what is or is not comprehensive or compelling. Unless there is an FA quota to be met, the judgement should almost always be on the side of the standing actionable objection.

Case in point here, to list the detailed path and consequences of a hurricane, including landfall times and locations, degrees of storm intensity, location and dollar value of damage, and then to have broad statements like "left 680,000 customers without electricity in four southern states" without naming the states (is that information unavailable? is the number of customers more important than their location? is a "southern state" a commonly known region or size of area? is it important to know the number of states, as opposed to just the country, but not the names? etc) and stating that there were 10 US deaths, and then precisely locating an arbitrary four of them "one in Walton County, Florida,[16] two in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,[17] and one in Decatur, Georgia.[18]" but not the remaining six (was that also unavailable information? what is the standard for level of detail here: with deaths variously, and apparently randomly, located to the city, the county or the entire USA?) creates logical holes in the account, particularly considering it is such a relatively brief, well-summarized article. This do lower the overall writing quality of the article by making it seem less authoritative. This is a clearly identified and actionable as both a research and writing style issue...

I'm not trying to be "right". I am arguing that this judgement does not do the FAC process justce. I spend thoughtful time on each FAC consideration, and I do not try to post frivolous or minor objections. So to have my well-considered objections summarily dismissed without comment, seems to undermine the whole process (especially while some FACs are left hanging for WEEKS while patently absurd discussions are pursued, and wholesale revisions are made, all apparently at the discretion of the FAC director). Here, small changes would have IMO made relatively great improvement, but apparently not in yours... Doesn't seem very "community consensus" to me. --Tsavage 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

FAC as de facto peer review/article improvement center[edit]

The current use of WP:FAC as a de facto peer review and article improvement area is I believe counterproductive and should be addressed. Case in point, I reviewed the recently-promoted Apple Macintosh article, which was promoted with various standing objections, mine included. In fact, the article is much better than it was, after extensive revisions and major additions of new material. In this case, promotion may not be a bad thing (I find it hard to tell without re-reviewing it from the top), but the end result, considering the amount of change involved, is that effectively Raul654 decided this was an FA largely on his own. The supports and objections that occurred at various stage of the revisions dealt with quite different articles, so any sort of real consensus is hard to justify. Furthermore, this is common in FAC. In recent weeks, I've spent an inordinate amount of time following up on long discussions and attempted resolutions of objections on certain FACs (which are sometimes left for two or three weeks), which limits the number of FACs I can address. I would much rather read, render a comment/vote, and only return if minor, specific actionable items are involved. If an article contains numerous typos, bad writing, or several problems with facts, then it should be dismissed. The type of heavy requirement currently being placed on the FAC voter (particularly, the objector) is I find quite unreasonable and inefficient, and encourages less rigorous standards and lower quality. Related to that is the fact that "support", despite the guidelines, is generally given with little or zero justification (unsupported supports should be struck, just like unactionable objections?). I'd like to know where this can be further discussed. Thank you. --Tsavage 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Apologies. Because of the controversial nature of this case, I took a very inclusionist approach in adding involved parties, adding those who either commented on the case (Theresa Knott) or has ever blocked Marsden (you, Jayjg). In my opinion, if you don't want to take up this case, at least make the injunction that the block be made for a finite duration (like, say, the month with time served that was done before two times). -- Dissident (Talk) 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of Featured Article template[edit]

Hey, man. User:Flarn2005 (who has a long history of contrariness and vandalism) has taken it upon himself to add the template for Featured Article to his user_talk page. I've 3x reverted it, but he insists on retaining it. I figured Featured Article is your bailiwick anyhow, so do with him as you wish; let me know what you decide. Also, Narnia sometime late tomorrow sounds good. Peace, jglc | t | c 04:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The page, as it now exists (with the custom template instead of template:featured) is OK; you were correct to tell him not to use the featured template, because (a) it was misleading and (b) it added his userpage to an inappropriate category. Raul654 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll call you tomorrow to arrange a time. Raul654 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Page Schedule[edit]

Where do I find the calendar with the schedule of what FAs will appear on what day on the main page?Rlevse 14:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The "archives" - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2005, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2006, 'etc. Raul654 17:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make a note of this. Rlevse 18:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

TFA Spoo Request[edit]

For your consideration, requesting Spoo for January 7th. Thanks for your time! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Raul's Laws[edit]

I would like to submit the following to Raul's Laws:

  • No matter how serious a discussion or how well-founded the arguments, there will always be someone who misses the point and seeks to discount all of it by invoking a one-liner meme in response, such as "instruction creep", "voting is evil" or "adminship is no big deal".
Radiant_>|< 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Common sense brick[edit]

Good Lord, my first genuine Wiki-award, and the first of a new series, to boot. It's quite an honor, so thank you. And thank you to all the people who made it possible, like my agent, my writing coach, my...<music plays as emcee escorts from stage>

--Calton | Talk 01:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Imagism and FA/Main Page status[edit]

Raul: I just copied this form your talk archive pages: ...Featured articles are required to have inline citations. Footnotes are one acceptable form, but not the only one. Anyone insisting on footnotes is told politely but firmly (by me) that such an objection is invalid. Raul654 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)... ... Note, I added the bolding. Now, today's Imagism has NO inline citations. It has references but they are not linked to anything. An inline citation, by Wiki's own article on the subject, is supposed to appear at the end of a sentence or paragraph to cite a source. This article has nothing of the kind that I see. The users perusing the FAC page have been hot on inline citations lately, how did this one slip through? Just like the people who hate lists in FAs, but then the Java article on the main page had lots of them. Can't there be more consistency in the process? Rlevse 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it was promoted in May? Six months is like seven years in wiki-time, the standards have evolved. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Bunchofgrapes stole my thunder. What we expect out of our featured articles is a moving target - moving up hill, that is. The standards have gone up quite a bit over time, and it's unfair to complain an older one doesn't meet the current standards. Raul654 09:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. Is there an easy way (other than going through hundreds of history page notes) to find out when a FAC became a FA?Rlevse 11:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Go to the article's talk page, and click on "identified" in the FA banner at the top. Mark1 12:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah ha. Then I take it that the FAC was promoted to FA on or shortly after the last date-time stamp? Thanks everyone. There is so much to learn about Wiki. Rlevse 13:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving featured articles[edit]

Hi Raul,

It's rare, but every now and then WP:RM gets a request to change the name of a featured article. I already redirect the FAC discussion, but should I modify the name of it on WP:FA as well?

WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I would assume so—that's what I did to Severe acute respiratory syndrome (after reading your comment here). — Knowledge Seeker 00:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly. Raul654 01:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Just a question on wording, since this is also is the proposed lead for when the article is used as Today's Featured Article in January. There is one sentence that says "In its wake, several of Delrina's principles founded venture capital firms that continue to have a lasting impact on the Canadian software industry." Emphasis added by me - their principles or principal investors moved on? I'm just not sure about that word usage, and the entry on principle at the online Merriam-Webster didn't shed much light on this I'm afraid. [9] Thoughts? --JohnDBuell 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Leap second -- yeah, being a featured article in the first place would help[edit]

Oh, well. Enjoy the extra second tonight. Peace, BYT 13:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And, indeed, mentioning it on the front page *at all* somewhere might still have been a good idea. Can't *anybody* generalize anymore?
--Baylink 18:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
template:In the news seems more appropriate. Raul654 18:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If you write it up, I'll post it there. Raul654 18:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I did it myself. Raul654 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
And so stylishly. My, but I'm pissy this year. Sorry. Hey, it's almost... oh, never mind.  :-)
--Baylink 22:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding[edit]

Did you have a reason to terminate the nomination considering you never even participated in the vote? I don't find this acceptable as I had yet to respond to the comments. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If a nomination is clearly tanking, as yours was, a wikipedia:Bureaucrat can use his/her discretion to end the nomination early, which is what I did. Raul654 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Raul,

First of all, thank you for adding all the media files to the various composers--I've seen you show up on my watchlist a lot recently. I don't know if you are working from a list of composers and then looking for media, or looking through available media first -- but if the latter, can you let me know if you find any missing composers? I'm trying to fill in the gaps, especially in the Renaissance. Thanks again, good work! Antandrus (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, copyleft music files are like precious jewels - rare and very hard to find. About once a week or so, I go google-spelunking to find them. I strike out more often than not, but occacionally I find something. So, I definitely am working from the media and taking whatever I can find
I maintain a full list of music available on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Sound/list - please feel free to use anything you find there to illustrate any appropriate article. I've taken care to make sure that every file is listed on its composer's page, but there are tons of other articles they could be used to illustrate as well. Raul654 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will (Nomination)[edit]

WOW! THANK YOU! Please don't put it on the main page yet, because I still have a few things to check off: 1) Check the copyrights on some images (I'm working with a Leni Riefenstahl historian who runs Das Blaue Licht) 2) Upload higher quality versions of several images. 3) Copy-edit a second time. 4) Double-check to make sure it's properly footnoted. This is my first time having an article featured, so please let me know if there's anything else I have to do. Again, THANKS! Palm_Dogg 18:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, I've had a few more days to double-check it and I think it's ready for the Main Page. Please contact me if you have any questions/comments.Palm_Dogg 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Bratislava New Year Fireworks.jpg

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :)
Happy new year to you. Raul654 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hero of Wikipedia[edit]

Hero of the USSR.png

As one of the most productive editors here, and an all around good person, I hereby give you the Hero of Wikipedia medal.εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Delrina and the evils of homonyms ;-)[edit]

JohnDBuell was right to point out the issue regarding "principles" (see the reference further up on this page). I meant "principals" in terms of sense, but in order to make things more clear, I changed the wording in the article to say "former executives" instead. I can't however figure out how to change the wording in the Feature Article summary for January 4th, as there is no edit function available. If you have access to this, could you please change it accordingly? Cheers! Captmondo 22:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Captmondo 01:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

moving an image?[edit]

Hi - Can you help out a user having a problem with an image (see Wikipedia:Help desk#Image trouble (duplicate))? Seems like the solution is to move the en version of the image to a new name - does this really take a re-upload to accomplish? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking on FAC: Hollow Wilerding[edit]

This will probably interest you. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

Netoholic and templates[edit]

I see from the relevant arbcom case that you were given the 'pleasure' (sic) of mentoring User:Netoholic but that it didn't work out. It appears that Neto has moved on from seriously annoying people over templates to seriously annoying people over infoboxes, which he is unilaterally redesigning and changing, to the 'irritation' (to put it diplomatically) of people who get in his way. In doing so he has also been breaking the injunction of only one revert per article per day. Given that he has a history of such behaviour with templates, should the issue be brought directly to the arbcom's attention? From past experience with Neto I personally don't want to have anything to do with him. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner earlier commented on this, and I mostly agree with what Snowspinner said. Netoholic is trying to kill off metatemplates, which people have not been careful to avoid (despite clear directions from the developers to do just that). That said, however, Netoholic doesn't explain his actions very well, and as a reuslt those actions tend to piss people off. Several members of the arbcom (David Gerard, Kelly Martin, and myself) have asked that his prohibition from editing in the template domain not be enforced too strictly in regard to the metatemplate issue. Raul654 19:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the procedure for requesting clarification of a FAC promotion decision?[edit]

I'd like to know how to go about requesting clarification of FAC promotion decisions. Specifically, I am curious about promotions made with standing objections. I realize that a certain amount of executive discretion is necessary on the part of the FAC director in order to decide whether consensus has reasonably been reached. However, in some cases, it would appear that objections, which seem actionable, are ignored or discounted. Particularly in such cases, and in FAC promotions in general, is there a procedure whereby the basis for the decision and the reasoning of the FAC Director can be requested and made available? Thanks. --Tsavage 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to speak about these things in the abstract. Lots of people object for lots of different things, and I do not find all objections compelling. I've seen objections that flatly go against the manual of style/citation rules, or objections that were downright trivial, objections that the article is too long (when it isn't), 'etc. On occasion, I have been been asked to give reasoning (usually someone is curious and drops a message on my talk page); but lately it's been getting pretty unreasonable -- to the point where I am getting angry message even before I am finished promoting the articles. Raul654 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. If I understand correctly, this—your Discussion page—is the proper forum for asking about individual FAC decisions. In that case, I'd like to ask after your thoughts on the recent Hurricane Dennis promotion, where two of my standing objections were left unaddressed, and so, I assume, found to be either inactionable, or without merit. I outlined my concerns in a comment a few posts above, but I can be more brief here by focussing on just one instance. I objected that the article stated there were "680,000 customers without electricity in four southern states". My concern was that "southern states" should be clarified: These states should be listed, given the level of detail provided elsewhere. I believed this objection to be easily actionable, as it did not involve heavy article revision (when, it seems, the majority of FAC nominations do go through significant revision), and it would improve the article. So, I was surprised when this was dismissed, and I'm curious as to your reasoning. Thanks for the time... --Tsavage 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Raul, in relation to this I think me and other FAC regulars/patrollers would appreciate your criticism of our support/objections from time to time. Also, if you have any concerns about one of mine you can always send me a message :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

FAC page issue[edit]

Raul, in this edit you removed a whole bunch of FACs, I gather from one of your barnstars that it's a job you do often. I wonder if there's a reason Talk:redshift and its nomination page weren't changed - was the debate supposed to be closed? I'm not sure if it was deleted by accident, or if something should have happened to close the debate, or if the nomination stays open indefinitely but falls off WP:FAC? Thanks, stillnotelf has a talk page 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Some nominations were promoted (and moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log - currently empty because January is a new month) and the rest failed and were archived to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. I tag the promoted ones with template:featured, the ones that failed are tagged (a few days afterwards) by user:Violetriga with template:Facfailed. Raul654 00:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry to bother you! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 03:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you warn User:Benjamin Gatti for me?[edit]

Again, he is writing in other people's evidence sections. Just to remind you, several days ago, he had inserted 6 "Comments from Above" sections. I told him he shouldn't do that, moved the comments and now, here we are again. I'd warn him but if I did, I'd get nothing from grief, especially since his advocate has a motion up to supress Katefan0 and I's admin powers even though we haven't used them. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I moved the comments to their proper place before you warned him. After your warning, Benjamin's response was to revert my text move, in the edit summary saying arbitrators should do the refactoring on AC pages [10] -- also his response to your warning here may be enlightening [11]. Additionally, he has declared on the Workshop page his intent to keep responding to items in other peoples' evidence sections [12]. I'm sorry to bring this to you when you already have a full plate, but I'm done mudslinging with Benjamin and am not going to revert him again. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I have left him a second, less subtle note Raul654 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Raul can I have a word with you on AIM please. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti. (AIM: ChazzWiki)
I do not see you on AIM. Raul654 21:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Whats your Screenname? My e-mail is: ChazzWiki (at) --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You left rather abruptly - presumably all your questions were answered? Raul654 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And this is Ben's response to your 2nd warning. He's gaming the system. it's what he's been doing since day 1. Could you move his comments back to his section? He's quoting the rule that says that only the arbcom can refactor the page. So. Please move his comments back to his section. I do appreciate all of your help on this matter. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki referencing style in Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)[edit]

Where is the help/policy page for the new ref system you implemented in this edit? Saravask 03:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Raul654 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
More specifically, the docs are at [13] and as far as I know, no English Wikipedia policy or guidelines have been built up around it yet. Some discussion has also taken place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Footnotes: ref-tag. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I had mentioned this before but since no one responded on the template's talk I was "bold" and made my edit. It should be fixed style-wise and maybe a template rewrite to better phrase it all but I tihnk showing which version of an article was noticed as featured is very important. My edit allows users to add the version as a parameter and my hope is eventually getting a link on the template to show the diff between the version it became featured and the present version. Everyday wear and tear on highly viewed articles can create problems and since the articles that we need featured are those rudimentary subjects I think of this as a way to easily allow users to make sure nothing has gone awry. I really am not sure how to best go about this so I edited to maybe force the issue some. If you have time take a look or tell me what you think the best way to do this is? gren グレン 06:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet problem[edit]

Hi there. I have my first sock puppet to report, and I'm stuck with what to do next after taging the user(s) and collecting evidence. They told me on the Help Desk to ask on WP:AN/I. I did, but nobody responded. Then they told me (on the Help Desk, and later on the WP:AN/I) to contact an ArbCom member. So I contacted User:Mindspillage 3 days ago, but she didn't respond. Now I'm contacting User:Fred Bauder and you. Hope to hear from somebody, at last... :-\ --Dijxtra 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Identity confusion[edit]

Raul654, I have just realized that I had confused your comments on my page as having been made by User:Ral315 (who is also somewhat involved in this affair), and while I continue to maintain that those attacked have inerrant and immediate right to respond, in reformulating a response to you as a member of the Arbcom, I would ask you to either: a. insist that those compiling "evidence" narrowly confine their remarks to evidence - leaving out their (often unsupportable) opinions of same, or b. permit the accused to respond to attacks of an opinionated, or conclusorary nature.

Note that I have largely refrained from addressing the opposing party in this affair as I believe the Arbcom is the only hearer of testimony, and I am not asking for the Arbcom to officiate a mudsling, I am only asking to be permitted to respond to unfounded accusations of a personal nature wherever and whenever they occur on this site. Absent that permission, I must request a take-down of willful and knowingly false content of a personal and malicious nature. Thank you. Benjamin Gatti 20:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In a word, no. He can present whatever case he wants in his section of the evidence, and you in yours. The rules for evidence pages are there to prevent long, meaningless, unreadable back-and-forth diatribes from developing. If you want to respond, you can copy his comments into your section and respond to them there, but under no circumstances are you to edit his section. As to what's malicious or personal, we will decide that for oursevles in our decision. Raul654 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Hey, Raul, you keep track of the music, right? There are some classical piano pieces here under a not-quite free license: [14] Would this interest you if we could get the bloke to improve the licensing? - Haukur 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. You might want to see if he'll agree to CC-by-SA. Raul654 20:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll rattle off an e-mail. - Haukur 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Success, he agreed to CC-by-SA-2.5 :) [15] - Haukur 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Shall We Try Dispute Resolution?[edit]

In re your recent post, identifying me as a troll on the IAR Talk Page. I invite you to demonstrate the good faith that you have failed to demonstrate so far. // NetEsq 21:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Raul654 // NetEsq 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

meta-template assistance[edit]

I could really use your assistance with a particularly surly bunch over at Template:Language. One look at the source shows it to be a monstrous combination of meta-templates. The template has been overthought to death. I tried to do some isolated development on Template:Infobox Language, with the intent of migrating articles slowly, while addressing some functionailty creep that's gone into the old template. Every time I tried to do this, though, I've been reverted by admin User:Garzo. I've posted on Template talk:Language about the need to convert away, but have been met by stonewalling. Today, I tried to implement my current "best fit" right into the main template. Sure, some functions were lost, but I covered all the critical ones. I mostly just want to wash my hands of the whole thing, while still providing a solution for them. Unfortunately, as you can probably read on that talk page, there is a somewhat elitist core that really won't help. No one is working on a replacement, but they have been quick to hinder me. I can't work on the side, and I can't work on the main template... so I'm stuck. -- Netoholic @ 22:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this recently came to a head when Garzo blocked me. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial block. -- Netoholic @ 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have speedy-removed the Zelda article[edit]

Heads up, per my reasoning here as well as past precedent, I have speedy "demoted" The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly/Snowspinner Rfar[edit]

You do realize that this isn't about userboxes, right? It's about some people thinking they're above all reproach towards doing whatever they want, to the point where editors stand in fear of summary retribution from above.[16] The rule of law on Wikipedia has nearly collapsed, and likely the arbcom is the only force that can change that other than Jimbo or a mass revolt by rank and file editors. karmafist 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may add a bit to that I would like to respectfully suggest that Raul clarifies his rejection of hearing the case a bit. Linking to a post saying this is a waste of electrons does not seem entirely respectful to the high number of honest committed editors on both "sides" of the dispute that consider this a big deal. The ArbCom's primary mandate is dealing with interpersonal disputes and this is a serious case.

Of course the ArbCom is entirely entitled to reject the case — and that may well be the best course of action — but a more careful reasoning for doing so might be helpful. - Haukur 13:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, give me a day or so - I'll write up my opinion more thoroughly. Raul654 01:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. - Haukur 01:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

FAC suggestion: Add revision date to nomination requirements[edit]

Listing the version of the revision being submitted in each FAC nomination seems like an easy and useful addition to the FAC nom requirement. This allows voters to easily review changes made over the course of the candidacy (which are often considerable, in some cases going into the hundreds of edits). It is a similar idea to the one above that suggest the revision version that was promoted to FA be listed in the FA tag. WDYT? Is there a proper place to put this to present it for community consideration? Thanks! --Tsavage 18:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Grenavitar recently added it as an optional argument to the featured tag. I'm willing to give it a try for a couple weeks and see what people think. I'll start putting it onto featured articles with the next batch I promote (today or tomorrow). Raul654 18:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The revision date in the Featured tag is a great idea. My related suggestion, however, is different, it is to have the version initially submitted to FAC included in the nominator's section at the top of each FAC nom. That would facilitate the nom process, by allowing anyone at any time during the FAC review period to see what changes had been made since nomination. It's a small thing, but as a FAC nom requirement, it could help the process a good deal, as for one, it puts a little more explicit focus on the submitted version being to FA standard. During the review it would also be practical, as FACs are frequently edited quite a bit, and it can be difficult keeping track of the changes. --Tsavage 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That entirely defeats the purpose of responding to FAC suggestions - e.g, improvmenets made during the time an article is on the FAC. I will be adding the version of the article that exists at the time I tag it as featured. Raul654 19:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the version of the nominated revision be included in the Featured tag (that should naturally be the version at the time of promotion, including the improvements made during the FAC review). During the review, however (and for archival purposes), it would seem useful for anyone at any point to be able to easily refer to the base nomination. This takes into account the reality of many edits occurring during FAC review; it is not uncommon for 50-100 or more revisions to occur even on the first day or two of a nomination. This editing is not per se a bad thing, but lots of edits makes FAC reviewing more complicated. For example, if I support on Day 1, and 50 one-word changes are made by Day 3, the basis for my support could well change, because the article at that point would be quite different from what I originally voted on. By making explicit exactly where the nomination started, the whole process is that much more transparent and clear for all participants, at any stage of the review process. There may be flaws in my reasoning here, but I don't see how the suggestion entirely defeats the purpose of responding to FAC, it only makes it easier to review the changes at any stage. --Tsavage 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ohhh <slaps forehead!> Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were asking that I use the version initially nominated for the FAC in the featured tag (instead of the version at the time the article is promoted). What you instead want is the initial version of the article to be included in the nom. That's not a bad idea. Give me a day or two to tweak at the FAC instructions (which I have been meaning to prune anyway). Raul654 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I was beginning to question my own grip on reality. :) Thanks! --Tsavage 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Return of the Son of Raul's Laws[edit]

"There are only two kinds of actions that can be taken on a wiki: those that can be described as unilateral and those that can be described as supporting a cabal." Demi T/C 22:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it!! Raul654 22:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for rejecting the "userbox" RFAR request[edit]

Hi, Raul654, could I ask you to expand upon your reasoning for rejecting this arbitration request? I'm just interested in knowing your reasoning. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 03:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Raul, that's much appreciated and clears it up for me. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

movie upload assistance request[edit]

I have a copy of a video of the first demonstraton of gastrointestinal endoscopy. This is of historical importance. The video was made for the US government, so is pub domain. I have a mac and am willing to put in the time and effort of putting this thing on wikipedia, but I need some help. I'd be happy to have the discussion here, but eMailing may be easiest. Steve Kd4ttc 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What format is it in? Mpeg and Avi are fairly easy to convert, although I'm not familiar with Macs. Raul654 03:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


I used my poor understanding of japanese and this thingy:

And all I found is that he was born in 1918年, no information on month or day. People on #nihongo @ cannot find that date either; to me, it looks like it's definitivelly missing.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 04:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. That's unfortunate. I've updated our Kazuo Sakamaki article to include the year (but not the day/month). Raul654 03:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Phelps featured article[edit]

Raul - I was happy to see you putting Fred Phelps on hold for a bit. To be honest, I don't want to touch the article for fear of a lawsuit. (My parents live in Kansas, and I would be particularly harmed by a lawsuit there.) I was thinking of posting a note somewhere -- WP:VP or WP:AN -- asking people more fearless than me to work on the article. Do you have a suggestion on where? And would you mind if I mentioned your decision about it being on the mainpage when I put that request up? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to drop me a note when you next get on IRC? I need to ask something. :) Ambi 03:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please assist[edit]

Raul, you could be helpful here.

Mike has now gone so far as to accuse me [17] of Blackmailing him citing WP:no threats which includes in part:

Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. True instances of such writing, which might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large.

While I'm hardly going to sue Wikipedia, the accusation that my public edits in that last 12 hours comprise the criminal act of Blackmail is I believe technically slanderous and could (IMO) be grounds for a legitimate legal sanction. I am therefore immediately calling it to your attention. Please kindly explain to Mike that a little more care in choice of words would go a long way and perhaps help him to rephrase his complaint. Thanks for helping. Benjamin Gatti 04:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To be very clear Mike does not allege that I have threatened legal action, nor does he allege that I have threatened unlawful retribution, In his own words:

"He has spent the day with this "give up the user conduct case or else I'll post these emails as evidence". I don't think this can be tolerated. It's essentially blackmail. It's akin to a legal threat, ..."

Clearly such is not a legal threat, and I suggest that the mere suggestion that it is a crime is outside the bounds and spirit of a fun and loving atmosphere. Benjamin Gatti 05:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ben. Read Blackmail. It is exactly what you are doing. You are holding something over my head unless I comply with your wishes. That. Is blackmail. It's almost the definition of blackmail. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Funny - what would we call "Probation" - in that case? Benjamin Gatti 05:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
First words in Blackmail - "Blackmail is the crime". While there are many places where accusing a person of committing a crime is humorous, the Arbcom is not one of them. If I have no choice but to regrettably introduce evidence of incivility in my defense (under the argument of hypocrisy and hubris with intent to censor) - in effect to neutralize the reams of pablum others have introduced in order to distract the Arbcom from the substance - such will not be a crime I can assure you. Benjamin Gatti 05:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Electioneering in the "move Yom Kippur War" issue[edit]

Your blatant electioneering in the issue of whether to move the Yom Kippur War article by notifying only some of the previous voters, all of whom happen to share your personal point of view is completely improper. I find it mildly disgusting considering your positions of responsibility here and that you of all people should know better. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you were going to notify previous voters, you should notify ALL previous voters, otherwise, you're simply electioneering to support your POV. Unfocused 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you were going to start a new vote, then you should have done that yourself. Starting a new vote in the middle of a page without informing anyone of it gives the strong appearance that you were doing so in the hopes that it might slip in under the radar this time. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't start the new vote: I didn't intend to start a new vote until we'd received some traffic from Requested Moves and Request for Comment. Had anyone mentioned to me that this is what should have been done, I would have done so to complete the measure, even if the one who started the vote did not.
However, that does not in any way discount the fact that Raul654 has electioneered this issue by selectively informing previous voters.
This does not discount that an Administrator, Bureaucrat, and Arbitrator should be expected to behave in a more open and neutral manner. I sincerely hope to see an apology. Unfocused 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Jay took the words right out of my mouth. This poll is an attempt to "pull a fast one". As such, it's not surprising to see people upset with me that I notified the most vocal people in the last debate on this issue (which took place all of a few weeks ago). And, quite franklty, the claim that I notified my "supporters" is specious - (1) I only notified 4 people (out of 15 or 20 who voted against it), and (2) given that *every* person voted against it last time, you could claim I was notifying my supporters no matter who I notified. Raul654 05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
As I replied to Jayjg, I did not start the vote, and it was not my intention to do so until I saw at least some feedback from the renewal of discussion. Informing a select few of your friends is electioneering a poll, and you certainly should know better because of your positions here. Had you notified everyone who participated last time, I would have no complaint. I find it even more disturbing that you're now accusing me of trying to "pull a fast one" when I didn't even start the vote; it was started by someone who saw the issue on "Requested Moves". Whatever happened to "Assume Good Faith", or does that only apply when people share your point of view? I still hope to see some form of apology, but frankly, I think your concurrence with Jayjg's baseless accusation tells me all I need to know. Unfocused 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Had you notified everyone who participated last time, I would have no complaint. " - Ok, so be it. I've gone through and notified every single person who voted in the November poll who has not already voted in the current poll. They are: User:Nightstallion, User:John_Kenney, User:Guybas, User:UriBudnik. Raul654 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've addressed the root of my complaint. That's a good first step. Thank you. Unfocused 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year[edit]

Regards, Arno 03:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Uh. Raul, there was no clarification given at all. It sat there for about a week with no response and now you remove it? If you're not going to address it, put it back and let it stay there until another arb does. Everyking 06:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it and specifically answered Tznkai's question ("Yes"). Raul654 07:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for informing me the Arbitration is concluded. This constraint may in fact be sufficient to contain him within the bounds of civility; and in any case the most I can reasonably expect while absent (I hurt my hand in November).

Would it be possible to move for a clarification prohibiting Ultramarine (or anyone else, but it's his pet piece of obnosiousness) from referring to a text as "correct and referenced"? Normally, both the accuracy of the text and the use of references is disputed. Septentrionalis 21:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"More" link for featured articles[edit]

Hi Raul —

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but would there be any objection to having a "more" link at the bottom of the front page display of the featured article? This was just mentioned by someone else at Talk:Main Page, and I had been thinking the same thing. As it stands, new users don't always know that the paragraph shown isn't the entire article.

I've been bold and added a "more" link to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 9, 2006 just so you can see what I mean. Feel absolutely free to remove it, but I think it's a good idea that ought to be implemented in some manner.

Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's run it for one day and see what kind of feedback we get. Raul654 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was a great idea and that it should become a permanent fixture of the FA display. Andrew Levine 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I see it doidn't stick. There was also some positive feedback at Talk:Main_Page#Featured_article_addition, FYI. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No-one added it to the next few schedule articles in WP:TFA. I have, to continue the experiment. It seems a bit redundant, since the name is alreadly wikilinked in the first sentence, though. If the "more" sticks, perhaps the first link should be removed? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not particularly fond of it either. It seems like needless pandering to people who are (respectfully) too dumb to realize that the bolded link at the beginning is what they are supposed to click on. Raul654 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I like it. I don't think a reader who has never seen Wikipedia before has to be too far-gone dumb to make the mistake of thinking that the front-page blurb is the entire article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
One person said on Talk:Main_Page that his mother initially presumed that the displayed paragraph was the full article, while another user admitted that he "used to wonder how to get to the full thing quickly." I think it's easier to get confused than you'd think. Andrew Levine 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Count me in (if you're counting) for more... --hydnjo talk 19:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

David L. Mills[edit]

Raul — Would you feel like collaborating to try to flesh out David L. Mills? I think I'd like to add some work of his that's not mentioned on the page like interplanetary internet and also some more personal detail about his glaucoma and other issues, but I don't know if I am skilled enough to do that right now. ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


Raul, on 24 Oct 2005, you banned this user for one year. He has recently posted on his talk page [here. I don't know whether or not posting on his own talk page violates the ban or not. Ground Zero | t 19:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


If you mean it's an absolute mess, I whole-heartedly agree. --King of All the Franks 05:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification: FA promotion of Schabir Shaik Trial[edit]

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind the decision to promote the Schabir Shaik Trial to Featured Article status (10-Jan-2006), despite standing objections which seem to be clearly stated, actionable, and in accordance with the FA criteria. Specifically, my own objection contained four items, summarized here:

  • poorly written - Several examples were quoted, and an additional description of the problem included. The examples themselves have not been changed.
  • sections poorly titled and organized - A description of the problem and an example were included. The example, a section heading with a place name that does not appear in the text of that section (and appears only once elsewhere, in a different spelling), is unchanged.
  • inline citations end after third section - There are eight main sections, excluding the lead. The first three have at least one citation per paragraph (30 in total); the rest of the article (75% of the text) has no citations. (This objection was also made by another editor.)
  • article not written in summary style - A description of the problem was included (essentially, that it is a chronological list of events, with no significant summary of the information).

I am sincerely and completely unclear as to how these objections were seen as irrelevant to FA standards. There was no reply to my objections on the FAC page. In the promotion decision, were they judged inactionable? Without merit? How was consensus found here (there were three Supports, one Mild Support, two Objects, and three Comments)? Your taking a moment to provide some indication as to the reasoning behind the decision would be appreciated, as I am now quite confused about the FAC process. Thanks. --Tsavage 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Article quality and vandalism[edit]

I realize that you are not big on the "good articles" concept, but I wondered if you could weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Stable and talk about how the issue of much-vandalized articles is weighed in determining whether an article can be featured. I figure you would know better than anyone, and that it would think it would be very germane to the issue. Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article[edit]

Just letting you know that tonight's featured article is the last one on the list. You haven't chosen any for tomorrow on. PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I know - I was just sitting down to schedule more :) Raul654 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was getting a little worried! -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kipur War footnote[edit]

"Take note of the name of the footnote that immediately proceeds yours in the article body." (emphasis added). What? Thanks. Regards, El_C 15:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I do not understand what you are asking. Raul654 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh, don't be sorry; please click on the very first footnote on the page. El_C 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Can you catch me on IRC on first opertunity? :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to email him the matter ;) --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Meet me in IRC, please[edit]

Coolcat asked me to look into restoring his level 10 access in the channel. I didn't feel comfortable doing that without knowing all the facts, so I'd like to talk to you about it. Raul654 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul: Sure, I'm there now; I'm happy to discuss it. -- Essjay TalkContact 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm in Disneyquest at the moment (which is why I am logged out). I won't be home for a few hours so we'll have to discuss it later. --Raul654

FAC Renaming[edit]

Hi Raul654. Please leave an answer on the FAC page to the question in the "Merit badge types (BSA)" FAC..."........... My main issue is this - how do name changes work in an FAC? Can we simply move this page to a new address, or must we copy and paste, restart etc.? -Rebelguys2 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)" ..Rlevse 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just move it. It would help to set up redirects, so the FAC template on the talk page can find the FAC discusion, or just move the FAC discussion too. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I renamed the article and the FAC entry. Rlevse 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Netoholic and Template:Oh My Goddess Infobox-Generic, Template:If defined call2[edit]

I really hate doing this to him (even though I have no idea who he is), but he is causing havoc on about 70 pages (all but two Oh My Goddess! related pages I think) the infobox is used on. Can you please look into the matter? --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The revert war is still going on. I want to keep the structure the way I can read and modify with ease. He is reverting me over system templates which he is trying to get them deleted. The hole thing on ocasions break over 70 pages --Cool CatTalk|@ 09:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
With respect, Netoholic is right - all those 'if' templates are an egregious use of metatemplates. Could you please fix the pages that use it rather than reverting warring with him? Raul654 17:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom for Dummies[edit]

I've just created User:Snowspinner/Arbcom, which is a first draft of basic advice that people who are taking a case to the arbcom should have before trying to write an evidence page. It's geared towards the practical rather than the idealistic, but I wanted comments on it before I do... I don't know, actually, what I'll do with it. Phil Sandifer 22:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Templates[edit]

Hi - I am trying to standardize all the spoken articles and their talk pages - the policy is to add the template to the tops of article pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Templates_for_articles. Would you be willing to revert the articles back or should I? Thanks Athf1234 19:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Got another law for you[edit]

Editors subject to any kind of disciplinary action or probation sometimes complain that this is unfair since they have no way to appeal it. However, they are confusing the right to appeal with the right to have their appeal granted. Obviously, if they're dead wrong, it won't be. Radiant_>|< 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course[edit]

I'm sorry about that (stupid browser glitch). I'm busily clicking on more of it right now. Radiant_>|< 17:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, never mind. Sorry for the inconvenience; I thought I had heard there was an "everything except this" button but I was apparently mistaken about it. Radiant_>|< 17:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • At the meetup this weekend, I *just* found out about the ability to restore individual reversions. Mav made an insightful comment that instead of a "restore this version box" it would make more sense to have a "Don't restore this version" box. When I get home from vacation, I think I'll file an official request. Raul654 17:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Inspire me[edit]

I will add the citation soon, and I will ponder about whatever drug activity is going on, but tell me what you think about this as of now...εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is clumsy - particularly the first few sentences (I was grimacing as I read them). A rewrite would do wonders. Put simply, you are trying to define "mexican military history" when you should be summarizing it. You might want to glance at Military history of Canada or Military history of Puerto Rico to see well-done introductions to military-history-of-place articles.
Also, you might want to cut down on the table of contents. The Featured article criteria call for a substantial-but-not-overwhelming table of contents; I would say the current TOC is too long.
Another suggestion is that you might want to turn a few of those lists of people into prose. Lists are not a good form of writing.
Beyond those (and the obvious need for citations), I didn't see any major problems with the article, although I didn't read it all word-for-word. Raul654 21:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - it was nice meeting you by the way. Were we in the New York Times? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No - neihter the NY Times or the Washington post responded to my email. It's unfortunate - I think they missed out on a good story. Raul654 22:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Tell Gwen I said hi, and I think it was unfortunate as well - I am working on the intro right now, but I have to confess that I don't put the same amount of effort on Wikipedia that I do in college, and perhaps if I did I would have some FA's now - but I can't do it all! :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

List of famous experiments[edit]

I read over the conflict on Talk:List of famous experiments and I'm worried that your terseness may drive out a reasonably intellegent contributor. I have responded to the anon's concerns, and I agree with her claim on two of the three experiments. Would you mind commenting? Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


I just wanted to say that I have looked through your contributions and discovered all of your inventions and ideas, and I am very impressed. It's people like you who evolve one of the greatest projects in human history in giant leaps. Nice work ^_^ Deckiller 00:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Karen Dotrice[edit]

Thank you so much for Featured Article recognition! RadioKirk talk to me 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, why'd you archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turku/archive3? According to WP:FAC, 'If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.' Most of the objections on that page were already resolved, and the only unresolved ones were only four days old. I was just about to go and resolve them, and suddenly the discussion had disappeared from WP:FAC...? - ulayiti (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

After seven days on the FAC (which, if you were not aware, is very long time where the FAC is concerned) it had only one support, and multiple unresolved objections. So I removed it. Raul654 19:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification: FA promotion of Celine Dion[edit]

Can you give some insight into your process for finding "Support" consensus for Celine Dion, which you promoted today? Again (as in the similar and unanswered request for Schabir Shaik Trial, above), I'm trying to understand how FA decisions are ultimately made. In this case, there were several standing objections, including mine, which regarded "comprehensiveness". The very first sentence of the article concludes that Dion is a "songwriter.[1]" The citation source is, which simply echoes the statement, and the only further mention of Dion's songwriting in this 5,000 word article is one passing reference: "Dion had a hand in hand in writing some of the material" on one album... That is just a case in point (how can an article be "comprehensive", when it doesn't even support its lead sentence?). I'd like to contribute to FAC, but if I'm clueless as to how to interpret the criteria, there seems no point. When my clear objections to things like that are ignored, I am confused. I'd like to not waste everyone's time with objections that won't meet the FAC Director's standards. Thanks. --Tsavage 01:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I take very seriously any and all objections accompanied by specific and objective observations (e.g, - "it's a copyvio"; or, as you just said, "article contains comments made in the introduction with no supporting evidence in the article"). Subjective comments, which have been popping up with increasing frequency on the FAC ("this article is too short/long for my tastes"; "the writing is bad in my opinion", 'etc) - are a lot harder to evaluate. I don't want you to become frustrated with the process - your comments are helpful - but criticisms based on specific and objective criteria are a lot more helpful and lead to a lot less argument. Raul654 04:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, to specifically address the Dion article -- let me enumerate the objections and my thoughts:
  1. Carnildo objecting to the copyright status of 3 pictures (all resolved and stricken out)
  2. HasBeen objecting that "I fail to see what this article adds to our knowledge about CD" -- an objection I find downright incomprehensible. An article is not supposed to add to the knowledge of a subject - it's supposed to summarizing existing knowledge using cited sources. He seems to be objecting to the article because it contains no original research.
  3. Monicadude claiming it's a "complex copyright violation" when it's not (rephrasing something does not a copyvio make). He did cite three specific examples of supposedly plagurized work, all of which were gone when I looked over the nomination. The sources he claims were plagurized are listed in the reference section.
  4. The last objection was yours, that it was mostly that the article contains "Almost no coverage of Dion's MUSIC". I have to respectfully disagree -- the sections on the various eras of her music refer it ot variously as "tastefully unadorned", "a fine, sophisticated American debut", "she slowly moved away from strong rock influences and transitioned into a more pop and soul style.", "Dion's album combined many elements; ornate orchestral frills and African chanting, and instruments like the Spanish guitar, trombone, the cavaquinho, and saxophone created a new sound.", 'etc.
So there you have it - it's a brief summary of the relatively few objections the article recieved, and what I thought about them. Raul654 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
That was a very clear and complete response. It fully satisfies my request. It is much appreciated. And please let me add, I deeply respect the job you're doing in FAC (and I do have more than an inkling of the tremendous amount of dedication and sheer work it involves).
Your comment about the difficulty of interpreted the more "subjective" objections is well-taken. They're by necessity judgement calls, with no hard and fast rules to follow. In the Dion example, there's no WP guideline, and no general metric for "coverage of music". Therefore, it was your judgement call as to whether this objection had merit. (I assume, if an objection is both actionable and has merit, and is not repaired, then that is sufficient to a finding of "no consensus reached".) So, I fully understand your reasoning and decision.
Unfortunately, important basic issues of "comprehensiveness" and "compelling writing" (or, being "well-written" as opposed to only mechanically correct) don't lend themselves to convenient evaluation, like copyvio. When a problem is more pervasive, like "not well written", it can't be completely summarized with specifics like "lead not supported in article". (In many of my objections, I give numerous examples, and stress that these are only examples, not every instance of the problem they demonstrate). It just a bit more complicated than that.
In this case, with Dion, the quotes you present to show that in fact "music is covered" are not really relevant to my objection, in which I further explained: "No section directly addresses her musical craft: her voice and her approach to making music." Your quotes are fairly random comments that relate to particular recordings. Quotes from critics, like "tastefully unadorned" or "ornate orchestral frills and African chanting" for a particular track or album do not describe or explain how she goes about being a "singer and songwriter". IOW, your quotes are about music she has made, but does not discuss how she made them. In being too literal, you missed the point.
There are a few simple "tools" that I find useful in helping to quantify some of these "subjective" calls:
  • use the article to answer a few questions an "average user" might ask This is a good quick overall quality check. For Dion and my objection, for example, you could ask: "Does Celine Dion write her own music?" and "Does Dion play any instruments?" These are reasonable basic questions one might expect an encyclopedia article to answer, especially an FA where comprehenisveness is a criterion. Every question doesn't have to have an answer, but ask a few and it'll become evident if there are significant holes in comprehensiveness.
  • compare the summary to the rest of the article - In all but the briefest articles, the summary is "highlights", information that is, or should be, expanded on later in the article. Checking both ways, between lead and article, can show up flaws. Are ALL of the points in the summary developed in a balanced way in the article? Is the content of a significant percentage of the article (e.g. by sections) NOT summarized in the lead (this may indicate a "too long" situation, particularly if the extra stuff isn't missed from not being mentioned in the summary). In Dion, half of the first-sentence statement that she is a "singer and songwriter" is not developed in the article.
  • do you lose interest/focus when reading? This sounds extremely subjective, but it really isn't. Simply start reading and note the point, if any, at which for some reason your focus or attention drifts or stalls. It could be because the introduction or developement of a point is unclear, or a particular sentence is hard to decipher, or simply that you're getting bored and checking the scrollbar. This just won't happen in a decently written article, where the content is balanced and the premise presented in the summary is logically developed. (Another complementary test: Skip the summary and start reading from the first section...things can look quite different.) Easy "proof of concept": Dietrich v The Queen vs Schabir Shaik Trial...
If I may be so bold, I'd like to suggest one thing you might do as FAC Director:
  • participate (ask for clarification) in the FAC discussion Ask for clarifications. Since you're evaluating the submissions of the participating editors, it only makes sense to have them share the load of clarification if you want more detail on a particular point. I'm not suggesting you "officially" join in the debate, simply ask for further explanation and support. That may also encourage others to jump in and well-discuss certain points. A more true consensus may result. FAC is not an adversarial process (it is a critical one...!), we're all on the same team, so asking for clarification to use in your decisionmaking is totally consistent with consensus....
That's my reply. I don't think I'd have written it if you hadn't responded to my initial request so...comprehensively. Hopefully, this is of some incremental help to the whole FAC process... Thanks! --Tsavage 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Archived FA candidates[edit]

Here. It states that article are placed there because they didn't get featured due to unresolved objections by other users. All objections and comments were resolved. So I don't understand why it was removed? Forever young 08:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


This is wonderful, Raul. Thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't thank me - I was just letting people know of its existance. I'm not positive, but I think User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason is the one who wrote it -- direct thank-you's to him :) Raul654 05:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder[edit] felt like I was forgetting something. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, the first image is a Great White Egret, the other two are a young and adult American White Ibis respectively. As to articles for others, I'll do what I can - I should be able to write at least a stub on most species. jimfbleak 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Hey Raul, I'm sorry. I did not know you were an admin and you deleted the AfD. I was just going by what the tag said in not deleting the tag. BlueGoose 22:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all right - we all make mistakes. Raul654 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Blackbuck image[edit]

Hi Raul, The blackbuck image that you put while beautiful and clear is not a good one from the point of view of diagnostics of the species. The main things about this species is the antlers and the white underside. In the image u have used to replace the old one. Only the white underside is seen. Wheras the old one had both the characteristic. I request you to put the put the old image back. Thanks --Viren 04:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I've switched them so as to put the old image back into the taxobox at the top of the article and the newer one in the gallery at the bottom.

Problem with the FA for 25 January 2006[edit]

I just left a note at Talk:Gangtok about some problems I see with the article that might make us want to wait before putting it on the main page. I did not want to object at WP:TFA because it is the article for the day after tomorrow and because I think the problems ARE fixable. Anyway I wont cut and paste my comments here so that any conversation does not get fragmented across pages. Thanks. Dalf | Talk 05:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about 24 hours from now, you drop a note here telling me if the objections have been fixed or not. If they haven't, I'll find a replacement. Does that sound good to you? Raul654 06:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine, I might even try and fix some of it myself, though I am not especially good at this sort of writing. Dalf | Talk 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like I am the only person to have edited the article since January 7th and the only editor on the talk page (other than to ad the main page template) since January 3rd. I have detailed my objections a little more, so that I hope they are more articulate. Should I move them to WP:TFA just in case someone disagrees strongly with me (or alternately in case someone there can write encyclopedic prose better than I)? Dalf | Talk 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I made the switch to Kalimpong Raul654 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I guess I should double check before I post stuff. THough I was kinda hoping someone would re-write two or three of the sections. Its a good article. The style is the only think I was objecting too really. Dalf | Talk 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
<24 hours is a bit short notice. You might want to drop a message on Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics Raul654 05:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Nice images. As far as I can see, the only birds without existing articles are the pigeon and the owl, so I'll do articles for those. I have no sources for any of the non-avian species in the gallery. jimfbleak 07:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

True - I said those words before uploading the pictures. I didn't realize how much wikipedia's coverage of various species has expanded since my last big animal roundup. Raul654 07:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Also - Southern Bald Ibis could use quite a bit of TLC. Raul654 07:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done what I can for Southern Bald Ibis, but my sources for S Africa are limited - at least it's not just a list of foreign names now jimfbleak 08:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. As you can see on User:Raul654/favpics/Florida2006, I just uploaded a ton of videos tonight (just under 100; overnight I just doubled the number of videos available on Wikipedia). I have a couple videos for species that do not yet have articles -- Jambu Fruit-dove and Bateleur Eagle Raul654 09:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PS - for the latter article, I just uploaded Image:Bateleur Eagle.jpg to commons. Raul654 09:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'llknock out those species when I get a bit of time. How do I play the video? WMP and Realplayer don't recognise the ogg format and claim they can't fix it, and as a computer illiterate I have no idea how to make them work? jimfbleak 13:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I downloaded Real Alternative (see here for information on this and a bunch of other stuff) which supports OGG files out of the box. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Both of you should probably take a look at wikipedia:Media help Raul654 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done Bateleur, not sure how to incorporate the video jimfbleak 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the video, and jazzed it up with a few more images I found on commons. Excellent start to a new article. I'll put it on the main page ("Did you know...") in a few hours. Raul654 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Jambu Fruit Dove is up and running, and I can now watch the videos! Jim

Military history project[edit]

I've replied to your question here at some length; I hope that I have addressed some of your concerns. —Kirill Lokshin 10:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2006[edit]

Hi, I just noticed Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2006 has a small typo. It says "of the 17 England-Australia Tests....", when it should be 19. The tiniest thing, but it would probably be best fixed. Thanks -- AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Aloan beat me to it. Raul654 14:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tranches - a question[edit]

Greetings, Mark. I wonder if you could double-check your recently added info on the Arbcom page. See here: before, you and Neutrality were in Tranche Alpha (expiring at the end of 07), but now you two are listed in Tranche Gamma (though expiring at the same time). The same with the others. Was this an oversight, or did the Tranche names change, or what? (I'm updating Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart, and I want to get the details right.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in Jimbo's recent post on wiki-en-l, he assigned them those names -- presumably he didn't mean to do so. --Raul654 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm. It also seems that the distinction between "elected" and "appointed" arbitors is grayer than I'd imagined. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Claudius and protection[edit]

Given how many times the featured article had been converted into forty pictures of the human penis, and the ongoing revert-war, I felt a protection would be useful for at least a little while. My apologies. DS 02:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't protect the article -- block the people/IPs vandalizing it. Special:Blockip is your friend. Raul654 02:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to have "old" and "new" FA tags?[edit]

I think it's great to see the "in a previous version" bit in the FA tag. However, linking as it does to the History page isn't too helpful, probably more confusing than anything. It would be good to link directly to the promoted version. I assume the current implementation is done so as not to break the existing FA tags. Is it possible to have a new FA tag, so the current promotions can be explicitly linked to their promoted versions, while existing FA tags won't be broken? --Tsavage 05:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:QuickTime to Theora[edit]

Hi! Thanks for the link... although I had already made it work after many, many hours in front of the computer! I've appended additional notes for those users with QuickTime Pro [18]. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Neto rampage[edit]

Sorry to bang on, and you might actually already be aware, but we have a WP:OWN problem here. I know you have supported Neto in the past, but it now turns out that the main plank of his argument might not be as solid as was thought. Basically Brion has expressed surprise that people are invoking the mantra of "the servers can't take it" in their ongoing struggle against the template system: it certainly is not the combined opinion of the developers as a group. Neto's response ("He would say that wouldn't he" is possibly the low point but trawling all the way through the history is more than I can bear right now) has hardly been helpful, conciliatory or respectful. He is now, as I suggested, giving the appearance of a WP:OWN campaign, a situation which apparently is not a new one.

I'm posting this to David Gerard and to you in the hope that your combined wisdom might be brought to bear upon the situation before someone gets hurt. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I no longer seek/need op powers. After beeing banned for requesting a ban on MARMOT I have no reason to be among people who keep trolls/vandals over good users. I dont intend to ever join #wikipedia hence op access is redundent. Sorry for bothering you with the access issue, I shouldn't have requested it. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And man do archive this page. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

vote here[edit]

exscuse me but also Muriel has done this trying to get people to delete this article important for a monarchic branch. This is democratic encyclopedia and so this page has right to stay here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Using video[edit]

Since your name is mentioned on Wikipedia:Media#Video as being willing to offer advice, I wondered whether you can tell me whether there is a Wiki-syntax for creating a link to an (ogg/theora) video which rather than showing the (somewhat naff) default 'video' icon, uses a specified image instead? Something equivalent to <a href="vid.ogg"><img src="thumb.jpg"></a>. Thanks, cdv 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There's are templates for vorbis (videos) and theora (sounds). Here is an example of the video template and here is an example of the audio template. Raul654 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Sorry Raul654 about the Wikipedia:Featured articles, i didn't know?

sorry again Pece Kocovski 00:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all right - we all make mistakes. Raul654 03:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Sorry for the delay, I've now replied on my talk page. -- Curps 03:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued on your talk page. Raul654 03:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Political integration of India[edit]

Raul, can you please consider promoting Political integration of India today? The article has got 12 support votes with no objections and all suggestions from voters resolved. It would be fitting to promote it on India's Republic Day. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only been on the FAC for two days - I usually promote after 5 days, or maybe 4 at a minimum. Raul654 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh ok. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you here[edit]

Raul, Hi
Although I've only created an account fairly recently(1) I've been a Wikipedia fan & editor since March. That's when I read a Wired article about Jimmy and Wikipedia. That article inspired me. Looking at your user page/picture today I recognized you were one of the people featured in that article. Cool, I feel like I met a celebrity of sorts. Thx for your work & dedication, —This user has left wikipedia 21:52 2006-01-26

[1] - Darn restrictions forced me to create an acct, i'm now a wikipediaholic.

Why thank you. Here is a page pertaining to the wired article -- it's about the meetup where we met Dan Pink (who wrote the article). He got to listen into our discussion and ask us questions. Raul654 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Brick[edit]

Thank you, I am honored. I've stuck it on my userpage, and sincerely hope that I won't need to hit anybody with it (but then, my cluebat broke yesternight, so who knows? :) ) Radiant_>|< 03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Awarded to Raul654 for nearly getting Bulbasaur to FA staus, -- Spawn Man

Unarchived FAC[edit]

Hi Raul654, I unarchived Australia at the Winter Olympics. Andjam 14:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, why? Raul654 17:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought I had dealt with the objections. I was mistaken, so I've undone the unarchiving. Sorry. Andjam 06:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


heh, i'm having some year lag i guess. I thought that was the diff you just added. ;p --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 19:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

MP3 v. OGG[edit]

Hey, posted a reply re: MP3 vs. OGG.

Any suggestions as to what step to take to get this issue re-considered by the powers that be? From what I've seen, there has been a lot of support for adding MP3 (or some other common alternative) to Spoken Wikipedia and audio articles. -WAZAAAA 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can beg Jimbo to reconsider, but realistically it's not going to happen. Raul654 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there some kind of crazy OGG/Wikipedia connection other than the fact that they are both open source? Shared developers, or what? Can we somehow choose a format realistically--objectively? -WAZAAAA 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, the connection is philophical. We want our information (article text, pictures, audio, and video media) to be as free as possible. To that end, it is a sine qua non that whatever format we use not be patented, which rules out virtually all common audio and video file formats. Ogg vorbis and theora are totally, 100% open - which is why we use them. Raul654 05:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I feel like audio and video are two totally separate issues. There is no huge winner in clash of the video formats, and it can be hard to find a codec that works, so I support theora in that sense. But the compressed audio (and audio in general) war was won years ago, and MP3 is the de facto standard. OGG is such a small improvement over MP3, users have little to no reason to switch. I get why the software exists, I respect it. But MP3s have become the .jpegs, the .gifs, the .wavs. IANAL, but I believe the first two mentioned were somewhat legally ambiguous? There is little argument to be made for Fraunhofer crippling players and restricting anything, the worst I think they've done was get pissed at Winamp in 1999 for not using an ISO MP3 decoder. I don't know, I guess I'm just pissed off I found this great new feature of Wikipedia (spoken wiki) and it's a giant pain for those around me to use it. I might mention that most library computers don't allow software to be installed, especially codecs, and pretty much every library everywhere doesn't have OGG. And in places that still carry four times as many VHSes as DVDs, new formats take a long, long time to catch on. Sorry for all the crazy rants and such, WAZAAAA 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I think you are overstating the effort required to support these formats. There are (literally) dozens of vorbis-capable players for all major operating systems (including Winamp). Ditto for hardware players - my cheap Samsung YP-Mt6 plays ogg. Raul654 06:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
My zaurus played OGG too, I just think Wikipedia should consider the amount of users already with technologies. # iPods > # everything else. # MP3-ready computers > #OGG, or any other alternative-ready computers. If WikiCommons is worried about the harddrive space required to host both types of files, they should look objectively at what the effect of having MP3s would be. -WAZAAAA 06:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bald Eagle[edit]

-seen message, got to go out very soon, will check asap, but may not be today. jimfbleak 06:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why this isn't an adult. Even 3-year-old birds lack the white head and tail, and show much white flecking on the brown body plumage. Your bird has a solidly white head and tail, solidly yellow beak (3rd years mainly dark) andessentially unmarked brown body plumage - all diagnostic of adult plumage. There is a single pale feather on the breast, but this is not unusual in eagle species. I've seen a few Bald Eagles in Canada and Florida, and I would certainly have put this down as an adult. jimfbleak 17:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
All right - I've changed the caption accordingly. Raul654 17:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are see also sections evil?[edit]

as you wrote here. It was pretty tiny...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But it brings us back to that question that if-it's-important-enough-to-merit-a-mention-then-it-should-be-mentioned-in-the-text. Raul654 17:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


(from User talk:Joy Stovall)

Regarding this edit - you removed a number of interwiki links, deleted section of informations, and introduced at least one grammatical error, but the edit summary simply stated you were removing a link. I'm assuming it wasn't your intention to make such big changes and that something simply went wrong, so I've reverted it. Raul654 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Raul, thanks for reverting the edit. That is absolutely bizarre; I only removed a spammed link, as here. Is it possible for 2 people's edits to get mingled together on one dif? Joyous | Talk 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • My best guess is that you somehow reverted to a very old version of the page. Raul654 18:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ahhhh.... That would make sense, as I was tracing backwards through the history to try and find just when the link was added. I bet I forgot to edit the current version, rather than the old one. Thanks for solving the mystery. And fixing the damage. Joyous | Talk 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

idiotic comments[edit]


As I was checking up on Xed's behavior today, I was distressed at his needlessly contentious attitude on Clerks. I was also distressed to see you remark about people coming out of the woodwork with "idiot comments". I'll simply note that I consider myself far from an idiot. I'd invite you to identify which of my comments, or those of mark, or those of danny yee, or those of banyantree you consider "idiotic". I'd also note that the members of arbcom are apparently shockingly easily persuaded by "idiocy" as several of them have now changed their votes, or abstained, based on "idiotic" community concerns coming out of the "woodwork". Perhaps I misinterpret your intended meaning, if so I apologize and simply suggest you be a bit more careful about phrasing.

I have also raised the same point with Jtkiefer, who seemed to be following up your comment by labeling those who commented as "trolls", User_talk:Jtkiefer#trolls. While I can understand your frustration with Xed, and indeed I am quite pissed as someone who stuck my neck out for him, neither your attitude nor that of Jtkiefer strikes me as particularly civil either.

Derex 20:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments of above person --Comrade Jesus (13) 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (14 year old socialist)

I admit I was a bit intemperate in my comments there - I did not meant to imply that everyone who commented negatively was an idiot, and I'm sorry if you were offended. Raul654 01:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to expand upon the above a bit - I welcome constructive comments and criticisms on the talk page (and, in fact, have used them to refine the proposal since I first wrote it). Xed's comment was far from both. Raul654 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Big Pun[edit]

A couple of anonIP's have been changing the biography in this article to one found from [19]. The latter specifically states that "Wikipedia may use this," but I just wnated to make sure that that's a kosher thing to do. Let me know, jglc | t | c 02:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not good enough. The target website needs to have a disclaimer saying the page is licensed under the GFDL Raul654 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Khoikhoi[edit]

Alright, I'll keep an eye on him.--Shanel 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Good deal. Raul654 02:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

CSS verification[edit]

Can you take a look at Template:Featured article. It creates a star at the top of a page. I'm concerned about possible collisions with site notices or other kinds of screw ups. Can you verify that this isn't likely to break easily. Raul654 06:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links to use for testing... with them you can preview it in each of the supported skins.

As you can see, MySkin and CologneBlue aren't ideal, the rest are not bad. You may want to consider designing this marking as skin-specific CSS code placed into MediaWiki:Monobook.css, and others. -- Netoholic @ 06:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not a fan of relying on templates to put articles in categories - it's a flaky mechanism and is a bit of surprise factor. It's also currently using a meta-template ("click") >:-| -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC) :)
What happens when the site notice or some other thing changes? Will that wreck havoc on this? Raul654 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It's possible... I do remember the fundraising notice at one point appearing in that spot, but I think they were using a variation of the same method as the FA star. Just tossing out ideas.... Positioning the star immediately before or after the page title might not look bad, but would require that a simple software extention be created. Perhaps integrate with the "stable version" feature to create a super-set of stable "Featured" versions? -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, modifying the software (Mediawiki) is not an option. Additionally, I'm wary of trying to pages render with tricks like this - it's just asking for some minor change to break it. (I'm adamantly opposed to the use of this template at all). Raul654 06:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The method is fairly "forced", being that the star is set to a rigidly-fixed position. It's not at all open to user personalization. -- Netoholic @ 07:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not personalization that concerns me. I'm worried that as soon as we post a new donations notice, or make some minor change in the monobook CSS, suddenly every article with template:featured article looks funny with overlappying text or other nastiness Raul654 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Prison.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Prison.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

I have said - repeatedly - that this image should probably be deleted. Raul654 07:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Commons[edit]

Raul, I'm fairly new to all of this though learning quickly. I already asked Lucky; he said you'd probably be able to help me. I'm working on translating German Geography pages to English and am in the process of putting the town info boxes on quite a few stubs I created. I've done a few already but so far have downloaded the maps and coat of arms (and other images) from the German site (example: de:Bruchsal and then uploaded them to the English site. Now my question is this: Can I assume that if they are on the German pages they all qualify for uploading to the Commons? (the warning there had me worried) If that is a valid assumption, I'd really appreciate if you have some quick instructions on how to do it and what to watch out for. Thanks in advance. --Mmounties 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the individual file (and, specifically, what license it is available under). Files with no licenses (e.g. - fair use or fail dealings) are not allowed on teh commons, and (I suspect) aren't allowed on the german wikipedia either. (About the latter point - you need to ask someone more familiar with the german wikipedia to confirm it. de:Benutzer:Elian is probably a good place to start.) Raul654 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I did this edit to Talk:History of New Jersey. I tried to change the template to allow for it to identify which version was originally chosen as featured so we could more easily find diffs for FARCs and maybe salvage any good content that was lost in the sands of time... However if you look at the URL I added it doesn't work. The reason is because of the two equal signs in the URL... If you remove them it links to anything you want. I found in this edit that you can add nowiki tags around the equal signs to fix this problem... do you have any idea why this is that way? Also, would you add the version URL when you add the template? I think it will make it much easier to fix article decay if it happens.

Also, since you made it a FA right as I was commenting on the FAC... what do you think of my comments Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of New Jersey? gren グレン ? 09:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you have to add the nowiki signs in order to prevent mediawiki from interpreting the text as a section header and instead allow it to interpret it as a URL. Raul654 09:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
As to your specific criticisms - I vehemently disagree with the first one, that notes and references needs to be seperate. Katyn Massacre, currently on FAC, uses that kind of setup for its references and IT SUCKS. I'm not sure about the rest as I haven't looked at the article carefully. Raul654 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that that article is worse than History of New Jersey for references... I don't think it's a necssary thing to have them separated... but at least in the case of the history article it made it easier to see what sources are and to see the notes. I think Trade and usage of saffron does an exemplary job of separating them. I changed it in this edit. Not even columns but I thought it better not to break up sections. I think the problem is that the article has so many references... and it would look even worse if you put the references and notes together... it would be longer than the article!
Also, do you plan to add the version ID number to the featured template when you add them to articles? or, is there a way to make it easier like {{featured|versionIDnumber}} instead of the whole URL and linking? In case you can't tell I think that's probably one of my more useful ideas... although no one else seems enthused :) gren グレン ? 09:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Tsavage suggested that to me a couple weeks ago, and I tried it without much success. If someone comes up with an easy way to do it, I'll seriously consider doing it. Raul654 10:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I saw your edits re the Katyn massacre article -- at some point in the next day or two, I think I'm going to root canal the references for that page -- switch over to the new mediawiki citation style and do some major reorganizing at the end. Raul654 10:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I made it work so that {{featured|ID}} now links to the proper ID. The downside is that it's a slight hack so when no ID is listed the "version" link directs you to the current version. I couldn't figure out how to keep it directing to history... but I think the benefits of the change outweigh that negative... especially considering that until a month ago there was not even a version link. So, if you can check the article version when you add the tag and just use that style everything should work well. A lot easier than all of that no wiki stuff. I made sure to clean up the ones I had changed and moved them to the new syntax. Does that sound good? gren グレン ? 10:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I saw how you redid references at Katyn Massacre. I do think they are bettered integrated when each note is done as you did it to one reference entry.... however, I think separate is better if notes are done as they are on History of NJ. Just to clarify. Glad you converted it. I should do that to history of NJ at somepoint gren グレン ? 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

rename user[edit]

Aren't you supposed to move the fulfilled requests to the archive? Also you missed mine, which was formatted according to the directions, with the new username in the title and the old username in the signature. I guess you can't rename users at this time of day, but at least clear the requests so that mine becomes visible for the next time. Thanks. Pifvyubjwm 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my eye must have skipped over that one. I've renamed you now. Raul654 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Pifvyubjwm 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for changing my user name. You also have the (dubious) honour that this page is the first where I sign with my new username. :) Garion96 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Adriaen van der Donck summary[edit]

Hey there. There's a repeat sentence accidentally in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2006. Since it's protected I thought I'd ask you to fix it. Thanks, — Laura Scudder 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! — Laura Scudder 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

New picture[edit]

Your new picture looks way better. silsor 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexy like a scruffy lumberjack? ;) Raul654 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request re Police state[edit]


We've had a sudden influx of new users with similar style and opinions:

  1. User:Tisquantum User talk:Tisquantum Special:Contributions/Tisquantum
  2. User:FreedomofSpeech User talk:FreedomofSpeech Special:Contributions/FreedomofSpeech
  3. User:FaithfulCamp User talk:FaithfulCamp Special:Contributions/FaithfulCamp
  4. User: User talk: Special:Contributions/
  5. User:Winstonsmith User talk:Winstonsmith Special:Contributions/Winstonsmith

There's some POV pushing, some unwarrented accusations of vandalism on users' pages, and at least one fake signature. One of these users was blocked for a while, but the others have kept going.

If it's appropriate, could I trouble you to see if any or all of the above are coming from the same IP(s)?

Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't realise, but a request had already been raised at Requests for Checkuser [20], so I've also copied this to there. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Newbie[edit]

Thanks for answering that question. By the way, I noticed your image gallery and hope you enjoyed your stay here in the Sunshine State! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The vacation was a blast. The week I spent on my death bed after I got back was not. (Apparently I cought a respiratory infection while I was down there; doctor told me it was close to become pnemonia). But I'm all better now, and I think the pictures came out quite good. From what I hear, it sounds like these January meet-ups in St. Petersburg are probably going to become a regular events, so I hope to see you at the next one. Raul654 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Raul, I agree in principle, but we really need to temporarily sprotect this for a while. The damage of readers coming across this serious vandalism is just worse than other concerns right now.--Pharos 00:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm building up an IP profile so I can do some mass blocking. Raul654 00:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's good work, but shouldn't we at least sprotect for a few minutes till you can finish that? Thousands of readers are being exposed to very embarrassing material.--Pharos 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've alreay blocked two /16's (64,000 IPs each) Raul654 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

FAs should just be protected for the whole day they're featured. I don't understand it. Yeah, I suppose during that day they have a better chance of being improved than usual, but if they're already FA we shouldn't be too concerned about improvement, and they can wait a day to change something. Alternatively, obviously good edits could be proposed on talk and quickly done by an admin. I am pretty uncomfortable with such a high chance of a reader coming across some horrible vandalism. Not only could they be badly embarrassed or disgusted, it might turn them off of Wikipedia permanently. On normal articles we accept this risk because the payoff is much higher, but I don't believe that's the case for an FA of the day. Everyking 09:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See user:Raul654/protection for the reasons why we do not protect it. Raul654 09:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Those don't seem like very good reasons to me. Didn't I already more or less address them above? Did you just dictate this policy as FA director, or has there been a community-based decision on it? Everyking 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't decide it - it's been our policy to avoid protecting main-page linked articles for as long as I can remember. The semi-protection one is new (for the obvious reason that semi-protection is new) but the principle holds the same. Raul654 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How did that get decided in the first place? And does it reflect present conditions? Wikipedia is a more prominent site now. I think there should be a vote to resolve this issue. Everyking 10:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a wiki - it is supposed to be editable. In fact, I do believe that's one of the basic tenets of the site. And no, I don't think we should be having a vote to decide one of the basic principles that you should already know by now. Raul654 10:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A general principle shouldn't force us to deal with every particular issue in a particular way. You know good and well that the question I'm dealing with has no bearing on the general principle, which I support as firmly as anybody. We protect in cases of severe revert wars, and we protect when we're overwhelmed by vandals (although I'm not sure you endorse the second point). I'm just saying there's another particular instance in which protection is appropriate—when we can expect the level of vandalism and its harm to exceed the level at which allowing editing would be beneficial. You underestimate the extent to which your average Joe and Jane get repelled by seeing, for instance, a giant picture of a penis on a supposedly top-quality article. Aside from giving the impression of chaos, of a bunch of kids getting into mischief, it will disgust, embarrass, and/or horrify many people.
I'm not convinced by those diffs you provide on your argument page. The second two don't appear to have improved very substantially, and if that's your evidence, I've got to think those are the best examples you've got, which makes me think most FAs of the day are improved little or not at all during their moments in the sun. And I'm not convinced by your argument that having it editable makes such a great impression. Whenever I see Wikipedia mentioned on a forum, someone usually makes the point (which tends to be very effective with others) that anybody can edit, so you can't trust it. I'm not saying they're making a great argument there, because of course I fundamentally disagree with it; what I'm saying is that there is a common tendency to think less of Wikipedia when it is realized that anyone can edit it. I hypothesize that if we reduced the level of editing we allowed in some situations (eventually I'd like to see two encyclopedias, one version editable and the other uneditable except in particular circumstances by particular people), we'd actually gain more credibility. I think the editability of Wikipedia is so widely known that having FAs editable is not going to do anything significant to advance your point, to prove to readers that we are editable—people either know this already, will figure it out anyway, or won't figure it out either way. So if anything, I think protecting them gives people a better impression of our reliability and the fact that we are actually governed and there isn't chaos. Everyking 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"I'm just saying there's another particular instance in which protection is appropriate—when we can expect the level of vandalism and its harm to exceed the level at which allowing editing would be beneficial" - then you have entirely misunderstood what protection is for. With two exceptions (main page content and legal disclaimers) we do not protect pages proactively. You seem to be flatly ignoring the fact that protecting the articles fundementally goes against what we stand for. I don't object to having a frozen version alongside the unfrozen one. However, until that time, this *is* the editable one.
Nor are the diffs I cited cherry picking by any means. They the best examples I available - they were the diffs for the three featured articles for the most recent days prior to when I initially wrote that. By the same token, here are the three most recent ones as I write this [21][22][23]. Each of those articles was substantively improved by its tenure on the main page - improvements that would not have occured had the article been protected. Raul654 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Katyń references[edit]

WikiThanks.png An Award
Tnx Raul for your conversion of references at Katyń massacre! --Piotrus
WikiThanks.png An Award
Bah, and again Piotrus beat me to it... Halibutt 15:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur[edit]

Regarding me "overwriting" comments made by Zscout370. I don't know how it happened, but it was an accident on my part. I apoligize for this.Weather rain.pngSoothingR 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I suspect it was a technical issue beyond your control (e.g, that you clicked edit before he had saved and thus overwrote him without realizing it) Raul654 15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
What overwriting? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Thx Raul for making that de-listing official... I didn't want to overstep myself by reverting an admin but I saw the cite of WP:SNOW and thought wtf... Marskell 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well... Wp:snow hasn't always been listed as humor, nor is being listed as humor intended to discourage people from acting on it (there is something to be said for having a mercy rule). But if my making it official makes everyone content, then I am happy to oblidge. Raul654 15:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be pedantic, but the votes were 14-16 with 5 days left, 6-12 with 5 days left, and 3-23 ending today. Only one was crying out for mercy and indeed the first (Benon) should probably still be up there. If they are to be removed a crat should do it, hence my note on officiality! Marskell 16:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
For Benon to reach even the minimum threshold for promotion (75%), he'd have to get 34 consecutive support votes. Realistically, I don't see that ever happening. Raul654 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, well, WP:SNOW (at least in its written out form) is only a couple weeks old. So I wouldn't say it has an established track record of being listed as much of anything. Dragons flight 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Allied POWs[edit]

I looked into the lists of massacres-obviously they were larger massacres of civilians during WW2, but I didn't notice larger executions of military Allied personall.So it indeed seems that Katyn Massacre is one of the largest if not the largest mass murder of Allied soldiers during WW2.I will be gladly corrected If anybody nows any bigger massacre. --Molobo 16:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

my rfa[edit]

I would like to enquire as to the reasons that my rfa was closed early for. it was tallyed at (14/16/12), one of those opposes was an anon hence did not count, and one had less than 100 contibs so may not have counted making it around 50/50 (alough not passing not a ceratin failure yet)[24]

I also had a spoort to come from a few pepole yet who said they would vote towards the end to hopefully tip the conseus i my favour. yet this rfa [25] was allowed to run its course depite having a hudge ammount of opposes and some of the supports and nuteruals where to "avoid pile on"

as the closing buercrat i would like to hear the reasons pleaseBenon 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See my reply above. Raul654 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To be fair - I'm willing to restore it and let it run its course if you feel strongly about it. Raul654 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
yes please i would prefer my rfa to run its course, especially for some additional feedback please, thanks Benon 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 17:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes Raul, you closed down my RFA when it still had about 4 days to go. Not very nice. I would have preferred for it to run it's course. --Mb1000 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you really think it'll make a difference, I'll relist it. Raul654 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I must add this (and I know it sounds accusatory after our brief discussion earlier) but "must get X if they are to have a hope" is only part of the issue, and I really think it bad if that logic equals delisting five days before the vote is over. Benon does have an outside chance. The second last vote, when I noticed his page, was an anon. So, you know, 31 not 34. And even if it were 3434, maybe he wants this week to take criticism and compliments and opinions. This isn't vandalism or trolling on his part (or that of Mb), it's just "OK, give me the seven days like the page says". I really think we should be careful before de-listing stuff. Marskell 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Wiktionary is being Overrun by a vandal. You're a steward right - block him please. Can i get part-time admin rights to revert? --Dangherous 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (wikt:User:Dangherous) --Dangherous 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not a steward. However, I notified Datrio (who is a steward). He told me that "they're already on it" Raul654 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mb1000's RfA[edit]

Agreed. I just put the offer on his talk page, since sometimes people do not followup on the talk pages where they left a comment. --Durin 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler[edit]

Please explicitly document the 3rr violation(s) you cited as authority to revert the article, thank you. Wyss 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't even close to being alike, serial reversions. In a couple of the diffs you've cited, completely different text is involved. Since they don't qualify as a 3rr vio, I don't think you had authority to revert back to any version. Wyss 01:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Raul654. I haven't looked to see if they're 3RR violations. (I'll take your word for it.) But I'm a bit surprised that you reverted to ROHA's version. ROHA started some time ago by suggesting that a different picture of Hitler should be used, as the one there gave too favourable an impression of Hitler. At first, he was answered very seriously and courteously, but then he began to call people nazi supporters, and make other personal attacks (some of which were removed from the talk pages). He began to edit war, by inserting his preferred image, and people began to revert him, as it went against consensus on the talk page. (I have no particular interest in the article. It's on my watchlist as it's frequently vandalized.) The article was protected a few times, simply because of him. He grossly violated 3RR, but couldn't be blocked because he used a different (though similar) IP every few minutes, though he always put ROHA in the edit summary. (I think User:Nlu did try a range block on one occasion. He was also causing problems at Bob Dylan and elsewhere. (His behaviour was discussed at one of the admins' noticeboards recently.) Several admins are aware of the problem, and have been using rollback for his picture change, even though they don't normally use rollback for non-vandalism edits. I'm not going to edit war or wheel war, but I do ask you to reconsider, since the policy you refer to says, "admins may protect the version immediately before the first violation". You may not have been following the ROHA situation in the last few weeks, but I think you're playing right into the hands of one of the biggest menaces we have, who has been taunting Wikipedians for weeks! Admins have already pointed out the it was because of his behaviour that the page has been protected so much recently. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect user:Raul654, I do feel compelled to assert that the diffs you list above in no way comprise a 3rr violation and that your revert was unauthorized and inappropriate. I also don't think there was any need to protect the page, it's not an edit war, it's a typical and hardly disruptive spat about some wording in the intro and it'll work itself through. Wyss 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, bearing in mind Anne's comments, I'll take you at your word and unprotect the page. I don't expect to see a resumption of warring, though. Raul654 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks user:Raul654 :) Wyss 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul654. Does that mean that you'd object if I reverted ROHA? (I don't particularly care which picture is used, but as I explained, this replacing of the image is part of a pattern of making a nuisance of himself, and several admins are already in the habit of reverting it.) AnnH (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize he was a problem until your comment. Yes, if he's been that much of a PITA, by all means revert/thwap him accordingly. Raul654 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. I simply changed the picture back, without "reverting" to the version of anyone in particular. I note from WP:AN/3RR#User:Wyss that Wyss was blocked for 24 hours, but I hadn't really been following the reverts. AnnH (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeking advice/possible mediation on 9/11 article[edit]

Raul: Tom Harrison is intruding on the September 11, 2001 attacks article by insisting that the 9/11 Commission be mentioned in a specific way in the lead section in order to possibly "prove" to the reader that the attackers were terrorists. Some other editors feel that this wastes the reader's time since most civilized people already know that hijackers of large, commerical passenger airlines are terrorists. Could you please offer some perspective on this matter? -- Pinktulip 18:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I agree with Tom - any summary of the attacks would be grossly negligent if it did not mention the Commission and/or its findings. Raul654 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Castles in the air[edit]

Nice photo! Elf | Talk 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Featured article[edit]

Are you aware of the new {{Featured article}}, which places a small star in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is an FA? I ask because I noticed that you just promoted 5 articles without putting this template on them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I assume you do because you made an edit on it about a few days ago [31]. But it seems that all of the other FAs now have the template on them now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Never mind I forgot that you voted "Oppose" on the FA star idea so I assume that you may be very reluctant to follow through anyway. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Independent Opinion on Robert I's Arbitration[edit]

I am a 61 year old retired English solicitor. I know both Robert Isherwood and Gregory Lauder-Frost. I can confirm that they are friends and that they live not far from one another (60 miles apart).

I was asked by Robert to examine what has happened to him and to give my opinion. My view is that he has been treated unfairly.

Robert made several attempts at complaints and also requested arbitration before other users. These were ignored. It may be that (like me) he is unable to properly find his way around the very confusing Wikipedia pages and headings.

User C.J.Curry however, made a request for arbitration which was immediately taken up. He appears to be the main protaganist in this dispute although he called in support from at least two other users, home on the range and ground zero, all of whom appear to know each other, and, indeed, praise each other. All three would appear to have the same political ideas.

Robert has one computer at his flat. He and his son use it. Gregory Lauder-Frost lives in Berwickshire and having remarried in 1998 has a young family. He has a very old computer which he and his wife both use. Gregory is not IT literate. He regards the internet as a dangerous source of disinformation.

It has been suggested that occasionally the same computer or computers with similar ISP number have been used, purportedly by one person using aliases. Without proof this would not stand up in our courts.

It has been suggested that several posters use similar language terms, phraseology, etc., and therefore it has to be the same individual making the postings. This would be thrown out of our courts. The majority of those attending a good public school, especially boarders, leave school with the same English language and linguistic attributes.

Robert has been banned for "aggressive editing". However, it was Robert's articles which were aggressively edited and often deleted, not visa-versa.

On several occasions "sources" were absolutely demanded and even when given were still ignored on the most specious grounds, such as assertions that a speaker/writer was being "sarcastic" or that the source had then to be checked. On several occasions sources were given in the references or publications and they were still ignored and the comment in the article deleted.

Robert's articles have been stated by Mr C J Curry to be "right-wing propaganda" which he a some sort of duty to eliminate. Having examined the original articles it may be contended that by quoting the organisation's won opinions and objectives may appear biased. But nor more biased than deleting them and relacing them instead with the detrimental opinions of a few journalists. In British courts a quote from a journalist is inadmissable without the journalist being present with the evidence used for the article concerned.

One of Robert's detractors has stated that Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was "vanity" and that Lauder-Frost was "on the fringe of the fringe". These statements were absolute opinion. The evidence does not stand up.

It may be that an article has not been written in a particular Wikipedia manner, but that should not make it inadmissable. Gregory was, in his time, a prominent figure. His activities in the various pressure groups, and indeed within the Conservative Party, made him, shall we say, a fascinating figure. He was a friend with Alec Douglas Home and numerous MPs. He was on a restricted guest list for a House of Commons Dinner on 4th October 1990 for John Major following his becoming Prime Minister (that is not on your article page) and he sat in front of Margaret Thatcher in a reserved seat for McWhirter's memorial service (deleted from the article). These things demonstrate that he was far from persona non grata, and definitely not on the fringe.

I have not the time to list here the seemingly endless lists of the manner in which Robert's comments and articles have been attacked. But it is unjust that these attackers are now confirmed as being wholly in the right and Robert wholly in the wrong. Articles on individuals and groups on the British Right should be fair and balanced and give some good idea of their opinions and views, of what they believe they stand for, and also the juxtaposed comments of others. Comments designed to place them in an unfair and bad light should at the very least be supported by evidence.

It has been suggested that the term "European" is meaningless. The Oxxford English Dictionary is cited with definitions. Some wors have numerous definitions. It is not possible to accept them all. most people would settle upon one. Robert has done this and been unjustly attacked as denying the "authority" of a dictionary which today carries words and definitions which would never have been acceptable to pre-1950 editors, and which are, at the end of the day, the opinions of the editors. Its all a matter of opinion.

The most appalling aspect of Robert's treatment appears to be that he has been treated as though he had made shocking or pornographic statements, that he had abused others in a dreadful manner etc. My reading is that he was very often provoked into robust responses by seemingly quite arrogant, even pompous, comments made by his detractors.

None of these points appear to have been noted by the arbitrators at all.

The arbitrators appear to have commenced their arbitration from an automatic position that Robert was absolutely wrong, and that he had committed some fantastic crime on Wikipedia. My own opinion is that he has obviously spent hours on end researching and submitting articles and information to Wikipedia, articles which previously were not there, and which filled a vital information gap. These were then attacked by ideological enemies under the guise of "neutrality" etc. In fact, what was criticised as opinion, was usually replaced by opinion.

Phrases such as "hard-right", "far-right", "extreme-right", "holocaust denier", "White-minority government" etc., are all loaded with political inuendo. They weould not be permitted when giving evidence in a British court as the court would be making the decision, not the witness.

His detractors' arguments, I submit, would not have the gravity of evidence in our courts for the drastic treatment/decision made by you on Robert Isherwood.


  • Raul, I stumbled across this commentary, and see that I am mentioned, and several incorrect comments are made about me. If you are interested in hearing the other side, I would be pleased to respond to the above. Please leave a note on my talk page. If you are not interested, I won't take up your time or mine. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeking guidance[edit]

Do you remember me? I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to kindly on my talk page please. I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Raul, what is your opinion about puting an article about Reinhard Heydrich or Operation Anthropoid as the featured one? Sz


I'd like to request that you reconsider your spam blacklisting of

I'm trying to add information regarding average rental prices for various cities. I re-read the [citation page,] and I realize I've been improperly adding citations in the External Links section.

I'd like to go back and properly cite the information, but at this point I can't because the site was put on the spam blacklist.

If the issue is that we should remove the information entirely, I'm fine with that. To be fair, the information is collected from Internet users, which may not be sufficiently valid for Wikipedia. But regardless, I think it's necessary to cite the information (esp because of its nature) or not have it at all.

I've removed the spam blacklisting for However, in the future, please bear in mind that adding the same external links from large numbers of articles looks *a lot* like spamming. Raul654 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Quick question. I just previewed how the citation would look, but it seems weird to me. Is this the right way to do it?
"Average rents in Austin in 2005 were $622 for a one bedroom apartment, and $805 for a two bedroom apartment Apartment Ratings Inc. (2005). "Austin Apartments Rental Statistics" (http). Austin Apartment Rental Statistics 2000-2005. Retrieved Jan 15, 2005. ."
This seems cluttery or something.
ResEcon 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
References using the "Web reference" template are supposed to be put at the bottom of the article in a ==References== section, and be linked using one of the inline citation methods (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#New_inline_citation_style_available for a discussion thereof). An easier way of doing it would be to do: "Average rents in Austin in 2005 were $622 for a one bedroom apartment, and $805 for a two bedroom apartment" [32] Raul654 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!ResEcon 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by "Raul654"[edit]

Is someone spoofing your screen name? See history of Edgar Allan Poe. Nareek 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that was me reverting Lir's sockpuppets without actually looking at the edits. My mistake. Raul654 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I get it. Nareek 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I'd come to a meetup on main street and I'm sure Rydia would too unless there were any prior engagements. But, definitely interested. Who lives in this area? gren グレン ? 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

user:Stilltim has expressed an interest. User:LaurenMcMillan, User:Insaneindian, User:R6MaY89, User:Mrowlinson, User:Lowell Silverman all live in the area and might be interested. Raul654 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about Newark, not Newark. I might be able to come, but it will depend on when it is. Don't make a decision based on me because I might not make it. InsaneIndian is not in homeroom today, but I'll ask him later in class. I was contacted by a reporter of the Community News (Hockessin, Greenville, etc.) through Wikipedia and he wants to interview me about Wikipedians in Delaware. I assume you were contacted also Mark? If you want to invite him to the meetup, I can get you his contact info. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 12:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(1) Yes, Newark, Delawere. Almost certainly on a saturday afternoon (to avoid schedule conflicts) (2) Kevin already interviewed me :) Raul654 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Insaneindian and User:AustinZ will not be attending because they have a TV tournament for the Comcast Academic Challenge (Quiz Bowl). --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious vandalism on featured article[edit]

This user keeps adding http://wikipedia. this link to the top of the featured article, which is a porno page with viruses. I need you to take a look. NicAgent 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added it to the blacklist. Raul654 02:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. Can you please {{vprotect}} Restoration spectacular? I am getting sick and tired of him. Yes, Vprotect NOT Sprotect. This vandalism is serious. NicAgent 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, something is not quite right. Give me a bit to sort things out. Raul654 02:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I believe I got it working now. Raul654 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you very much for adding the link to the spam list; I am glad you saved many, many computers from a virus and/or horrified viewers. NicAgent 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Last Measure. --cesarb 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see, but I hope you also realize that when that vandal is able to return, he may very easily find a different shock site also containing a virus (there are many, many out there) and do the same thing as he did tonite. My advice is for you to find as many of these shock sites that are as malicious as the one you just filtered out and spam-filter them. Thanx again. NicAgent 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I suspect the person who did it was a GNAA troll; being that we've now made the GNAA shock site off limits, I think that will probably take some of hte wind out of his sails. Raul654 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the link I posted to the noticeboard contains a number of the Last Measure sites. Perhaps a bit of a proactive blacklisting is in order (not that it would be enough to deter the GNAA, but every bit helps). --cesarb 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's coniderable to know; do you know his IP address? I've seen on the block list that you have traced down IP's of indef-blocked registered users and instead of just having the 24-hour "autoblock" you blocked them for a week. I think that since you are an admin you have access to registered user IPs? I'm going to bed; leave me a note if you need me. NicAgent 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No - I am one of about 7 people on the english wikipedia who have access to checkuser. See m:Help:CheckUser Raul654 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've removed your arbcom request - there's literally nothing to arbitrate. A pat on the backs of the people who helped quash it is in order, but beyond that there's not much to be done. Raul654 04:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is nice that you went beyond expectations/the "autoblocking" and blocked this vandal's IP for a week. I kind of felt he deserved more; if he comes back in ANY WAY after the block expires I am going to notify Jimbo Wales and maybe he'll use his ability to hard-ban this super-selfish user. NicAgent 05:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Why did you protect WP:AUM, and how long do you envision this protection remaining in place? I see no reason why the community consensus should not be respected - and it's clear that the community doesn't want this as either a guideline or a policy. It was a policy briefly due to a misinterpretation of a statement by Jamesday. Brion has since specifically stated that editorial decisions should not be driven by speculation about server load. Netoholic is already using the page as an excuse to revert war, even though he was just blocked for a 3RR violation on WP:AUM today (and unblocked early). So far, he has been able to get his way on this issue by bullying other editors, and it's time that this behavior stopped. I fear that what you have done merely further encourages his repeated violations of WP:CIVIL. Please reconsider your decision. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not protect it, Radiant did. What I did was revert it to the version specifically endorsed by Brion on the talk page. I do envision it will remain protected until such time as people stop trying to put the historical and/or rejected templates on it.
As far as what Brion said, you're flatly wrong. Brion said was that you shouldn't be using metatemplates, but for slightly different reasons than were laid out. He did not disagree with the actual guideline. It is as David said earlier - this is not faith-based computer science. The developers said it's bad so don't do it. "Let's override it with a vote" doesn't apply. Raul654 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Brion's exact words:
  • "Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level. If they're expensive, we'll either fix it or restrict it at a technical level; that's our responsibility." [33]
  • "You should avoid metatemplates if they're ugly, hard to use, or fragile. That's just common sense; don't worry about "server load" for them." [34] Note that these are editorial concerns, not technical ones. The community is capable of deciding if a template is ugly, hard to use, or fragile.
  • "I have to date refused requests to advocate the AUM "policy" based on server load because nobody's yet produced any evidence for this server load claim." [35]
  • "Please don't go around claiming "the developers" laid down the law and said nobody can use meta-templates because they hurt the servers; that just isn't true." [36]
I'm not sure what is unclear about this. Brion is specifically saying that we should be using editorial considerations when deciding what templates to use, and leave the technical stuff to him and the other developers. Netoholic didn't like these answers, so he tried to leverage whatever statements he could out of Brion that he could then twist into another implementation of WP:AUM into policy. But Brion's actual words make it clear that this is not the case. At this point, it's an editorial issue, and the community is thus capable of deciding it. Brion specifically told us not to worry about the technical side. So far, Netoholic has almost single-handedly forced this into policy against community consensus by repeatedly twisting arms until he got the statements he needed. It's time for this bad behavior to stop, and having an arbitrator on his side is not at all helpful here. Remember that he has previously been sanctioned for the exact same kind of behavior he is committing now. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hrm... interesting... Raul654 07:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I'm sorry if my comments here and/or on WP:AUM this evening have been unnecessarily brusque. I'm afraid that dealing with this issue has strained my temper. Perhaps I should work on some articles now and leave the policy issues alone until after I've had a good night's sleep. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 07:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I too need to sleep. I'll look into this more extensively tomorrow. You make good points though. Raul654 07:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's another important diff, especially the last comment. — Omegatron 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I really think that if a page is protected to stop a revert war, you shouldn't revert it to an earlier version because that basically means the revert war continues but is restricted to admins. I'm not going to revert you because that would be doing the same thing, but please consider either undoing your revert or unprotecting the page so everyone is on the same level. >Radiant< 12:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Change in WP:FA[edit]

Why did you change the WP:FA page? It was fine and actually the best design we have came up for this page. CG 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Several reasons. This is just too cluttered. Even at the high resolution I run at, I had to page down 3 screens to get to any featured articles. So I pruned it down. Then, I figured while I was at it, I'd standardize the interface for all the featured articles, and I used the featured article page as my model. Now, they all have a sleek, standardized, interlinking format which I like a lot.
Next, I'm going to work on removing/condensing a few unnecssary featured article related pages (today's and tomorrow's featured articles in particular). The big goal here is to make the whole process simpler to understand and more organized in layout.
Also, I *REALLY* dislike the "path to featured article" template because most of it is unnecessary (I don't really think people need to be told how to start an article; if they do, they probably aren't goint to be writing any featured articles anytime soon), and (b) it was flatly misleading, implying that peer review was necessary before the FAC. Raul654 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we at least keep a link to WP:Peer review (somewhere intuitive/easy-to-find) on the WP:FAC page? They are mutually benefitial and could re-direct casual browsers to somewhere more appropriate to what they were looking for. --maclean25 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok. Raul654 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Done Raul654 20:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Can you at least change "FA" to "Featured article"? It will look less sketchy. CG 12:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Do you mean in the "Featured article tools:" listing? Raul654 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Vicious edit war[edit]

Good, sir. I was recently honored with becoming an admin and was quickly thrust into one of the most vicious edit wars that I have ever seen. I would appreciate your advice on Comparative military ranks of World War II. Also, please let me know if I have handled this well as an admin. I was originally involved in editing the article, but the most recent sections I have not been a participant in adding. What is going on is one user, with two registered sockpuppet accounts and dozens of ip addresses, adding and readding disputed information then using sockpuppets to bypass Three Revert Blocks. Hes been approached by about 7 other users, but the edit war continues and casualties continue to rise. Please take a look and give me your opinion. Thanks! -Husnock 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(1) You handeled yourself admirably (pun intended) and (2) it might be a good idea to start a draft version and have people edit the draft while they cool down. Raul654 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the trial by fire of a new admin. Very similar to my own (which was at Anarchism). And much like my own, I'd guess the IP addresses are in fact open proxies. I'll block the ones I can find proof of; however, we'll be doing whack-a-mole until some other admin takes the role of bot-assisted open-proxy blocker. --cesarb 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at them, most are dynamic ADSL IP addresses from the same ISP, and I could only find one that's on open proxy lists (but seems to not be working). --cesarb 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Header on FP and FPC[edit]

I've taken the liberty of changing Wikipedia:Featured pictures and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates to have a blue header instead of a yellow one because frankly, I can't stand large slabs of yellow :) I hope that's ok with you. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me - just don't change the standardize layout please. Raul654 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I am pleased that the community, with your approval, has deemed that Shoshone National Forest meets the criteria of a Featured article. The vast improvement in the article over the last week, due in no small part to helpful suggestions by dedicated editors, I believe made a big difference. Thanks again!--MONGO 08:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Raul654 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit question for masked text[edit]

Thanks for your hello on my talk page. May see you on the front page from time to time. :) Question: On my browser, the Emerson page is displaying this text at the bottom and the disambig format is not working. I looked at the edit page tab and couldn't see the source of this: "Dopamine can refer to more than one thing: Dopamine (Film) is a Film. Look up Dopamine in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.Dopamine is this." How to edit this out? Vir 09:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Found another instance of the Dopamine text in Civilization (disambiguation). It must be part of the "disambig" format. Where can one correct such a formt? Vir 19:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the disambiguation text. When you go to edit this articles, if you look at the bottom, you'll see this text: {{disambig}}. When the page is viewed, the Mediawiki software copies ("transcludes") the contents of the template (found at template:disambig) into the article. Anytime you see double curly braces {{like this}}, that's a template. Raul654 20:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Raul :) I looked at the disambig template. The dopamine text mentioned above was not in that. The errant text remains on the Emerson and Civilization (disambiguation) pages. As the dopamine text is neither found in the edit tabs of the articles nor in the disambig format (to which the text abuts and disrupts), I'm puzzled as how to trace the dopamine wiktionary source and remove it. Is the source of the problem possibly in Wiktionary? Any suggestions? Or, where might I ask about this further? Vir 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It took me 10 very confused minutes to figure out what you were talking about. The disambig template I mentioend above was vandalized on Jan 30 and it's likely you were seeing an after effect. Raul654 23:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry the question took that much time for you. Somethings are worth time, *smile*, but somethings not. If the template problem was fixed, shouldn't it have been fixed on other pages? The Emerson and Civilization (disambiguation) pages still have the Dopamine text on them as of tonight. I wonder if it would be good to ask a programmer about the source of this? I don't know the forum to ask about that.
I see. Here's the deal - you are seeing an out-of-date version of those pages (I am not seeing the out of date version, which is why it was so much trouble to figure out your problem). It has to do with caching in the web servers wikipedia uses. Here's a trick - go to the pages in question. Click "edit". The URL you'll see (for the Emerson page) is "". At the end, replace "=edit" with "=purge", and then hit enter to go to that URL. That will flush the caches, and show you an updated version of those pages (with the newest version of all templates used on those pages). Raul654 06:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Just saw this. Tricky. Pages do view clear now. Thanks much. Vir 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are both seeing different versions of the same page, isn't that your browser cache and not the server cache? Wikipedia:Bypass your cacheOmegatron 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily - Wikipedia has almost (over?) 100 squids. It is quite possible for some to be using out of date caches while others do not. Purging the cache (as I described above) purges all of them. Raul654 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Well, you twice [37] [38] vandalized the Poe article by restoring vandalism that had been reverted by someone you claimed was a Lir sock. I have a suggestion: reverting vandalism is good even if Lir does it (although I have no idea if it actually was Lir), and even more importantly, restoring vandalism is bad even if Raul654 does it. What sort of priorities does a person have when they restore vandalism out of a personality feud? You have placed the feud over article content. Everyking 10:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned on this page, I after seeing that User:Orange Flowerpot's first three edits were harrassment (and a fifth having the edit summary "Wikipedia is communism"), I reverted the other two edits without checking them specifically. Yes, obviously reverting to a vandalized version is bad, but when someone intentionally sets out to confuse the system, mistakes tend to happen. Raul654 18:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I also seem to recall that someone was required to do a modicum of investigating before making comments like the above. Raul654 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier[edit]

Is there any reason why notices for enforcement have not been issued for this case you closed? Tony and I are a bit puzzled by this. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

An oversite on my part. My mistake. Raul654 18:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


You are invited to take part in Wikipedia_talk:Changing username#Dropping inactive user names. Ems2 17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lopez and VV[edit]

My view, frequently stated, is that Ruy Lopez and all his sockpuppets should be banned from Wikipedia, as should anyone who uses it for blatant political propaganda the way he has done for a long time. I know nothing of VeryVerily's editing habits. Adam 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you modify meta's site css for me?[edit]

I see you're an admin on meta. I changed Help:Table to represent the current way to make "prettytables", but meta's site css doesn't have the wikitable class. Can you add it for me? See m:MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Wikitable_classOmegatron 15:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the notice. Please let me know if I am able to assist in the proceedings in any way. After today, i'm unlikely to be involved in them unless asked by someone. Karmafist 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Mark, with respect to the Pedophile templates case, you may wish to consider Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Add_.5B.5BUser:Dschor.5D.5D. Regards ENCEPHALON 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the Signpost[edit]

You submitted some questions for the Signpost. At the time you did so, I had not made it clear that all questions had to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license, to allow Wikinews to also have the interview. Do you agree to do so? Ral315 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What questions? The ones I did way back in December (November?) about what it's like to be an arbitrator? Raul654 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he's referring to this, which you edited yesterday. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ahh! Yes, I'm fine releasing them under that license. Raul654 03:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Snoop_Dog.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Snoop_Dog.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright status[edit]

Hi Raul, I just uploaded the image Sontheim_am_Neckar_1900.jpg to the Commons. The image is PD per the German wiki page because of its age. I didn't see a license that equaled that so I selected that I don't know what license it is. When the page came up it had the "tagged for deletion" notice on it. Obviously I'd hate to have it deleted just because I couldn't match a license option from the drop-down. What would you suggest I select as the license in such a case? Thanks for your help. --Mmounties 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. --Mmounties 03:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

suggestion: top level categories for features index[edit]

Hi Raul, Thanks again for the sandbox page creation. If you have time, could you comment on the top level categories here?: User:Vir/sandbox

I've finished my first (and second) drafts of the categorization outline. (Please ignore the 3rd level subcategories.) I personally think the main feature index page would benefit greatly from the three main top-level heads being edited into place now with categories assigned roughly as on the linked page (with whatever wording edits). There are over 25 categories now (too many in one group). A category breakdown would help much in finding info. I'm not sure when to propose that top level categorization edit: Perhaps in a week or two or whenever the Culture/Anthro and Soc category edit is resolved. But if you think it is a relatively simple matter (and not subject to much debate), I could suggest now.

Do you think the top level categories -- Arts and Humanities, Society and Social Sciences, Technology and Natural Sciences -- are helpful? Vir 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. On the feature index, I will not be suggesting we created new categories right away, like Theater and Animals in society (though I think the index could use both). Nor am I suggesting to move around links at this time (though in time yes). I am just talking about the need to add the 3 top level categories and organizing existing categories under those as on the page linked above. Vir 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. There is precedent in Wikipedias for the use of top-level categories to sort featured articles. The other two largest wikipedias, german and french, include a top level general subject index of featured articles. The top categories vary a bit, having 7 and 10 main categories, but these have common themes (such as arts, politics and society, science, etc.). See:

I think a top level set of main categories is a basic need in helping folks to find features.

I'm a bit swamped right now. Give me a day or three to review this and get back to you. Raul654 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I found a place to propose and possibly try out this idea. And, there is a ready given template for this on the English Wikipedia (the top category and portal categories). See this proposal on the proposed good article policy page: Vir 06:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Complaint: Effectively Blocked for Five Months[edit]

Today is the first day I have been able to log on since late September (or possibly early October -- I did not keep a log). I am writing to you because you are the administrator who notified me of a decision in the Ultramarine case, and hopefully will guide me as to where to complain.

At essentially the same time as the arbitration was accepted, I found myself functionally blocked from Wikipedia. Since mid-September, I have been mostly unable to log on, and when I have logged on, attempts to edit any article, including the arbitration, have resulted in crashes. I tried editing without signing on, and fared no better. Changing workstations, or even trying dialup as opposed to broadband was no help. Eventually, I could not even read Wikipedia much of the time. Today is the first time that I have been able to log on in months.

Unsurprisingly, the Ultramarine Arbitration went on with no input from me. As a result, my first experience with Wikipedia in a consierable time is to find myself admonished not to engage in "Sterile edit warring," an accusation that I deeply resent. I realize that the affront was unintentional -- probably the result of a hardware problem or a bug -- but I wonder how many other editors have been similarly excluded and simply given up never to return.

If you are not the appropriate person, please let me know to whom I should complain.

Robert A West 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have forwarded your comment to hte arbitration committee mailing list. Raul654 05:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you restore a nonsense edit?[edit]

You restored a nonsense edit [39]. Why? --The Cunctator 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god. As I explained twice on this very page already, someone pretending to be a troll happened to make a legit edit. While in the process of reverting his edits, I slipped up and reverted the good one along with the 4 bad ones he made. Raul654 00:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Main Page FAs from vandal images[edit]

I've got a half-baked idea for preventing main page FA image vandalism while still leaving the wiki generally editable. What do you think? See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Protection against vandal images. Thanks.--Pharos 01:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A rather funny edit[edit]

I just checked my watchlist, and couldn't help but notice an interesting edit. Would you care to comment on how an FAC that's been out for ten days, has no oppose votes, and has but a sole opposing comment (whose resolution would require deleting the article) does not constitute consensus? Saravask 05:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Decision In The Userbox Issue[edit]

I know it wasn't the majority opinion, but I want to thank you for your restraint in regards to the arbcom's apparent belief that i'm a liability to the project. If I am a liability to the project, please be honest and tell me so with ways I can improve, but please know that I will never change my belief that all Wikipedians should be free to learn from their mistakes in an intimidation free atmosphere and I will stand up against anyone, even Jimbo himself(as i've shown), who tries to intimidate one of my fellow Wikipedians.

I'd be more than happy to be an admin again if somebody nominated me and I pass, but please know that I would gladly give it up in a second for that belief I just mentioned and in the hope that everyone who wishes to constructively contribute to this project can do so without fear of retribution. Karmafist 13:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(Speaking only for myself) As I said in the proposed decision, I think admins should be entitled to the occasional screwup and I think 'Zero tolerance' doesn't make it easy for people to learn the ropes. I do think that admins who repeatedly screwup should be desysopped, but I saw no evidence of that in your case. I don't think going up against Jimbo was a prudent thing to do, however. Raul654 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One More Thing[edit]

I have a favor to ask. Please let the other arbitrators know my beliefs if they don't already. A more thorough document on what they are and how I think we need to reform Wikipedia's governance can be found at this petition. Karmafist 13:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have passed word of this along. Raul654 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Well, I guess i'll take that as a "You're Welcome" for the "Thank You" above. One question:Is it a normal RFA or is it going to be a Stevertigo style slaughterfest? I'm just curious because i'd like someone else to nominate me, i'm not a big fan of self noms. Karmafist 02:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

After two weeks, you are free to do it however you see fit - either by self nom or to get someone else to nominate you -- I am sure it wouldn't be hard to find someone willing to do it. Raul654 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cvgproj template[edit]

Hi Raul, a while back you reverted some changes to Template:Cvgproj. The todo list is now back in the template, but it is hidden, and can be expanded by clicking "show". If you still have objections, perhaps you could raise them here. If we've broken some talk page guidelines I'll make sure your objections are respected. Cheers! Jacoplane 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Meetup pictures and such[edit]

Hi, you seem to be the "keeper" of many of these Wikipedia related pictures, and I noticed a lot of them use a kind of "with permission" license template. To the best of my knowledge the Wikipedia:Licensing for community images proposal failed and current policy as handed down by the foundation is to not allow with permission only content, and unfortunately I have not seen anyting to indicate that exceptions where given to "meta" content. Wouldn't it be better to move this kind of stuff off site, maybe set up a "facebook and Wikipedia meetup" wiki on Wikicities and use a NC license on it or something like that instead of using them here in a way that strictly speaking makes them speedy deletion candidates? --Sherool (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image in FA tomorrow[edit]

Raul654, while protecting the images on the main page for tomorrow, I noticed that tomorrow's FA (Douglas Adams) was a fair-use image. I did a quick scan of the article and of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and all of the images appear to be fair use. I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Is there any way we can get a non-fair use image or use another FA instead? What are your thoughts? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a non-fair use image, but this is a subject that doesn't lend itself easily to that. A quick search on Flickr images using CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses turned up nothing. Raul654 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
So in other words to go with it? Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, on occasion, we do use fair use images for subjects that do not have any free ones available (ala, Jim Henson). It's not something I like but we don't really have much choice in the matter. Raul654 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
These are probably not suitable, but I thought I'd post them anyway. [40][41]. If you're going to go with the Fair use image, you might consider this one, I think a smiling Douglas Adams is more appropriate. Jacoplane 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Protecting main page articles[edit]

I'm flattered my FA, History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) was selected for the main page on 22 Feb, Baden-Powell's birthday. Is it possible to protect this page and its images before and during the time it is on the main page? I notice many MP articles are vandalized, such as the Gettysburg Address article has been vandalized several times today. There are many people who dislike the Scouts intensly out there and I'm concerned about this vandalism as being on the main page seems to draw out vandals like bugs to bright lights. Rlevse 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The blurb and image that appear on the main page are protected, but hte article is not. See user:Raul654/protection for the explination. Raul654 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand the rationale to a point, but I do not agree with the part about non-protection just before and during its main page time. This is the highest vandalism threat time and anyone who seriously wants to improve the article will come back and do so. Serious editors, like myself, should NOT have to watch a MP article and revert repeated vandalism. We have better things to do, like improve the article, vice chasing down maliciousness. Rlevse 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Why level 3? Seems a bit high...with all of the people on wikibreak now, I hope that you're OK.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, indeed, I'm definitely thinking of going. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic edits at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)[edit]

Just to give you a heads up, I've had some problems with User:Netoholic at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I wasn't aware until recently of his ban in wikipedia namespace and he has reverted my changes several time. Keep up the faith. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

sock puppets[edit]

My ArbCom case was about editing on the Khmer Rouge page. You discuss very little of that in your proposed decision. Instead you talk about sock puppets.

VeryVerily made the exact same accusations a year ago, and nothing happened. Yet in his appeal, this wiki-stalker and violator of 3RR (which I did not violate when he stalked me) is being cleared, and his discarded accusations of a year ago are being upheld? This is absurd.

What evidence do you present? You link to the edit of (POV warrior) TDC. TDC requested a checkuser on me, which turned up nothing. Instead of this clearing me, you are using his accusation being shown to be bogus as evidence? And what arbitration related decisions are you talking about?

Then you link to David Gerard, who said of all my crimes, my high crime was editing "AFDs" with a user named Mr. Know-It-All. Of course he provides no diffs as required. But since unlike most of these accusations, he is not exceedingly vague or misleading, it is easily disprovable. I have not only not edited the same (plural) AFDs as Mr. Know-It-All, I have not edited any AFDs with Mr. Know-It-All.

I'm not sure why ArbCom is mud-slinging instead of just saying Wikipedia does not like certain political opinions and booting me off. Instead bogus charges about sock puppets are made, with anything specific like David Gerard's AFD claim being easily disprovable. The evidence against me is a checkuser by TDC in which I was not convicted but cleared, which you turn on its head and say is evidence I avoided arbitration-related decisions (which you don't cite). Then there's David Gerard's claims I edited AFDs with Mr. Know-It-All, which thankfully is a specific enough claim that it is easily disproved.

Anyone who reads these links, when cited, can see this is all BS. So please just explain the real reason why I'm being booted. It's quite obvious the sock puppets on Khmer Rouge are not mine. My only adversary on the Khmer Rouge page who I'm fairly confident is not or is not using sock puppets is Adam Carr.

I thought David Gerard was still on ArbCom, so I thought dealing with any of this was pointless. But I checked and realized he is no longer on it, so I decided to give evidence his claims about AFD and the like are bogus. Ruy Lopez 18:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, I know him. He's my friend from high school and there's no need to ban him for harassing me or anything. That's fine. However, I'm trying to keep him straight in the article space so if he does something there feel free to block--just not over me. Thanks for notifying me. gren グレン ? 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Message from The Kindness Fairy[edit]

Hello Raul. In celebration of Random Acts of Kindness Week, I want to thank you for all the good work that you have put into Wikipedia. I would like to especially note your work with featured articles, which has been profoundly helpful in allowing Wikipedia to present its best work to the outside world. Please keep it up for many more years to come. The Kindness Fairy 06:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget to finish that PhD. Wink.png

B4rnz+4R 4 j00[edit]

I award this Barnstar to Raul654 for heroism in the service of WP:FA and for being on the ball with the Isaac Asimov trivia, way back when. Anville 08:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, think of all the good you've done and all the people you've made happy. . . And whatever you do, don't fall asleep on the job!

Currently medicating my own WikiStress with loud music and caffeine, Anville 08:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Tell me about the butterfly.[edit]

I read the text about the defiant butterfly, and I was very much impressed with it, and would like to spread it's beauty. However, it'd be much better if I had some sort of source. So could you pleeeeeease tell me the answer to your challenge? You could always mail me at if you do not wish to make it publicly avaiable on your (or my) talkpage.

(Pleeeeease?) Jobjörn 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from Level 7 by Mordecai Roshwald (the book is in the form of a diary. The quote on my userpage is from the May 31 entry; page 93 in the 1960 edition). Raul654 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.
Now I must, however, find that book and read it... which, considering that Sweden's largest Science Fiction-store does not have it in it's online catalogue, might prove troublesome. :)
Jobjörn 12:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Please do not edit that page while I am updating the featured article list. Raul654 06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry! Didn't know if you were going to update the FA page now or tomorrow and I wanted to add it ASAP. My bad. Palm_Dogg 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's all right - just be more careful in the future. It's not the first time that someone thrilled with scoring a featured article jumped the gun and edit conflicted with me while I was updating the FA list. Raul654 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

FAC list[edit]

Just wondering why you removed all those articles from the FAC list. I'm somewhat new at the featured articles process so maybe I've missed something, but there's no edit summary or talk page entry so I wanted to check with you. Thanks! Kafziel 12:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

After nominations have been on the FAC for a while, I promote them or archive them (depending on the discussion). Wikipedia:Goings-on contains a list of the ones I promoted. Raul654 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow's featured article discussions[edit]

Maybe from now on you could start adding these to the talk pages of the daily FA blurbs, as it's not always clear why a specific wording or image was chosen. Thanks.--Pharos 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1996 campaign finance scandal[edit]

Why did you remove this from the FAC page to the archive? It's only been 5 days since it was nominated and I have just reverted one of the objections to a "support" and am still working on changing the other two (one of which has already changed to a "weak object"). Please revert this back ASAP.

A second of the three objections has just changed to "supporting" the article. Additionally, there are still articles on the FAC page that are 11 days older than my nomination, but are still there. Please explain your reasoning for your action. --Jayzel68 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Jayzel68 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What the...?[edit]

Why are these troll spammers attacking the Wikipedia article...? Who's attack sight is this...and why are they after you [42]? Is this just some old troll trying to "settle an old score"?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably one of the regular trolls from Wikipediareview. Raul654 05:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A critique[edit]

Regarding the FA scheduled for 18/Feb, I have ventured a critique of the same here and would like to draw your attention to that. Regards, ImpuMozhi 06:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd FA candidacy[edit]

I'm pretty new to the FA process, so I might be missing something, but why was the Pink Floyd candidacy removed? It's still listed as a current candidate on its talk page, and it has not been archived. There were only 3 object votes versus 9 support (yes, I know it's not a number vote, but the percentage does not indicate an "object" consensus). The objections were addressed, and I know for sure that at least one of the "object" voters has mentioned to me on user talk pages that he planned on re-evaluating it when he had the time. It's been up for less than a week, and I don't think the article has reached a definite consensus either way. Since you didn't archive it, I'm wondering if you removed it from the candidate page in error. - dharmabum 23:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you're a busy guy, but just also wanted to point out that one of the object votes changed their mind after I addressed their concerns, as you can see from this comment on my talk page, but was unable to find the listing since it's no longer on the FAC page. - dharmabum 05:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pest, but another editor advised me to try asking you again as you may have missed my message. I'm still wondering what's going on, as the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd still isn't listed on either Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log, or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations, and I'm worried it's been lost in the shuffle. - dharmabum 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is the second nomination from this edit which appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle. I'm going to recheck all of them now to see what happened. Raul654 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have rechecked them, and it appears that indeed Pink Floyd and Thrasybulus both slipped through the cracks. I have promoted Pink Floyd now - sorry for the mixup. Raul654 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Not at all! This was my first FAC and I'm sorry if I got a little buggy, after 30-odd hours of work on the article I got a little panicky. :) Thanks! - dharmabum 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thrasybulus[edit]

In the same vein as the above comment, I'm a little puzzled by the removal of Thrasybulus. Based on the final state of the nomination, I would think it would have passed, but it hasn't been promoted (although it has also not been archived). It was removed along with a whole bunch of others, and I'm hoping it just got lost in the shuffle. I brought it up on the FAC talk page, and they suggested I should drop you a line here. Thanks, RobthTalk 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed Thrasybulus without listing it in either wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations, meaning that it was definitely lost in the shuffle. I've gone ahead and promoted it. Thanks for the heads up. Raul654 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Publically available?[edit]

See evidence by FeloniousMonk.

Wikipedia does not reveal peoples' IP address... officially (she might have once made a slip.. but)

Separately, The email address connection cannot be public knowledge

Kim Bruning 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To quote Jim62sch in his comment - Disputem maiorum: Now, let me dispose of the following: this claim is NOT factual, "certain key information elements can only have been obtained through private correspondence, specifically email address". Anyone Googling the user's alias can find the info on e-mail address. The same holds true for identity info. Raul654 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

Oops... I misread the template. However, I removed World War II from the list after I saw an anonymous editor adding it, when I know you're the only one who adds / removes FAs from WP:FA. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Marsha Blackburn[edit]

Heya Mark. Just wondering if this is a protection due to WP:OFFICE or just because of vandalism. I assume the latter but I just want to make sure as we're not unprotecting OFFICE ones without Jimbo or Danny's approval. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My plan was to leave it protected until I get a response from the staffer "early next week" - Monday or Tuesday. I'd appreciate it if the article stayed protected until then, as it would simply matters greatly. Raul654 17:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, I had no idea... though it makes sense when you think about it. Also, is there anyway to change any signatures I made using the ~~~~ option, to reflect the new screename? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean besides going through all of them manually and changing them? No. Raul654 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh well... thanks again! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Noticed that User:Raul564 came up in the user creation log. Just thought I'd let you know about this. --Spaceman85 | my talk 15:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added him to my fan club Raul654 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Kerala on Tomorrow's FA[edit]

Hi Raul654 - I wanted to ask if there was a problem hanging up the nomination of Kerala for TFA. If you can let me know, I can get that addressed immediately. I admire your work very much. Thank you! Rama's Arrow 23:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we just had an India-related featured article yesterday. I didn't want to feature one again so soon afterwards. Raul654 00:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Rama's Arrow 13:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers on Tommorrow's FA[edit]

Hi Raul! I nominated Cheers to be a front page FA after its promotion for no particular day, but Alkivar made an interesting suggestion. Because Cheers is about a bar he suggested I try for a day of heavy drinking, March 17 (Saint Patrick's Day). Pharos has recently voiced a concern that this might be seen as un-PC towards either the Irish heritage of the holiday or alcoholism and I was wondering if you think this concern is severe enough that I should revert the nomination to no particular date? Staxringold 14:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Clue me in[edit]


You were one of the arbitrators on my recent requests for arbitration of the "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" article. I read your bio and you have an impressive amount of Wikipedia expertise. I'm wondering if you can help me to understand how this whole Wikipedia thing works. Bear in mind that I'm not complaining - I just want to understand.

I stumbled upon the "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" article on Wikipedia because somebody made the comment to me that "homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals". I thought "hmmmm... I wonder if that is right". I have no axe to grind either way, but I wondered if that was really true or if that was one of those things that people repeat without thinking about. So I did a quick Google search and ended up at Wikipedia.

I was shocked at how biased that article was. It was incredible. They were blaming natural disasters on Protestantism and berating "anti-gay religious dogma". The article declared that "only 38% of the general public think that homosexual behavior is wrong" even though the word "only" had been previously contested and that percentage was wrong even according to their own posted link. There was example after example of blatant bias and errors.

I nominated the article for deletion, but it turns out that the gay advocates that had created the article were the same people who got to vote regarding its deletion. Needless to say they voted me down. (A quick review through the user pages shows that most of them are gay.)

So I took it to a higher authority and asked for mediation. It turned out that the mediator was also gay.

So I again took it to a higher authority and asked for arbitration. That will apparently be rejected on the grounds that this is a "content dispute". I suppose that it is a content dispute in the sense that the content is biased and incorrect, but it is more than that since any corrections to the content are overwritten by the group of gay advocates who maintain the page.

So here's where I need some explanation. I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck, but I am trying to raise a red flag about this and I don’t know how. Doesn't anybody in the Wikipedia community care that a group of zealots got together to control what gets published in that Wikipedia article? Does nobody care that they won't allow changes unless you take them to mediation? (And once mediation ends they have free reign once again).

The question I asked in the request for arbitration was not rhetorical: "How can extremist groups be prevented from using Wikipedia to spread propaganda?" Isn't there something built into the model that prevents a dozen or so zealots from using Wikipedia to get their message out, truth be damned?

This bothers me because Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia. So some high school kid doing a research paper comes along and thinks that what he's reading are facts. But not only isn't the information correct, it was made incorrect deliberately.

I don't understand the inner workings of Wikipedia very well, but it seems to me that unless there is a way to prevent groups of extremists from publishing disinformation, the public will catch on before long and that will spell the end for Wikipedia. Won’t it? Lou franklin 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The first thing you have to understand is the institutional composition. The members of the Arbitration Committee, though we are intelligent and dedicated wikipedians, are not experts in all subjects. We are simply not comptent to dictate what any given article should say, and so we've pointedly avoided doing that. (Yes, there are probably a few exceptions - Charles Matthews is a math professor, I'm a PhD student in computer engineering, Fred is an ex-lawyer - so we could be considered 'experts' in our particular subjects, but the Commiitee doesn't make that distinction)
So, rather than dictate what an article should say, the Committee instead focuses on enforcing the 'wiki process', so to speak. When there is a dispute, both sides are expected to rationally discuss it, and cite credible sources to back up their claims. Seth Mahoney stated that "The actual problem is that Lou either doesn't know or doesn't want to admit that he knows what constitutes a good reference for what. Apparently, any time a fundamentalist organization makes a claim on the web, that constitutes a good reference (in his mind) for a statement of fact. When confronted with this, the only response ever really given is, "my links aren't any better than yours" or "who's to say what truth is?". This is a grave allegation to make, and would definitely have been considered had this request gone to arbitration. We do expect our users to be able to distinguish between political propaganda and legitimate scientific sources. There have been a few rare cases where it was shown, to our satisfaction, that one side was incapable of writing about the subject neutrally [43] or competently [44], and those typically result in us banning that user from that article and/or related articles.
It seems to me like what you are describing here is related to our no-article-ownership policy [45], which says that users shouldn't edit articles to the exclusion of others. On the other hand, if you are putting inflammatory material into articles, and then citing un-credible sources, they have a legitimate reason to remove your changes. Raul654 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but when we talked specifics there was a lot of agreement that the article was indeed biased. Sure some people objected to my "inflammatory" edits, but nobody denies that the original article was badly and intentionally biased and had been for years. Nobody could. Since I brought it up for mediation hundreds of changes have been made to the article. That wouldn't have been possible if the article wasn't biased and just plain wrong in many many areas.
I'm not coming down on the Arbitration Committee, it's just that somebody contacted me and told me not to waste my time trying to improve Wikipedia because they said that the model fundamentally doesn't work. They said that the best thing I could do is not to resist and let the article be as biased as possible. That way the general public would catch on more quickly that the information on Wikipedia is a sham. The public would eventually stop using Wikipedia and it would wither on the vine. They said that the quicker Wikipedia dies the better it will be for everybody who cares about fairness and accuracy.
A cynical attitude for sure, but I can't find the flaw in it. It seems that the answer to my question is that there is NOTHING in place to prevent extremist groups from using Wikipedia to spread propaganda - in fact that happens all the time. So that high school kid doing a research paper will get bogus information for now, but it won't be long before his teachers will get wise and not accept research done on Wikipedia because the information is just too inaccurate. Maybe by trying to improve the accuracy, I have just slowed down that process.
I am trying to understand what makes Wikipedia worth fighting for. If there is really no way to stop the propaganda, then I'm coming up empty. Lou franklin 11:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as saying the homosexuality article is bad - you are preaching to the choir. I voiced my opinion last July, when I said the article was literally the worst high-profile article on wikipedia. The introduction could have served as a perfect example of what-not-to-do when writing an article. Looking at the introduction today, it's not perfect, but it's certainly miles above where it was before.
As far as the person who contacted you and told you Wikipedia could never work - you may wish to read Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Wikipedia_can_never_be_high_quality, which directly addresses those concerns. Raul654 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

mail sent[edit]

About the CFP conference. Write me back soon, if interested :) +sj +

'Replied by phone. Raul654 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Urgent CheckUser request[edit]

Please see WP:RCU regarding User:Bowlhover. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks.Travb 16:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox policy[edit]

Re your objections to my draft policy, you might like to look at an updated version being worked on at User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy --Doc ask? 18:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Mt St Helens.jpg[edit]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mt St Helens.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SteinbDJ 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, Raul[edit]

Nice job, Raul. How about the talkpage? Can I assume that should go too? Bishonen | ノート 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

I'd prefer not to delete the talk page, if it can be helped. Let's wait a while and see if it cools off. Raul654 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for slashdotting the's cool to have a lot more eyes reading it. Ral315 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Raul654 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A complex rename request[edit]

Hello Mark,

I'm looking for a friendly local bureaucrat to help out with a possible user rename. I'm afraid mine is not a simple case, so this is mostly an inquiry if it would possible at all.

Unfortunately there are two people with almost the same user name. 'Abelsson' (me) and 'Abelson' (another editor). I had no idea there was an Abelson when i registered my account and to make matters worse, we apparently live in the same city and work in the same field. I don't expect people will be able to keep us apart.

The annoying thing is that my preferred username (Henrik) was used by a vandal for a single day almost three years ago. I am not sure this is possible at all, but would in any way be any way for me to take over Henrik? I believe it unlikely the original user is much interested anymore. I realize this would probably require a special solution, but I thought I might ask.

Cheers! Abelsson 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally have no problem letting you usurp an account that has done nothing but vandalism. I'll post a note on Wikipedia talk:Changing username to see if anyone objects, and if no one does, I'll make the changes. Raul654 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great! Much thanks. Abelsson 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

Hi Raul, I recently changed my name but it still appears as the old name. Could you please assist me in fixing this situation?King Legit

I assume you mean that when you sign something (with ~~~~), it uses your old name. To fix this, go to your preferences and change your signature accordingly. Raul654 19:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

main page FA[edit]

Re: my entry of 12Feb on protecting main page FAs. Now that my FA, History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) is off the main page, which BTW I am flattered it made it that far, I have experience to speak of. I know you won't agree with me and I also know this is a long running debate on wiki, but I still say the main page FA should be protected (yes, I read your subpage on why you don't support that). I also feel all wiki users should be required to have an account and that account be verified with a confirmation from a valid email account. This would drastically cut vandalism because it'd be easier to track them as there'd be no guessing about who an anon IP was. My FA was NEVER vandalized prior to being on the main page. It was vandalized OVER 40 TIMES today. About 6 anti-vandal admins and myself spent most of the day doing reverts and reporting and blocking these scum. My point is we shouldn't have to waste our time on this; it'd be better spent improving articles. All but 2 of the 40+ cases were anon IPs. Requiring accounts with verified emails would cut this way down and virutally everyone who has Internet access has an email account. We should not have to put up with this moronic behavior. One case today was when an anon blanked the page and put up a close up of a human male penis. Now, one of your arguments for not protecting the FA is that it is to show wiki at its best in all its features. I don't think this qualifies. Now what if a young child saw that before it was revereted? People are hitting the main page constantly and it's certainly possible that a young child saw that; and yes this vandal was anon. If you ask why I worried about this today and didn't leave it to the admins--because I'm a good wiki user, created this article, wrote 99% of it, nursed it through FAC, and am the Scouting Project and Portal coordinator. In other words, I am responsible for it being it the best it can be at all times. I should not have to deal with such rampant vandalism. Oh BTW, only about 3 users made contributions of any note at all and nothing major, all this effort and time by the admins and myself could have and should have been avoided. We should not have had to put that much effort into this. Wiki sorely needs a better way to prevent and stop vandals. On a better note, I think you do great work for Wiki, but you will never, ever get me to agree that the main page FA should be unprotected nor that wiki has found the best way to handle vandals.Rlevse 03:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, think about it this way. Let's say we were to do everything you want - we lock Wikipedia down so that only logged in users can edit. When registering accounts, we require users to pass a captcha, and respond to an email. Is that going to stop the dedicated vandals, who account for a good portion of the vandalism on highly visible articles? No. Email addresses are cheap and easily obtained. What it will do is (a) drive it underground (everyone knows when you see an anon edit a highly visible page, it's probably a vandalism and easy to revert; making everyone log in won't fix this) and (b) make it harder for legit users to register. As many people here could tell you, Wikipedia is addictive once you start editing, but the trick is to "hook" people by making that first edit as easy as possible - e.g, allowing them to do it without having to make an account first. So, as you can see, I don't see much to be gained from locking down wikipedia, but plenty to lose. Raul654 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I hear what you say, but I am sure that you will agree that the Main Page featured article is a huge magnet for vandalism. As far as I can see, it attracts much more attention than any other article linked to from the main page (ITN or DYK, entries, for example).
The Main Page blurb is rightly protected. I wonder it is not time to think about protecting the version of the featured article that is linked to from the Main Page - for example, the Main Page blurb yesterday could have linked to a sub-page of History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) (say, History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)/Main Page) which is either fully protected or semi-protected. Depending on the type of protection, either admins, or all logged in users, would be able to edit it as usual, but the anonymous vandals would not. We could even include a template at the top saying "This is the Main Page featured article, which is protected to avoid vandalism. Please edit the live version (<link>) if you see any errors.".
What do you think? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I take it that you think my idea is a non-starter, then? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So it's okay to encourage vandalism and require the efforts of several people fighting it on Wiki's most visible article in order to get more users? I don't think that's right. If you have a better idea on controlling vandalism, I'd love to hear it, because wiki certainly needs one, esp re the main page FA. I'd also like to know what your response to the penis issue is. Rlevse 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're making an unfair comparison there. I am not encouraging vandalism - I am arguing against measures designed to cut down vandalism, measures which I believe would cause more problems for the wiki than they would solve. (Or, to put it another way -- just because a bystander doesn't rush into a burning building to help put out a fire doesn't make him an arsonist.) Raul654 02:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
But you've also: a) have not suggested any better methods than currently exist (there has to be something wiki could try) nor b) said anything about the pornographic image. The bystander may not be an arsonist, but he's also not helping to save the building. r/ Rlevse 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"Fixing" wikipedia (with regard to vandalism, factual inaccuracies, et cetera) is a wicked problem. There's no magic bullet, and (as I described above) proposed solutions tend to cause problems of their own. In this case, I think it's preferable to keep things they way they are, to implimenting a solution which I consider likely to cause problems worse than those it would solve. Raul654 11:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of VeryVerily[edit]

Don't you feel some personal responsibility for the mistake you made a year ago? When grown adults do something wrong, they admit their error, apologize, and try to make amends. I feel you see that an error was made but aren't really trying to fix it (much less say, "I was wrong"). By keeping the primary restriction on me you are in fact basically doing nothing. VeryVerily 19:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I admit the possibliity that sections of our decision may have been flawed. On the other hand, I find it galling that you could give us an evidence page that looks like this and then dare to complain that we made mistakes. (Nor, after looking at that page again, should it be surprising if perchance we did) Furthermore, when asked during this arbitration case to answer exactly one very simple question (to provide evidence linking Ruy Lopez to his sockpuppets), you decided to do the *exact same thing* as in the previous case, and pointed to another 50 kb of non-evidence. (You should probably thank TDC for doing your job for you) If you can't be bothered to put together a coherent presentation of your case, then you have only yourself to blame if the case doesn't go your way.
As far as the requirement that you discuss all reverts - all the other evidence of misbehavior aside, the titanic edit wars you engaged in justify it by themselves. (WP:Lame should have a section dedicated especially to you and 172, for your multiple 100+ revert wars) The reason I wrote the remedy lifting the 1RR injuntion on you is that I think the 3RR adaquently does the job - not because I think your appeal is particularly meritorious. Raul654 19:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG Personal Attack![edit]

That horrible troll Kim Bruning posted a personal attack on you today, here: [[46]]. OMG You should ban her, or him (I'm constantly confused), like, RIGHT AWAY!!!!oneoneeleven!!

This actually has to do with you being the FAC czar. Every really good wikipedia editor has had dreams of overthrowing the czar and doing a better job, of course ;-). So far no one has gotten past dreaming. At some point they all realise that they still have a long way to go before they could possibly equal your impeccable skill, deep wisdom or distinguished taste. O:-)

Kim Bruning 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

<Blush>Why thank you :) </Blush> Raul654 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Appeal cont'd[edit]

What are you talking about? The evidence page you note was a mess because you combined the cases of five different users together and twenty were commenting on them. Anyway, the burden of proof should be on those asserting wrongdoing, and I responded point-by-point to every charge made. The fact that these responses were submerged in the chaos was obviouly not my fault. What is galling about me not deleting other people's comments?

That "non-evidence" established a long pattern of behavior. And I basically offered to supply more evidence, but I noted (correctly!) that the best evidence will not be a bunch of scattered diffs but the testimony of those with a year or two of experience with "Ruy Lopez" and his habits; instead of asking for more concrete evidence, you accused me of "just guessing", which is obviously false.

Saying I'm only to blame is what I mean by avoiding responsibility. You should have tried to give me a fair hearing even if the presentation was not to your liking, or at least asked me for what you wanted. I was certainly trying, and I did present a coherent case; this time, I just regarded the sockpuppet issue as tangential and also believed no one seriously doubted his identity anyway.

There was only one such titanic edit war (on Augusto Pinochet), and it was two years ago when Wikipedia was much more anarchic, and after months of frustrating talk discussion (I was definitely discussing everything to death, making this remedy the wrong one). And anyway you said nothing about this in the AC case! You had me spending all my time outlining the Turrican history, because that's what you complained about. I will continue this on the AC talk page.

VeryVerily 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)



I've had a look at the most recent couple of pages of your contributions, and I am impressed. I'm amazed how much you manage to do in the way of administration of featured article candidates, general administration, and contributions to the encyclopedia, too. So I thought I'd take the time to say thanks. Saying thanks probably doesn't happen often enough on Wikipedia. T J McKenzie 03:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania dates, lodging[edit]

Yes, we have dorm rooms at reduced rates. They are all singles. They are rather small for two people to share. We are looking into doubles, but afaik have none allocated atm (a Japanese group had the dorm with doubles booked up well in advance). Nearby hotels, such as the Sheraton Commander, do have doubles. And of course friends are welcome (although we may well tie room allocation to conference attendance; I assume your friend would attend?).

As for setting up -- your help would be welcome. We will have work that needs doing on Wednesday and Thursday. Dorm rooms will be available starting Wed. night. More info is forthcoming; we're revamping the wikimania site over the next week. Cheers, +sj + 08:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A heads up[edit]

I've templatized Wikipedia:Goings-on. Please see the explanation at Wikipedia talk:Goings-on. Sincerely, --Go for it! 14:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, although I had to shrink it because it was far, far too long. Raul654 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

ID of a Liz Roy photo[edit]

I hope this is the right place to ask. Is Image:Narrow mouthed toad.jpg really a Gastrophryne carolinensis as captioned? I'm no herpetologist, but the listed range of G. carolinensis doesn't extend into Costa Rica; could it be G. pictiventris, the only species in the genus that reaches that far south? Choess 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Entirely possible - the genus and species were added by another person. Liz (an animal science major) is the one who named the picture "Narrow mouthed toad", so I'm unable to comment on that either. Raul654 21:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks. "Narrow mouthed toad" seems to be a catch-all for various Microhylinae, so I'm just going to strip the taxonomic info out of the photo and leave it. Choess 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Common sense award[edit]

For your remark that "Creation science is related to science in the same way that a meat grinder is related to a cow" you are hereby awarded The Common Sense Herring. Heringmini.jpg. Bishonen | ノート 21:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

I second that emotion! Anville 10:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why thank you :) Raul654 13:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


I am leaving this message to all 10 people at Special/checkuser list. Therefore forgive me for its being impersonal. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for CheckUser#cleanup needed. Your response and/or actions there would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Irpen 23:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(Replied there.) Raul654 11:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:India Featured contents[edit]

Hello Raul654, sorry, but I have utterly selected those articles only for some days to view as a fetured article for Portal:India. I was willing to launch Portal:India Featured articles in parallel to this to get feedback from the people. Can't we have Featured artcles, pictures for portals as Main Page has. I want to make Portal:India as main page looks like. Will Wikipedia administration not allow me to do so. If not, I am really sorry and feeling sad to waste my unvaluable time on Wikipedia. Thanks-- Shyam (T/C) 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"I was willing to launch Portal:India Featured articles in parallel to this to get feedback from the people... Can't we have Featured artcles, pictures for portals as Main Page has" - that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Forking the featured articles is very bad for any number of reasons - (a) multiple review pages will inevitably lead to a duplication of efforts (b) balkanization of the featured articles (whereby every wikiproject is choosing their own "featured articles" according to their own criteria will lead to (c) inconsistent standards as well as (d) total confusion of the issue -- "What is a featured article" will cease to have any meaning. Raul654 11:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Ohh, thanks for telling about that. I did not notice that you replied on your talk page. I have changed the title with Portal:India Selected articles. If it is not suitable please let me know. Please think well before denying because it involves lot of my hard work. Please suggest me further. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Raul, I wish to emphasise that Shyam simply thought that any article that you display in a dynamic page, like the portal etc., is a featured article. He didn't get the philosophy behind featured articles and has mechanically replicated the subgraph of pages linked to the FA process. We just need to guide him to use his energy and effort. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, renaming those pages is a good start. A few more thoughts I have though:
  1. I still don't understand why Portal:India What is a selected article and Portal:India What is a selected picture need to exist when they are identical to the already extant criteria (and will remain so for the forseeable future).
  2. I object to the use of the India star in the articles (not just this specific one, but to any sort of meta-data designation like this used in the template space)
  3. In general, I don't see why a specific selection process is necessary (e.g - Portal:India Selected article candidates and Portal:India Selected article removal candidates). It seems like a lot of unnecessary process, and it also appears to be wholly redundant with wikipedia:Peer review and wikipedia:featured article candidates Raul654 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Raul, "I still don't understand why Portal:India What is a selected article and Portal:India What is a selected picture need to exist" if you think it needs not to be exist, we can delete them, but i think it needs to be modify because we don't have enough articles to be selected on the daily basis. So i am going to modify the criteria as time permits.
"I object to the use of the India star in the articles"- please detail the reason.
"I don't see why a specific selection process is necessary (e.g - Portal:India Selected article candidates and Portal:India Selected article removal candidates)" I expect people contribute in the process which article should be selected for Portal:India page. Shyam (T/C) 07:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos of statues[edit]

Does the person who takes a photograph of a statue hold any copyright, or not? I am thinking about images like Image:Demosthenes statue.jpg - Image:Demosthenes bust- r280 BC.2jpg.jpg - Image:Laskarina bouboulina bronze statue.JPG - Image:Kolokotronis statue.jpg. If not, I guess we don't have to investigate who actually took the photo? I don't think the uploader has much of a clue, really. // Habj 14:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do - "This ruling only applies to two-dimension works. For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken. Therefore, pictures of public domain 3D works are not necessarily in the public domain." -- Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ Raul654 17:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot for the answer! // Habj 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has violated his probation[edit]

User: Ted Wilkes has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the Nick Adams page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, [47], [48], [49], [50]. Wilkes also included some additional passages in the Boze Hadleigh article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See [51]. The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See [52] and [53]. Wilkes also removed an external link to a Crime Magazine website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See [54]. Onefortyone 03:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement of our decision should be made at wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Raul654 10:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation, although he had been blocked for doing so yesterday. He is still calling me a liar. This is certainly a personal attack. He has deleted some passages concerning Nick Adams's supposed homosexuality and an external link from the Nick Adams page, although he is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See

[55] and [56]. See also his aggressive behavior on the Talk:Nick Adams page. This is unacceptable. Onefortyone 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have two things to say.

  • While I agree User:Ted Wilkes has violated his ban, Onefortyone is also violating his probation with all these dubious edits to the sexuality section of the article. I humbly suggest that both be given clear warnings to cease and desist from any sort of editing in the article for now and that neither be blocked unless it becomes necessary as a preventative step to enforce the existing ruling (which I strongly disagree with but respect in terms of process).
  • I think the RfAr should be re-opened, there is much to discuss and resolve. The last RfAr has not worked. Wyss 19:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Islam articles in the news[edit]

Thanks for the link. I read it and sent the guy an e-mail clarifying some things. He makes good point about neutrality problems... but, he also seems to be a Sunni partisan. He doesn't want any information about the minor movements because they aren't Islam. I think we need some good constructive criticism on the subjects... when it gets down into sectarian battles it's no help. Thanks again. gren グレン 10:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if/when he gets back to you - I'm interested in hearing what he has to say. Raul654 10:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Guqin Recordings[edit]

There are links to recordings by my peers in the External Links section of the article. Or do you want more than just external links? --CharlieHuang 11:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded songs to commons are much preferable. See, for example Beethoven#Media (which I did). Raul654 11:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (of course, as I said on your talk page, they have to be public domain or under a copyleft license) Raul654 11:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll see what I can do/find. --CharlieHuang 11:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, can't seem to find any recordings that are public domain. The only ones are the recordings by my peers from their websites, and historical recordings of deceased players on CD format (which copyrighted status I am unsure about). There is one file I have which I got from a website a very long time ago (which source is all but disappeared from memory) of a very old recording, though the quality is rather poor and doesn't do the instrument justice, unlike modern recordings. As for if I could record a sample, I do not have the means and technology myself to do a high-quality recording to do the instrument justice. I could ask my friend who is an established player to do a recording, but that would be too time consuming sorting it out to justify it. --CharlieHuang 15:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well copyright regarding music is about as complicated as it gets. Very little music is in the public domain that was not put there by its creator. If you want to do what I've asked, here's what you need to do - you need to get a recording of someone (1) playing a pre-1923 song, (2) using a pre-1923 manuscript (or one that is musically indentical to a pre-1923 manuscript, such as from mutopia), and (3) get the performer to agree to an acceptable license (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-Sampling, GFDL, or no license [public domain]).
I know that's a pretty tall order. If your friend happens to have any recordings on hand that meet those criteria, and if he's willing to license them, that would be great. Raul654 15:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Almost all (around 99.5%) qin manuscripts/scores are composed pre-20th century (except, of course, modern compositions which are rare), so (1) and (2) is no problem. The thing that gets complicated is that many 20th century players are dead, their recordings preserved in CDs, etc, which are released commercially. So (3) probably won't apply to these masters until 2030 or so, since the copyright to their recordings are rather vague (normally, they will record music for either individuals, friends, radio stations, etc, rarely for commercial purposes). Getting my friend to do a recording for me is problematic as she is a professional player herself, and she'll find certain clauses of the CC licence unworkable for her, namely that of the possiblity of it being used for modification and/or commercial use. So, it seems unlikely at this point in time. --正矗昊 16:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you could always do it yourself. You don't necessarily need high quality equipment to do an adaquate recording - a $5-$10 omnidirectional microphone you can buy at any Radio Shack should do the job. Plug it into the audio-in in the back of your computer, and record away. Raul654 16:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm not so sure about my abilities (I haven't been playing qin for sometime now, coz I spent most of the time on the article). It would require me to borrow my sister's laptop, etc (and you know about borrowing things from siblings... she's at uni and she needs it for her work). It would take some time to sort out coz the only time I can be relaxed enough to (practice and) record a piece wouldn't be until mid-May 2006. --Charlie Huang【正矗昊】 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen template[edit]

You have to load the CSS to see the visual styling (icon, etc.) Refresh your cache and try again. — Omegatron 01:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


*chuckle* I have to admit, your message wasn't quite what I was expecting. I'm something of a David Brin fan, but to be honest, that's not really why I used the name. In middle school, whenever I needed a name for a MUD (probably Gemstone III), I flipped through the books on my shelves. "Creidieki" was the one that stuck. I spell it wrong and I pronounce it wrong, but I've been using it for so long and for so many things that I can't imagine using anything else. -- Creidieki 01:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... the mispelling was the thing I wasn't too sure about. But I figured the name was too unique not to be a match :) Raul654 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, in all the years you've been using it - how many people have been able to place it? I'd bet it's vanishingly few. Raul654 01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How to block a user page?[edit]

Thanks for renaming me. The instructions on the rename page say, "You should check that the old account has been recreated and blocked to prevent someone else creating the account and impersonating you." How is the blocking done? AjaxSmack 02:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

An admin can do it. If you control it (e.g, you registered it), there's no real need to block it. Raul654 02:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. AjaxSmack 02:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Files done. User:Gmaxwell/report_for_raul654. --Gmaxwell 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

? Specific dates for front page article[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure what the process of selecting articles for the front page is - but can this be requested for specific dates? I see a current FAC nomination Bath School disaster has said "Main page placement is being sought for the May 18, 2006 anniversary date" & it got me thinking. The article for Chew Valley Lake which is currently a FA candidate, would mark the 50th aniversary of it's opening by the Queen on 17th April this year. Rod 15:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For featured article candidates, I just disregard them. If and when those articles are promoted, a request can be made at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article Raul654 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am well used to being ignored[edit]

But I must restate the problems I have here. First of all, the statement of "insertion of POV" as a bannable offense is vague and open to interpretation, and I don't trust administrators, many of whom edit from a point of view that is ideologically closer to Ruy Lopez than to myself. Second, Ruy Lopez has done more than enough to receive a ban on KR related articles, in fact all articles (if anyone here bothered to look at the evidence). I have seen others banned from articles altogether for commiting lesser or equal crimes. It is disturbing that the Arbcom has not come up with a "finding of fact" condemning him of POV pushing. Third, there is no guarentee that his sockpuppets would be detected if he used a proxy or masked his IP. The provision I placed in the Workshop (which was ignored) called for the banning of people reasonably believed to be Ruy Lopez (i.e. making very similar edits). The Arbcom had no problem passing the same thing in a decision involving a certain User:Beckjord. Thank you. CJK 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Abid Ullah Jan articles[edit]

[57] [58] Thanks for showing me. My e-mail to him (sloppy grammar and all) is footnote 1. I think it shows some problems that always come up when people write about Wikipedia. In his first attempt he couldn't find the article under the one spelling. I told him it was under Din (Arabic term) but he only got to the disambiguation page and said it was 13 words when Din (Arabic term) is a lot more (although I will not vouch for content). Thanks again. gren グレン 08:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(1) Email him with a follow up, and (2) head over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-27/In the news and make sure to note that you are the person who emailed him. Raul654 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I fixed that. My friend you know from Academic challenge mentioned the Al Jazeerah thing and seemed to imply you thought it was , the big news site. It's the little site oft confused with the big one. Just in case you didn't know... maybe he just didn't understand. gren グレン 03:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I did appear to have made that mistake. Raul654 03:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. You speedily deleted Template:PotentiallyDisturbingImage on the grounds that it was similar to an already deleted template, Template:Offensive. Please could you provide a link to the deletion discussion for Template:Offensive (I'm having trouble finding it, and I would be interested in what it has to say). Thanks, Enchanter 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The trick is to go to template:Offensive, and click "what links here" (which brings you here). Halfway through the list, you see an entry for Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/October 2005 Raul654 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Also note that template offensive was itself a recreation of several earlier "Warning - this page contains possibly offensive content" templates. Raul654 01:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)