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



Mark: This is Andrew Morrow. I would like to patch things up between me an Wikipedia. I have been hounded by User:Musical_Linguist for weeks now. She undoes all of my work upon detection. Is there anything I can do to get my legitimacy back, even if all the girls want my head served to them on a platter? AWM -- 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

USA Today[edit]

Nice coverage.

When did you get the new userpage photo? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks :)
About the new photo - I got it earlier in the month (Feb 7). I hadn't worn glasses for the better part of a year, so I figured it was about time for the old photo to go. Raul654 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations on the millionth article, man! Cctoide 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not exactly. The millionth was Jordanhill railway station. Cellular architecture was 1,000,004. Raul654 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the tag for millionth article on [1]?? --Splette Happyjoe.jpg 23:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I put it on the article's talk page, where such a note belongs. Raul654 23:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw...sorry for bothering :) --Splette Happyjoe.jpg 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Such a note was fine where it was; and has been replaced by an even larger message box notice pointing to the press release -- but which oddly fails to note the significance of the article. It seems rather notable to point out its status as the millionth article—LeflymanTalk 23:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The message is metadata, and all metadata belongs on the talk page. Raul654 00:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


WikiHowTo does exist wit more than 600 articles! If you want to contribute, then you can go to its home page, and help it become a mediawiki project! Moa3333 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I personally think your cellular architecture and my temporal coding pages are two of the most interesting near-106 mark articles; though it is rather nice that an article about a physical place was number 106, as that allows for some neat promotional stuff. :) Semiconscioustalk 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I like the Temporal coding article - it brings me back to my days in biomed engineering. Raul654 04:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Hey, my apologies for not showing up last Sat. I seem to have acquired a girlfriend, and that takes up a lot of my time now :-) Haven't been around wiki much lately, and that's the main reason why. Keep me posted if something like that happens again, though. Isomorphic 01:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, FYI, we may be doing Newark meetups on a more regular basis (all of the attendees liked the idea) so keep your ears open for the next one. Raul654 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK block[edit]

Since I did notice some (granted, relatively minor) improvement, notwithstanding the GN personal info bit, I have proposed halfing her block duration from 60 to 30 days, and am seeking your permission to do so. Thanks for your time. Regards, El_C 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

'Replied there. Raul654 02:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a consistant string of disruptive behavior. Look at her block log, and the substansial amount of complaint leveled agaisnt her, as well as fact that Tony was able to construct several elaborate subpages of her unacceptable behavior. She is an aggressive user that never ceases to amend her troublesome behavior, and despite all of the warnings and blocks durations, she failed to learn. I do so hope an much greater amount of action is taken upon her next violation. -ZeroTalk 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A FAC[edit]


I feel it's kind of unfair that you've removed FIFA World Cup nomination from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates list. Indeed, there's little support, and five days have passed (a few hours ago), but this time was used to work on the article, and most if not all problems have been addressed.

Also, I see no indication if the nomination is considered failed (like a message on a talk page). Would you please clarify the situation? Thanks. Conscious 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article statistics[edit]

Hi Raul. I'm curious if the number of FA's provided in a given month on the stats page is the grand total or the total less those removed via FARC. Does it make sense to have a column listing the number of removals in a month as well? Marskell 09:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I used to use the number of entries in the promotion log (so raw number of promotions), but quite a while back I switched and started simply taking the difference between the value listed on the stats page and the number of FAs (so net change). Raul654 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's FA: Triumph of the Will[edit]

Hello, Raul. You may want to see Talk: Main Page#Our featured article of the day has legal problems. --PFHLai 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Electoral Engineer[edit]

So you're studying electoral engineering?[2] Are you going to work for Diebold? :-) TacoDeposit 19:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're the second person who said that to me :) Raul654 19:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sigh...I did try to check whether the joke had already been made.TacoDeposit 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The other person sent it in an email, so it's new here :P Raul654 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion in WP:FA[edit]

I've suggested in Wikipedia talk:Featured articles to create subcategories in order to improve readabilty and navigation. see Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Improving readabilty and navigation. But I neither got an approval nor a rejection. What are your thoughts about it? CG 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

'Replied there. Raul654 21:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's RfA[edit]

Is overdue for closing. I didn't know who to contact and the votes are painfully continuing. My comment on the talk page about this a couple of hours ago didn't help. Done, thanks BTW, nice user picture, better than the old one.  ;-) hydnjo talk 00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main Page banner[edit]

Hi, Raul. There's a few complaints about the removal of the notice on the Main Page in Talk:Main Page, so I think it might be better if you reinstated the note. I would do it myself, but I don't know if there's other reasons for the removal, and to avoid wheel wars. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think 48+ hours is a reasonable length of time to have such a message on the front page. By now, everyone is well aware that we hit a million articles, and knows where to find the press release if we want it. I don't see the purpose of leaving it up any longer. Raul654 04:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Giano, WP:POINT, and WP:FARC[edit]

Hi, Raul. Yesterday, Giano nominated for removal eight Featured Articles which he has written to some degree. However, he used the same text in each Farc - saying that, essentially, his former articles eventually won't live up to The Criteria, and he might as well nominate them "before they can be nominated by the likes of User: Tony1 or User: Miss Madeline." He did not give specific reasons for removal on each of the articles aside from a blanket condemnation of the recent push for better references and prose (spearheaded by Tony et al). I reverted and nuked each nomination as a POINT violation (which I stand by), but someone will likely ask for your input in this matter, and as usual, your input on my work on farc is always appreciated by me. Thanks for your time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(Relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Giano.27s_Nominations) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you did, and I'll have a chat with Giano about it. Raul654 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi, if you have time, do you think you could see to this request. It's been there for a few days and we do need to know what's going on. Thanks. --Latinus 23:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Good article[edit]

The user Zzzzz has directed me to you to help with the problem I’m having. I’ve recently finished an article on the Photosynthetic reaction centre. After a peer review, a featured article request and a lot of effort from many other users, the article has been labelled as ‘good’. The good label still remains on the discussion page, but the star in the top right hand corner of the article has gone. Apparently it’s a violation of Wikipedia rules. Please can you tell me how I can get this star back on? Thanks.

p.s. I’m also applying for a MEng in computer science and electronics at Edinburgh University. --Miller 17:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Signature george.PNG

Lothal FAC[edit]

Hi Raul654 - I'm concerned that Lothal not been promoted to FA despite six days of FAC and having 10 support votes and none opposed, with all concerns addressed. If there is a problem, please lemme know so I can fix it. Thanks. Rama's Arrow 02:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been promoted - sometimes these things take time. Raul654 05:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser backlog[edit]

Since Diva took ill, it looks like the Checkuser backlog is growing without bound. Is it time to grant that priv to more admins? — ciphergoth 09:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You addressed the backlog in a most unexpected way. I'm not sure that's the right solution; I'd be interested to know more about your ideas for how RFCU should best be maintained. — ciphergoth 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, after a certain period of time, IP addresses leave the database. So removing the old ones was the right thing to do. As far as maintaing it, well, it's a time-consuming thing to do, and there aren't enough people with checkuser access. I'm *REALLY* busy, and I don't have time to maintain it. Kelly Martin did a good job, but quit in frustration at the overall harassment she was experiencing. Raul654 05:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured shorts[edit]

Featured shorts? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another queury for you. I don't know if you follow the Wikipedia:Good articles process or what your opinion on it is. I personally don't like it because I think it's a backdoor way to get a good content tag without having to go through the tussle of an FA nom. The one argument for its existence that makes sense is that it allows for an acknowledgement of good content on articles that are too short, and will likely always be too short, to become an FA.

A thought I have had previously to address this is a Featured shorts or Featured short articles category. Like Featured lists and images, it would provide an outlet for stuff that can't go to FAC, in this case articles round about 10 to 20K. A Featured short could of course graduate to a Featured article if it achieved sufficient length but would have to be re-nommed. With this in place GA could be scrapped. If you're at all interested, this is the discussion that got me thinking about it on the Good article talk page. Cheers, Marskell 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not care for the good articles. I see no point in it. I've seen some good articles tagged as "good", and I've seen some truely awful articles tagged as "good" (if George W. Bush can be tagged as a good article, which it was until a couple weeks ago, then what exactly constitutes a bad article?) Raul654 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you're in agreement that GA is pointless what do you think of the Featured Short Article idea? I'm in a minority of one or two criticizing GA on its talk page (naturally partisans of the project are those who stop by to comment) and it would be nice to have an alternative idea to point to. Note, the way things are going Good Articles is becoming a parallel FA process (right down to copying the colour scheme). Marskell 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, quite frankly, I'd like to see GA abolished and nothing replace it. I consider it a needless expenditure of contributor effort that could be better spent doing other things (like working to get articles up to actual FA status). Raul654 17:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If you have any ideas on how to go about abolishing it (or at least altering it and marrying to some other process where it might be useful) do let me know. Your voice might have a bit of weight there. Marskell 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Raul, you consider wrongly. You must realise that not every article can become an FA, not by a long shot, right? GA encourages virtually the same standards to apply to all those thousands which are not FA material. Marskell, here's an idea on how to abolish it - put it on Miscellany for Deletion. Quite simple really, then we can all see what the consensus is on whether it's useful or not. Continually sniping from the sidelines helps absolutely no-one. Worldtraveller 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Barbara McClintock[edit]

I've semiprotected this article due to very severe vandalism. I'm letting you know in case you disagree and want to unprotect.--File Éireann 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Feel free to comment at my appeal. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick note on the Main Page article[edit]

Regarding [3], the article seems to still be semi-protected; figured to just drop a note. ~ PseudoSudo 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the sprotection label without removing the protection itself. There's a reason for this, which I'd rather not get into here - contact me in private if you want the long explination. Raul654 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, don't worry, easily trust your judgement; though perhaps consider dropping an edit summary like 'rm {{sprotect}} template (intentional)' for a potentially ambiguous edit. Awesome, ~ PseudoSudo 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

James D. St. Clair[edit]

Thanks for the James D. St. Clair article. I noticed you also created Jim St. Clair as a rdr. If you'll forgive my selfish curiosity, did Wikipedia:Title pairs for future redirects suggest that to you? If so, i'd be grateful for any comments, suggestions, etc. that you'd care to make at Wikipedia talk:Title pairs for future redirects (or for that matter on my talk page). Thanks,
--Jerzyt 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the title and redirects page influenced me. I checked to see what pages linked to 'James D. St. Clair', saw it was a requested redirect, and created it. Raul654 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Vishniac[edit]

Excuse me: has the Roman Vishniac FAC failed? It hasn't been promoted, but neither has the talk page tag been changed. -- Rmrfstar 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes (Violetriga usually handles the failed tagging.) Raul654 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I disagree with the decision not to promote the article. At the time of demotion, the candidate page listed only two "opposes", both by Petaholmes, the latter of which included the first one within it and was posted only an hour before judgement, (so no time was allowed for the simple (and possibly invalid) concerns to be dealth with). -- Rmrfstar 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hrm (handn't noticed how recent Petaholmes' comment was). OK, I'll restore the nom for the time being. Raul654 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. It's late here, so I'll be turning in for the night, but I'll get right to work on the nom in the morning. -- Rmrfstar 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights[edit]

Hi, I'm soliciting Wikipedia:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm also the Fieldmarshal (ENTJ). So get on it.  :) Kaisershatner 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rationale behind FA promotions[edit]

Hi. Just wondering if you could explain the rationale behind promoting Chetwynd, British Columbia and Hurricane Floyd to featured status recently? There were some quite serious objections on Chetwynd's FAC which for the most part had not been resolved; on Floyd's FAC my points in opposition were minor points but nonetheless I'd have liked to have seen them dealt with and discussed before the article was promoted. And actually the same thing happened with my nomination of Sun not long ago, we didn't get a chance to fully resolve an objection before the article was promoted. Shouldn't it always be the case that any actionable objection is enough to prevent an article getting promoted? Worldtraveller 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Still interested in hearing why these were promoted if possible. I see actionable objections being apparently ignored more and more often these days, and it really knocks my motivation to spend any time reviewing nominations. Worldtraveller 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you object if I just delisted Chetwynd on the grounds that the serious unresolved objections in its nomination were apparently overlooked? Worldtraveller 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dien Bien Phu[edit]

Hallo Mark- I'm well aware that there were a large number of Legionnaires at Dien Bien Phu; my point is that there is no substantive difference between French soldiers (sensu your definition) and those of the FL- they are all 'soldiers of France'- French troops, if not actually French citizens (although I believe the majority of them are both). A reasonable analogy would be Gurkhas serving in the British army; very few people (in fact, in my experience, no-one) would refer to a battle fought by British and Gurkha troops as e.g. 'British and Nepalese troops'; there is no conceptual distinction. Would you be amenable to a rewording, ie something like 'French forces (including those serving with the Foreign Legion)...'? I have to say, the second phrase ('..many of them not even French...') is a bit more problematic. Frankly, to me it has a vaguely racist undertone, and I'm really not sure what it is supposed to be saying, or why it is relevant. If you can clarify this, I'll happily accept the phrase. All the best (and sorry for the pedantry!), Badgerpatrol 19:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am open to a rewording, but it really does need to mention the fact that the foreign legion troops at the battle was composed heavily (primarily?) of ex-SS/Wermacht soldiers. Raul654 19:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Mark, just noticed your recent additions to Akeakamai, thank you. Reading your user page looks like you're an admin, so it was nice to see your interest in this article. If I may ask was this a random fix, or do you have an interest in dolphins issues or wikipedia articles? (I've been pondering a detailed fix to the cetacean intelligence and animal language articles for a long time but I'd want to do these right, with both science and npov intact).Santaduck 10:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I ended up there because I'm a David Brin/Uplift Universe fan. 'Nuff said :) Raul654 06:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Bet that would have been a support vote if it had been Category:Dead babies who were cryogenically frozen ;P -- sannse (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the sense in freezing them? There's a hungry world out there. Raul654 06:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Community News[edit]

Have you seen that article about you? I didn't read it yet but I read the one about Stilltim. Interesting stuff. gren グレン 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it :) Raul654 18:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
They're both online if you want to access them that way. Raul654 18:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification on Bulbasaur promotion[edit]

Given the long and contentious review, the many hours put into it by several editors on both "sides", and the unresolved objections from eight editors, would it be possible to share your reasoning in favor of "consensus" on this promotion? --Tsavage 02:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm quite surprised to see this article promoted. Little to none of the objections were addressed. BlueShirts 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I am quite surprised about the promotion. Given that none of the objections are addressd and that the article is just a plot summary with fan pages as references, I really like to know your rationale for promoting this article. Thank you. Temporary account 03:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I think some of the opposition could be ignored, a few of the objections are easily fixable, and should be prior to FA promotion. However, perhaps a deal could be struck where a list of fixable items could be created. These items could be fixed by a certain time; if they are not, then the article becomes a format candidate. Deckiller 03:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I sensed this would be a controversial choice, so I took extra care with this one. Despite their great length, all the objections fell into one of three areas - that it "read like a fan page", that the sources didn't match the text of the article, and that it used too much jargon without properly defining them. I read the article top to bottom. This is the second time I have done so - I read it top-to-bottom the first time it was on the FAC, and that time I agreed with the objections and failed the nomination. This time, I did not feel it read like a fan page; Pschemp took care of the referencing problem (along with Aloan's comments wrt one specific reference problem), and although I didn't check point by point, when I read it I didn't feel swamped by words I didn't understand (and I know nothing about Pokemon) Raul654 06:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Does that mean any page about a minor character that contains ONLY PLOT SUMMARY and PRODUCT INFORMATION, as long as it has fan pages as sources, can be FA? Also, it is true that this article doesn't read like a fan page, because it reads professionally (grammar...etc), but it is still a fan page essentially. Please reconsider you decision. Temporary account 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Raul654: Respectfully, you are simply wrong in your assessment that the references were "taken care of". They were not. The References still consist of mostly personal fan pages, as clearly noted in the review. Simply click this for an example of what "the best" now offers as verifiable sources. The "lead critters" quote attributed to Time Asia IS NOT IN THAT PUBLICATION, but it is in the first para of the lead, and that was pointed out. It goes in the review.
Also, I think it's really odd that, when it's apparent from the review that more than one editor has dissected this article and engaged in debated it daily over a period of weeks, you can read it once and see all. Why is your assessment more accurate than anyone else's? It took me at least an hour just to check the references... --Tsavage 07:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "hard cheese" comes to mind. Oh, did I really say that? --Celestianpower háblame 12:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding that link you are referring to above, that is being used to reference the fact that the Bulbasaur card is of common frequency, correct? I believe someone mentioned in the FAC that the rarity of cards is indicated by a symbol in the corner (circle for common), so I think that you should remove the reference altogether and consider this supported by primary source material if you take issue with it. Pagrashtak 13:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting reply from Raul about plot summary question. Temporary account 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
(Replying to Temporary accounts claim that the article contains only 'plot summary and product information) - this is flatly wrong. During the first nom, people objected that it contained too little informaiton about the franchise, and that was rectified (hence the Carmen Miranda-et-al comments in the introduction now). This is why not one single person in the second nomination registered an objection along these lines. Raul654 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't there during first nom, thus I can't say anything about that. But if I were there, I would have voiced the same objections. But you'll have to agree that the current form of article is ALL plot summary and product information. And I don't understand how you or anybody else cannot see that. As for Carmen Miranda stuff, did you actually read the Time/CNN article or Tsavage's comments? Did you check ALL the references for consistency and that the quotations are not taken out of context? For a fictional character, plot summmary is clearly not good enough for FA. Even though this character has no rich history, at least we are expecting development history and cultural influence...etc. Further, Goomba (sp) is currently under FARC for the same objections that I and many other have brought up. At the end, again, are you sure that an article with only insubstantial plot summary and product information is suitable for FA? I still don't know your point. Temporary account 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a look: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Bulbasaur. I think it's too early to go this far, especially since we're just getting our feet wet with this discussion. Deckiller 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • re Raul654: "that was rectified (hence the Carmen Miranda-et-al comments in the introduction now)" As I've already pointed out elsewhere, the Carmen Miranda addition is one of the worst bits in the article. There is absolutely no reasoned comparison between Bulbasaur and Carmen Miranda in the source, it is the most trivial, passing bit of editorial color, in a passing description of a couple of sample Pokemon, in an article about Pokemon cards being banned in school yards. It was just a "colorful costume" reference, and is barely even trivial, the ONLY possible value to the comment being it was a few words "on a CNN web site". And if that's not poor enough, in the article, which should be developing the lead, "“increasingly exotic foliage" is NOT EXPLAINED, the only rather subdued and obscure further mention is "grows into a large floral bulb". How much explanation is necessary in a FAC review to convey really obvious points, and for what purpose, if it's just overlooked or ignored? --Tsavage 01:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Raul: Well, the FARC's de-listed, and I just need some clarifications. First, do you think that none of our objections are reasonable? Here's my input, I believe the failure to address the objection does not mean that the objectino is unactionable, it may simply mean that there's a fundamental shortcoming that the article has that can't be repaired easily. Second, is Bulbasaur one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, with only plot summary and product information? Third, what counts as a consensus, because the objections we have were not simple grammar fixes, but important features of FA such as referencing...etc, so what makes you think that there's a consensus? I'd really like to know your answers. Thx Temporary account 02:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that you (the continual objectors) respect the consensus of the community, User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson's and User:Raul654's decisions and kindly move on. The endless continuation of the debate is unnecessary and a waste of our intellectual resources. I think your considerable talents could be put to good use improving wikipedia elsewhere. pschemp | talk 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
1. There's respect here, the objectors never made personal attacks, even under attack from supporters. 2. There's no consensus with substantially unresolved objections (where did you get the idea there's consensus). 3. You don't need to tell us how to spend our time and energy (it's OUR time and energy). Temporary account 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anytime now... Temporary account 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I to cant understand why when the editors didnt act in good faith when looking at fixes. All oppose votes where dealt with along the same lines of attacking the person who oppose instead of investigating the suggestion. Like you I dont know much about pokemon but was able to find information regarding the suggested fixes from one of the site referrenced(after FAC). It turned out that some of the information is also available on Wikipedia..

  • That point aside I checked the copyright status of the bulbasaur image as posted in the article believe it breachs copyright laws. the image owner states No material from this or any other Internet site owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by us or our affiliates may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal The image is listed as fair use here acknowledging the the copyright holder and links directly back to this statement. Under each use it must clearly state detailed reasonings for fair use. There is no reasoning attached, can you require the editors fix immediately. Gnangarra 01:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition to laws[edit]

Hi, I saw your userpage about WP laws and I thought of one myself:

  • As time passes, the probability of an article becoming an average article approches 1.

That is true for both stubs and FA's (just look how many were de-featured). Renata 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a wiki - you can edit it :) Raul654 14:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers quest for the main page[edit]

Hi Raul! I was just wondering what your though process is when choosing what appears on the main page, and if Cheers is lacking something I can add/fix such an issue? I ask only because articles such as Bath School disaster, which was only featured March 9th, is already slated to be on the front page (on a day that isn't related to the article, so that would not seem to be the reason for the sudden front page appearance). Cheers, on the other hand, has been featured and with a request up since January 30th. Is the process merely random and Cheers number hasn't come up yet, or is something missing? Staxringold 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am curious about this myself. It isn't clear to me the degree to which the front-page nominations influence Raul's decisions. I don't think he regards them as relevant. A little more insight into how he chooses FAs for the main page would be helpful. Andrew Levine 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I try to service requests in the order they're made (or for the particular date specified), but certain genres tend to be over-requested (anything geeky, for example). TV shows are also heavily requested - West Wing had been on the queue for a while. As far as cheers, I was tenatively planning on featuring it sometime in April.
As far as how much they "influce my decisions" (I assume you mean my decision to promote from the FAC) - it doesn't. Main page featurability is pointedly *not* a consideration at all. There are a very few articles I have promoted to featured status, with the caveat that they will never appear as the main page featured article (specifically, Wikipedia and Caufield Grammar School). Raul654 05:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
By "influence Raul's decisions" I was referring to the same decision as Stax was talking about, i.e. the decision regarding what to feature on the main-page (and whether you take Wikipedia_talk:Tomorrow's featured article into consideration or not). Andrew Levine 06:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly I do, as (I would estimate) something like three-quarters of the articles featured on the main page are there specifically by request. Raul654 07:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
UPdate - I just did a quick count over the last two week's worth of featured articles appearing on the main page. Ten were specifically requested on TFA, and four were chosen by me (71.4% - so my guess of 75% wasn't too bad). Raul654 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I ask only because looking at WP:FA there actually are not that many FAs on American TV shows, weird as that is. As for the "influence", I purely meant what facets of an article you like to see (and does that include a TFA), thanks for the answer! As for Caulfield, I know you've said you don't want to throw gas onto the fire of whether or not high schools meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, but its a shame to see such a great article never Main Page'd. Does this mean that if, god willing, the community supports my baby Hopkins School it wouldn't be Main Page'd either, or is this something specific to Caulfield? Staxringold 12:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur woes[edit]

WikiThanks.png I'd just like to give you a little appreciation for all the work you do at FAC. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on whether Bulbasaur should have been promoted (which is why I didn't support or object), but we all know you were going to get flak either way. Congratulations on completing your own personal Kobayashi Maru. Pagrashtak 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiThanks.png Well said, Pagrashtak, and I completely agree. Deckiller 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiThanks.png I agree you are doing a fantastic job with FAC. I'm just trying to understand a process that I've only recently decided to be a participant rather than just a spectator. Gnangarra 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes[edit]

I'd appreciate your advice about Ted_Wilkes (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log). As I posted at AN/I, I'm pretty sure this is User:DW (here's my comment). I posted a message about it at Angela's talk page, but she seems to be away. Now I'm not sure what to do. I'm not sure on what basis checkusers are decided, but would you be willing to look through the contributions? Thanks. Chick Bowen 14:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Hey, could it be possible to move Frog to March 27th, see, it's my girlfriend's birthday and, ironically, she's obsessed with Frogs. When I saw that the article was featured so close to that day, I thought it'd be a cool birthday surprise (sort of) to have actually it featured on her birthday. She's really obsessed with them, she once almost got her eBay account revoked because she kept telling the people bidding against her for a frog shaped clock to stop bidding. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Easily done. Raul654 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks a lot! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Slobodan Milošević[edit]

Sorry! Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia templates[edit]

Mark, I noticed that you're on the communications committee, so I'll throw this your direction. Do we have any Powerpoint templates for use when giving talks on Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia? If not, any ideas who could put something together? I'm thinking something based on the look and feel of Wikipedia itself (for a Wikipedia template), or Meta (for a Foundation template) would be good.

My immediate reason for asking is that I'm giving a guest lecture on Wikipedia, for a college class my friend is teaching. If I can find a nice template or con someone else into making one, it'll save me the trouble of trying to throw something together myself. On the flip side, if nothing is available and I do make a template myself, I'll gladly donate it for others to use (and improve.) Isomorphic 05:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I gave one of these talks before - I didn't use a powerpoint, I just used Firefox. I'll ask the others and see if any of them happen to have one. If not, I'll be happy to take whatever you provide :) Raul654 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Angela pointed me to m:Presentations Raul654 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Johnson[edit]

I am trying once more to make this article featured (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bruce_Johnson). By my count the vote is 6 to 2 in favor of the nomination. Is this a sufficient ratio for it to be approved? PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Checking user[edit]

Raul, I had the following conversation with Tim Starling, I was wondering if you could check these two users instead as Tim is unnable to: Xtra 02:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

" Tim. User:Lefty on campus has been making personal attacks against me. User:Lefty on campus and User:PSYCH have both been active today. Can you check if they are the same person please. Thanx Xtra 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I take this as a personal attack. Please do not spread lies about me to other people, and have the nerve to accuse me of an attack. Lefty on campus 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC).
Lefty, if these two people are not you, then why are you being so defensive about it? if Tim can find out that you are in fact different people, then everything will be fine. --Bishamonster 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

See above under #Checkuser backlog -- Tim Starling 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) "

Spam blacklist...[edit]

[4] Here's a new addition. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

FA of the Day[edit]

Raul, in light of the fact that the University of Michigan entry has now graced the Main Page, is there any chance Caulfield Grammar School could now be considered as well? There seems to be hundreds waiting in line at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article, but in the foreseeable future is this possible? Please reply on my talk. Thanks. Harro5 23:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. Raul654 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that quality response. How disappointing that my school is just KaDee Strickland in disguise :p Harro5 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

fitting tribute[edit]

Thank you Raul654, for three great years of amazing work and dedication to Wikipedia and its community. Rama's Arrow 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Frank Zappa[edit]

Raul, I just attempted to resubmit this article for FA, and in doing so might have fudged the process. The directions are not easy to follow, and I couldn't find any "leave comment" button, anywhere. If I screwed anything up, allow me to apologise. Until I get some clear direction on how to do this (Nom for FA) I will refrain from doing so. Once again, sorry if I did anything horrible. Hamster Sandwich 21:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zscout took care of you already [5] Raul654 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Cross-linking of images and other media between different language sites[edit]

Hi, Raul! You seem to have written the better part of the image tutorial, but this question is unanswered. How do I use image already uploaded to, say, on another language's project? The usual answer is to reupload them to Commons. I don't like that way personally for the following reasons:

  1. No easy linking to appears to exist for Commons either (Commons:... ?)
  2. A large group of images are already uploaded to language-specific projects and re-uploading them all will create useless duplication and waste diskspace and bandwidth

Hence the question to you (or someone you know): how can an article on Ukrainian WikiPedia use an image already uploaded to the English project? I'd expect it to look like Image:en:....jpg, but that does not work — perhaps, WikiPedia can request MediaWiki to add this feature in the next release?

If such direct cross-linking is not going to be possible any time soon and Commons is the only answer, how does one link to Commons?

And, finally, why can not all images with sufficiently persmissive licenses, which are currently spread out in all language-specific WikiPedias, be transfered to Commons in one sweep? A large set of duplicates can be eliminated and from that point on any projects will be able to refer to any image directly.

Thanks for your time reading this. Yours, пан Бостон-Київський 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

  1. It is (literally) impossible for another language wiki to use files uploaded to english. Files uploaded to the english wikipedia exist only on the english wikipedia and nowhere else. So the only thing you can do is uploaded it to commons or to the ukranian wikipedia (and, for files moved to commons, it is suggested that you ask an admin to delete the original to save space)
  2. Files that exist automatically exist on all wikis. So (for example) look at Joyce Kilmer (and the wikitext for it). The picture exists on commons here -> However, it also has a mirror image page on the english wikipedia here -> (which says: This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below.). To use the picture, you don't have to do anything special - just pretend it was uploaded to the ukranian (or english) wikipedia like any other file.
  3. As to your last question, there is no reason they cannot be so transferred in one large sweep, although people are probably a bit hesitant about using a bot to do it because there's no way to undo image deletion.

I hope that answers your questions. Raul654 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast :-) Here are some follow-up questions:

  1. Is not this feature worth developing? The physical servers are all the same. In my case the English-language wikiPedia has already processed the images, created thumbnails of various sizes, pushed the images to caching proxies. Why does all of this have to be redone for each other language's project?
  2. Ok, so, for files in the commons, using Image:... will work for all languages? That may be fine, except I already have uploaded so much to the :-( But is the file on en a copy or an alias of the file on commons? I sure hope for the latter... Ideally, the HTML-rendered articles would all link to the commons directly. Less ideally, but also acceptable, the language-specific images would use HTTP redirect to commons, so that various proxies will only cache one copy of each image, regardless of the number of its aliases.
  3. Why not? The images will not be deleted, they will be moved to commons, no? At least, there ought to be a button on each media file's page, allowing it to be transfered to commons automatically...

Thanks! пан Бостон-Київський 05:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. Keeping the languages (mostly) independent of each others is a good idea. Overlap should be addressed by using commons as a shared repository. For files that don't meet commons' licensing terms, yes, there will be replication and wasted space, and the developers are aware of this.
  2. Every wiki has a word that refers to media files. On english (and french, among others), it's "image". All links to pictures, music, and movies must use this word. On german, it's "bild". You have to use the local-language keyword. However, you are correct in that the commons image is not copied, but simply aliased. If there's a local language file with the same name as the one on commons, the local language file takes precedence.
  3. I'm not the best person to ask. Ask the developers; perhaps file a report on bugzilla - --- Bug709 is for a similiar feature (the ability to rename media files within a wiki). Raul654 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


  1. I agree, that keeping the uploaded media separate is a good idea. What I don't understand, is why can't one language use images of another. Different language projects can cross-reference each other's articles by prefixing the link with something like en: — why can not media be cross-linked similarly: Image:en: or some such?
  2. I know, but using Image works fine in Ukrainian wiki as well -- it translates automatically.
  3. I read, you have written a bot or two :-) Anyway, thanks for the idea -- I created Bug 5283

пан Бостон-Київський 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Site-wide spam blacklist[edit]

(Cross-posting from your meta talk page).

Hi Raul/Mark, I noticed that you are quite active in updating the site-wide spam blacklist. A few days ago I have added a request to put some frequently spammed Nigerian sites on the list; the details can be found here and here. In the last few weeks, there have been some nasty personal attacks (see this discussion and also en:Talk:Lagos); they even followed me at Meta to mess with the request. I think it would be a good thing if those urls could be added to the blacklist as soon as possible. May I ask you to look into it? Thanks in advance, — mark 07:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely don't like to bug persons more than once in a few days, but I feel I'm being harassed now by one of the spammers, m:User:Peter2 Henry, over at Meta. There are some more nasty personal attacks now at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Racism have to stop, and I would be very grateful if you could remove those in your function as admin over there. I would do it myself, but I'm afraid of pouring more oil on the flames. Thanks very much, — mark 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Tim Starling[edit]

Yesterday, I made the following request of several people listed as CheckUser-privileged:

  • Is anyone currently working WP:RCU? As I type this, the backlog is at 88 requests.

User:Tim Starling made this reply on his talk page:

  • Maybe because whoever it is who invented that page is too shy about telling people to get lost when they make frivolous requests. I don't know what it has to do with me though.

and this reply on mine:

  • Don't spam my user talk page please.

This sort of response—particularly from someone listed here as a "bureaucrat"—is intolerable. Because I happen to have a request at WP:RCU, the intimation that my request is "frivolous" is clear; that and his assertion that I would "spam" anyone or anything are both in direct violation of WP:AGF.

With CheckUser privileges come two attendant responsibilities: active participation thereon, and the presumption that each request is treated as equally valid until clearly demonstrated otherwise. If User:Tim Starling no longer wishes to be part of this process, then his dismissal from this list might prevent teeth marks on newcomers (to his talk page, anyway) in the future.

RadioKirk talk to me 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign needs a Bureaucrat to interpret the election results[edit]

The poll on whether to replace the current Main Page with the Redesign Draft is over. We need a Bureaucrat to look over the votes and render an official decision as to the result. And then to either install the draft as the new Main Page, or assign an admin the task of doing it, preferrably one involved with the project, such as User:David Levy. The poll results are here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page. I look forward to your reply. --Go for it! 01:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear - I see someone has to make the big decision (sigh). Ok, I'll take a look. Raul654 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A brick of common sense[edit]


In honor of this diff I hereby award you a brick of common sense. ++Lar: t/c 07:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets violated Ted Wilkes's probation[edit]

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. Although he is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality" (see [6]), he edited the Boze Hadleigh article heavily dealing with the homosexuality or bisexuality of celebrity stars, thereby denigrating the author and reverting the edits of another user. See [7]. Based on recent checkuser evidence, Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear to be the same. See [8]. As both Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike have contributed to articles related to the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of famous personalities (see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. etc.) thereby violating the probation of Ted Wilkes (see [19]) more than five times, Ted Wilkes, who has wasted the time of many users, administrators and arbcom members, should now be blocked for one year or hardbanned indefinitely, especially in view of the fact that he also seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. See [20]. The arbcom ruling says, "Should Ted Wilkes ... edit any article from which (he is) banned (he) may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." See [21]. On 28 February 2006, administrator Jtdirl admonished Ted Wilkes not to breach arbcom rulings again: "You have now made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling, the two that caused this weeklong ban and the one that caused the earlier ban. If you make 2 more at any stage before the expiry of the arbcom ruling, or its amendment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one YEAR. " See [22]. Onefortyone 16:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber[edit]

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


This article has a picture by the non-community news person... hmm, interesting... in case you hadn't seen it. (although I have no idea why my picture is there). gren グレン 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that picture. It's, um, awful. And the picture was taken by the News Journal photographer who was at the meetup. Raul654 00:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the unblock Raul, I appreciate it greatly. --GorillazFanAdam 00:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

misconduct by Eternal Equinox, re We Belong Together[edit]

Hi -- Sorry to bother you with this unpleasantness, but I wanted to call your attention to misconduct by user Eternal Equinox re Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/We_Belong_Together. The edit history shows both me (Bcrowell/Bcrowell2) and Tsavage complaining about Eternal Equinox deleting our comments. This version of the page


shows my attempts to call attention to the situation (see comments signed Bcrowell near the top of the page, and one signed Bcrowell2 near the bottom). I'm posting here on your user page because my previous attempts to call attention to Eternal Equinox's misconduct have been deleted by Eternal Equinox.--Bcrowell2 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah! I see some people have beaten me here. For how much longer is Hollow Willerding going to be allowed to continue these antics on the FAC page. While I can see the obvious advantages of keeping her where she can be observed, I do think a slap on the wrist (hard) is necessary, and a brief ban from the page (for say 48 hours) would not come amiss. Some leopards never change their spots! Tedious, tiresome woman. Giano | talk 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Raul, please page me if you come to IRC, I'd like a word. Bishonen | ノート 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
IMO, the principle's the same in both instances, using a tactic thinly cloaked in WP guidelines (anti-vandalism) to mess with FAC reviews. Just to be clear, my case was slightly different than Bcrowell's, where I had been logged out, didn't notice, and amended an existing comment of mine under my IP# rather than username, and had the addition removed. I saw the History right afterwards, assumed it was just an overzealous error, replaced my comment (and even posted a polite note to that effect on EE's page). The Bcrowell deletions were entirely more blatant, wholesale and unhelpful. Ultimately, though, "punishing" such behavior is one issue, however, the overall climate of battling in FAC is a larger issue that goes beyond one indictable act, or one person. I point to recent promotions like Celine Dion and...Bulbasaur, after marathon sessions and standing objections, as examples where it can seem that protracted arguing and wearing down of objectors is rewarded, therfore, part of a successful FAC approach. --Tsavage 16:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, I reverted all of the edits left by anonymous editors because I felt as though they were vandals who were attempting to distort the discussion, and both edits were not to avoid the controversy surrounding the article. Both users Bcrowell and Tsavage should have edited while accessing their accounts because other registered contributers may or may not know, such as in this case, where I did not know that the actual editors had written the comments. I feel as though my edits were in good faith, and I do not feel that this message is definitely based on previous accusations of being Hollow Wilerding (which Journalist is able to back me up on). I would also appreciate it if Bishonen did not analyze my every move, which she has obviously been doing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I would like a response from Raul 654. Simply supporting Bishonen because she "says" that I am a specific person is not persuading enough, and apart from that, the primary basis for this post is that I had been attempting to compromise edits submitted by anonymous contributers. The actual users should have edited from their accounts, and I only reverted based on Wikipedia:Vandalism. Therefore, I feel as though my edits were not trying to remove the additional objections from the FAC. I would like a response as per my comment about Bishonen above. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Judging by Raul's contributions, I am being ignored and would like a response. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the above, I'll defer to Bishonen's comment [24] Raul654 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That is nonsense. I would care for you to point out exactly where I have "misconducted" myself and what kind of "culture" has been distorted. I don't believe any of this and am very convinced that this has to do with my residence being in Toronto and accusations of HW, which is also nonsense. Unless specific points of "misconduct" is pointed out (so that I can "correct" my mistakes for future reference), there is no reason why I should oblige to the "ban". —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser Assistance[edit]

Hello, I feel I need some assistance. A user placed my userid in for a CheckUser here Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#PoolGuy_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_GoldToeMarionette_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. I am not a very advanced user of Wikipedia, however after reading the green box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser there appears to be no reason for User:Jayjg to complete the investigation.

I am not sure if I have any Wikipedia Rights, however I feel as if they have been violated. I could understand if I had been acting to violate Wikipedia Policy, however I have not been, contrary to whatever the user who filed for the CheckUser wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would review this and comment back to me. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 04:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll defer to Essjay's comment on the matter Raul654 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We also could use checkuser on the three registered sockpuppets currently suspected at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. Thank you! -Husnock 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add link to Main Page alternates[edit]

We didn't place it on the Redesign draft because it would have caused confusion and division during the poll to replace the main page. But now that the election is over, and many users still want to use the old version of the Main Page, here's the code to insert the link (it's at the top of the header, below - and you'll need to test it in preview to make sure the margin settings work with the Main Page before you save). --Go for it! 15:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page alternates

Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
5,330,180 articles in English

Overview · Searching · Editing · Questions · Help

Categories · Featured content · A–Z index


Impossible! I couldn't have misspelled "Heowever" :) Seriously, I think the Herzog's quote in 6-Day War was added by me. To verify the page number I'll need to check in the library. I don't think that the sloppy anon edit in YKW is mine, but it is possible. Thanks for doing the dirty & unappreciated job. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Crusading Composer Change of username[edit]

Hello, I requested a change of username but the name was taken. I made 2 further suggestions on the same request, but they didn't seem to being actioned. I didn't know if each suggestion needed a separate request so I made a new request at the bottom. You removed both requests - I don't know why? I have reinstated the request, if that's OK.Crusading composer 08:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much. That was quick. Sorry for not making myself clearer on the request page. Cheers.Count Of The Saxon Shore 12:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


No problem, actually. I got my doubts cleared by Robchurch and others. Thanks for your concern. :) --Andy123(talk) 19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


I am astonished that you decided to help me, but I won't question it. Thank you. Beyond that I will try to avoid making comment as much as possible. Everyking 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Raul, I strongly disagree with your unblock of Everyking, and I'm minded to reblock him. The situation with Bishonen was the second day in a row he'd commented on admins' actions. On Monday, he left criticism on User talk:IAMthatIAM, a new LaRouche supporter whose account was blocked indefinitely by Karada because of the user name. Everyking turned up with criticism of Karada on User talk:IAMthatIAM, [25] which was a violation of the arbcom ruling that comments from him about admins may only be posted to the admin's talk page, RfC or RfAr. When I explained this to him and said I was going to revert his edit, he got into a revert war over it, calling my intervention "abusiveness." [26]

There's no point in the arbcom giving admins the tools to deal with disruptive behavior and violation of rulings, if arbcom members (or those on the arbcom list) are the ones to undo the blocks. The last time I blocked Everyking for a violation, Sannse unblocked him 24 minutes later, [27] and now you've undone a week-long block after less than 12 hours. So for two violations back-to-back over two days, he hasn't even served the customary 24-hour block.

When Everyking violates the ruling, he's engaged in deliberate boundary violations in order to test how far he can push, how many loopholes he can find, and how many people he can get involved arguing over him. The only way to deal with this is to issue clear rulings, tell him what the consequence of any violation will be, and then stick to that consequence no matter what his excuse is. In this way, he'll know that he is in full control over whether or not he's allowed to edit Wikipedia. Any other approach is doomed to fail, in my view.

I'm therefore asking you to reconsider your unblock. I have no opinion on whether he should be given a week, but it should definitely be more than 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have agreed to stay out of all this business from now on. What more do you want? Quit calling for my head and let me edit in peace. Everyking 19:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Then quit behaving like someone who's going through the terrible twos and needs to be put in the time-out chair. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I unblocked Everyking because I'm taking him at his word that he'll start abiding by the decision. This would would let him continue doing RC patrol and other useful edits -- everybody wins. If EK fails to live up to his word and again violates the arbcom's prohibitions, then not only can he expect to be blocked for any more violations, but I will be tacking on the 6+ days I unblocked him for to whatever new blocks he accumulates. Raul654 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does this idea of blocking me for a year seem to appeal to you? I'm serious, that's not sarcasm. Everyking 22:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Three minuts after agreeing to "stay out of all this business from now on" [28] Everyking was writing about the "misuse of admin powers" by user:Carnildo.[29] Does everyone agree about what types of comments are prohibited? I told Everyking that if he went 24 hours without commenting on Admin decisions I'd unblock him. He didn't make it that long, in my opinion. -Will Beback 23:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The fault, dear James, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. To wit, you have repeatedly violated the arbitration committee's decision. (The question about whether or not this is willfull obstinance has come up. To be frank, some people have suggested you are simply too clueless to know that what you are doing is wrong; I remain undecided. If this be the case, no one has yet devised a remedy, nor is one likely to be forthcoming) And you have not given us any reason to hope you will reform. And, except for trivial and convoluted statements that you regret being somewhat incivil, you have not even acknowledged that you did anything wrong prior to the (third) arbcom case. (Let's not forget the first two cases either, when you drove away at least one other user, if not more) And you have repeatedly made appeals that waste the committee's already-limited time (hundreds of kilobytes worth) - appeals that have so little substance that it beggars the imagination. And when you didn't get an answer you liked, you simply waited a while and asked again (5 times, in fact). And when we rightfully began ignoring these vapid, time-consuming queries, you began complaining that you were being ignored. Not to mention your constant Let's make a deal attitude during those appeals, offering to be more civil in your carping at other admins if we let you edit the administrator's noticeboard again. (1) I'm am not Monty Hall, and (2) only a fool would agree to that.
So, that leads us to the ultimate pragmatic question - what do we do with you. At this point, I think it's fair to say that you've burned most (if not all) of your bridges -- even people who previously argued on your behalf are now rather irritated (like Bish, who previously, critizied someone for "kicking EK when he's down", is now calling for your head [30]). I also don't think it's an exagerration to say that you are really, really on your last chance here, and that the next time you do something you shouldn't, you're going to get a long ban, and no one will be coming to your aid then. Raul654 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
When people boundary-test, they're engaging in attention-seeking behavior. All this discussion, the unblocks, his begging on IRC, it's all oxygen to him, and it's harming him as well as Wikipedia. His promise to "stay out of all this business from now on," means he will define and redefine "this business" so that he's never quite in violation of the promise, just as he's never quite in violation of the arbcom rulings. I feel the block needs to be reinstated, and we need to agree not to undo each other's blocks in relation to him in the future, no matter what excuses he comes up with. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As my above statement says, if EK again violates the decision, I will not be unblocking him (except to reblock him for the duration of the block +6 days) Raul654 23:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this comment about Carnildo [31] a violation? The ruling says comments about admins may be posted only on their talk pages, RfC, and RfAr. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, I suppose it is (and, by that logic, I suppose he could now be blocked for up to and including a year). On the other hand, I would ask that admins refrain from blocking him for too long, but I won't unblock regardless. Raul654 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that is a violation. He cannot vote on RFA by merely posting "Oppose" since it may be overlooked. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


I tip my hat to you for this statement, and fervently hope that it catches on. People make mistakes, and graceful acknowledgment of them is where most of us go wrong. - brenneman{L} 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Very decent of you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I feel like I should get some kind of "take back" options for my statements because I know that, with over seven months to go until my sentence expires, at some point I might slip up and accidentally violate the ruling, and then I would be banned for an entire year. I have been worrying about this a lot. I have invested an enormous amount of myself in the project for over two years, and the idea that I could be banned from it for a year for some momentary oversight is frankly rather horrifying. Is it reasonable to expect that I might have the option to retract any objectionable statements I might accidentally make and therefore not be penalized for them? Everyking 10:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not like you haven't had 233 chances before this to not be in the situation you're in. If you hadn't had so many chances and willfully disregarded them, a lot of people would be more lenient. Just don't comment about anything that any admin does and you'll be fine. - Taxman Talk 14:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, you aren't responding...I'm afraid if I take this to the ArbCom in general you'll say that I'm being a vexatious litigant, like you threatened, so I had hoped you could just give me a kind of informal OK about this. Everyking 07:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose if it's a subjective case, you could tell the blocking admin that you didn't really think it was criticism of another admin's action, and politely ask him to reconsider and maybe shorten or withdraw the block. However, do you have the right to retract your comment and automatically get yourself unblocked? Absolutely not. So if the prospect of being blocked for a long period of time does horrify you, then as Taxman says, you should make it a point to err on the side of caution. Raul654 07:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, even if you assume that no one would block me for something that isn't really in violation of the ruling (also a point of concern), that I may forget about the restrictions and say something contrary to the ruling. This tends to happen to me fairly frequently. Now, since that last disturbing episode, I am more wary than before, and finding myself clinching my teeth in nervous anticipation when I try to load an edit screen after I've been away for a while, but still, with over seven months to go, I have little faith in myself to keep the ruling so consistently in mind that I never slip up even a single time. So I think I should have the option to say: "I forgot. I'm sorry." and delete my offending statement. This would certainly help me breathe a little easier. It is not very pleasant contributing to something when you know that even the most minor slip-up, regarding something you consider injust in the first place, will result in being ground up into hamburger meat. Everyking 07:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"Oops, I forgot I'm not allowed to do that" is not an excuse for bad behavior. You may ask the blocking admin for leniency and use that as your reason, but it will not be the get-out-of-jail-free card you want it to be. As far as you not being fond of the last chance situation you are in, I really am sorry it has come to this. I'm not fond of using heavy sanctions on users who make good edits, but you really have not left us any other choice. Raul654 08:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
That won't work when appealing to the blocking admin, most likely. I have experience in dealing with how they think. It won't necessarily fail because they think I'm wrong, but rather because they have this kind of "by the books" mentality about ArbCom decisions. So you are telling me to deal with the blocking admin, but I know good and well the only effective thing to do is to get some words on the subject out of an arbitrator—that is what a blocking admin might listen to, not my pleas for mercy. I also feel I should use this opportunity to try to get across to you the concept of how the boldest and most severe admins tend to prevail, because of the way we delegate so much practical authority to individuals (this goes along with one of the key things I've argued against all along, of course, which is the diffusion of power among individuals, instead of concentrating it in collective deliberation); therefore whichever admin blocks me will likely be the one of the least sympathetic and reasonable out of the entire admin population. And this "you really have not left us any choice" business needs to be dropped. That's bait for me to get outraged and start pointing out how the whole case is insane, but I have been trying to get away from that sort of thing, the "I was right, you were wrong" logic. Why can't you drop it, too? Two opposing closed minds generally come away from discussions angrier than when they started. Everyking 09:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom[edit]

I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [32] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [33] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [34], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Change Username[edit]

I would like to have my username changed from Steveo2 to JaredW. I have already created the account, and I have added myself to the "Request to Usurp" list, but I've been #16 on the waiting list for a while. If it's too much trouble, then I can wait. JaredW! 17:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


You removed this from the FAC page a couple of days ago but the article talk still displays it as an active candidate. I'm not sure if it's still open or not: could you iron that out please? Cheers, Durova 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I've changed the template. The process has lag, but you can always put on the appropriate template yourself if you get tired of waiting. Best, Bishonen | ノート 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
Bish stole my thunder - I usually rely on VioletRiga to do the fac-failed tagging, but there's a lag in the process. Raul654 18:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality[edit]


My name is Lou Franklin. We have talked before [42].

The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I know that you have seen first-hand what can happen with the homosexuality-related articles, but this particular article is a disgrace. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.

The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [43]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [44].

I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.

Best Regards, Lou franklin 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just skimmed the article. IMO, it's not stellar, but it's not terrible either. Raul654 08:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It is atrocious. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising [45]. This article falls way short of that standard, and attempts to balance the article are quickly reverted. They actually compared ingesting semen to taking vitamins in the introduction! Lou franklin 10:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Hey. I am sure you would probably notice, but I posted the current difference from the same time frame to the current version of the article. It looks a little more volatile. I do not know what the best solution is, but I think it is obvious that a good bulk of the article has changed. By no means am I saying change is bad... but in this case, the issue of POV has been brought up. I have been trying to keep an eye for blatent vandalism, but hopefully there can be some consensus on how to deal with some of the more specific content issues. As long as we meet our end goal of a neutral, factual article, then I am sure most everyone will be happy with the end result. - Dozenist talk 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"good article" star on main article page[edit]

hi, i wonder if you could comment on the debate at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25 about a new template to be slapped on the *main article page* when an article is deemed "good". it would be directly equivalent to the featured article star on an article mainpage, and suddenly appeared, without prior discussion, on hundreds of articles marked as "good articles". i read your arguments about a similar featured article star with interest.

note the GA process is not currently policy, and was formerly restricted to talk pages only, putting an icon on the main article page itself is the new development). would you consider "good article" differently from "featured article" in this case, and allow the meta-data on the main ARTICLE page? Zzzzz 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no "star" for the good article icon and it is not directly equivalent to the featured article icon! The {{good article}} template places a small Good Article symbol (Plus icon) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN 11:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Raul, you may also be interested in commenting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Icon, where some discussion pertinent to this issue is taking place. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

First that "Good Article" monstrosity, now this, which explcitly admits that it does not work for any skin apart from monobook (including my default skin, as it happens)! -- ALoan (Talk) 21:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Law proposal[edit]

Law: Ignoring all rules is permissable as long as you are right Corollary: The first time you are not right, you will face disciplinary sanction Second Corollary: When you finally face disciplinary sanction for being wrong, all previous cases where you were right will still be evidence against you. Phil Sandifer 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Damaging edit[edit]

I don't know what happened. All I did was to readd paragraph about NetBSD logo removed earlier by someone. Maybe I was editing an old version instead of the current one? I'll be more careful in the future, for sure!  Grue  12:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

about template PakQL1[edit]

hi, you changed the template layout to standart talk and the template is on only 2 talk pages, if the templates on talk pages must have a the standard layout then I think the template should be removed the pages and another template should be added the template you changed is for pakistan related project pages. thankyou

Wolverinetalk 21:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: IBA thingy[edit]

It'll probably only make a difference of a few minutes versus (most of the) the mainstream English media, but it'll will be neat for Wikipedia to beat em, live. Let me try to find out where I stand scheduale-wise before bothering with too many contingencies — since it looks likely I will be around for it. As of now, we have a little less than 12 hours (though, it being delayed by 30 minutes or so is a very real possibility). Regards, El_C 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the kind words. I'm told that ITN isn't election central, which is fair enough in a sense. But for about 25 minutes it was, and it looks like I even beat the (non-IBA) Hebrew newsources by a minute or two (I write fast). /bows El_C 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


It's a khata, a Tibetan scarf given to guests on ceremonial occasions. Everyone at the dinner was given one. Adam 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mexican anthem article[edit]

Raul, you promoted Mexicanos, al grito de guerra to FA status even though it was only at a 75% support level, and furthermore there were only three support votes (with one oppose). I don't believe this is adequate by our conventional standards. Could you please remove it from the list and put it back up for nomination again? The combination of the low turn out and the relatively low percentage of support should invalidate such a promotion, in my opinion. Everyking 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Could I get a response to this? Everyking 05:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure. The nom was on the FAC for the rather-long period of 11 days, which as you mentioned, produced only 4 combined supports/oppositions. The last 4 of the nomination produced only a single comment (which I will address in a moment). So, say what you will about the decision to promote, it was clearly not premature -- the article clearly was not getting any more comments no matter how long I left it there.
As to the decision to promote - the single objection (yours) was that it was not comprehensive. This objection gets thrown around quite a bit, I have repeatedly stated that it's inherently vague. (Yes, hypothetically if someone were to nominate a 5 sentence stub, I would give an objection like this considerable weight, even if it didn't list all the things that could be described. However, that is not the case here). It's impossible to respond to this objection when you have no idea what the objector thinks is missing. At any rate, within 10 minutes of registering your objection, Zscout asked what you thought was missing, and 2 days later Ta Bu reiterated Zscout's question. 2 days after that, (with still nary a response from you), I promoted , for the reasons I believe I hope I have made clear (although, because of the unusually low number of supports, I did check the article myself). Raul654 06:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Comprehensiveness: the article as a whole is shorter than what we generally expect of an FA, and this is especially so when you consider that so much of the article is the lyrical text and another large portion just recounts various constitutional regulations. I have cautiously expressed my concern to Zscout previously that, while it is certainly good to approach these kinds of topics for "systemic bias" purposes, that doesn't mean they should have the bar lowered for quality. This article makes me feel that way with more certainty. I understand the limitations of an English speaker without access to a lot of the sources that would be useful (I know this as well as anybody, having worked on a good many articles where the best sources either aren't in the Internet or aren't in my language, or both), but to me that means that he should do the best he can do and then either try to conduct more extensive research or (more likely) wait until someone better able to research the subject comes along to work on it. I frown on the notion of producing an article that is only the maximum quality possible within the context of the linguistic or geographical background of a particular author, and then calling that featured quality. I'm not sure we'd accept this level of comprehensiveness on a Pokemon character, and this is a national anthem. Everyking 07:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please respond to this? I would take it to FA removal, but with this being so recent and the number of voters so low I would expect you could just reverse yourself without any big stir. Everyking 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wrote that long explanation of my position and I got no response. Wonderful. Well, I'm just going to have to take it to FARC if you're not going to address my concerns. Everyking 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Arbitration[edit]

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

'Notified. Raul654 06:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War[edit]

Yom Kippur War, that article that you worked so hard on, is featured on the main page today! Congratulations. It's an awesome article. deeptrivia (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I think of all the articles I've written, that's the one I'm most proud of. The only downside is this "typo" that everyone seems to fix. I'm getting a tad flustered at having to undo everyone who "fixes" it. Raul654 04:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should link it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Alphax has done it. Raul654 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I also added an internal remark to the effect that it wasn't a typo. JoshuaZ 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed - thank you. Raul654 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know of the word either. I'd have thought it's a mistake by a French guy trying to write English :) deeptrivia (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, getting a bit more on topic, the reason I like it is because it's one of the few non-controversial articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict (/me knocks on wood). Raul654 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the FARC person? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What can I say? A village somewhere is missing its idiot. Raul654 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

James Tuohy[edit]

I know you are a bit jumpy right now because you have a featured article to sheperd, but I wanted to point out that his last modification (modifying your block) was itself vandalism and so should probably be noted on his page for future reference. It appears that you protected his page, so I can't make the addition myself. JoshuaZ 05:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Warriors[edit]

Raul's Laws uses the term "POV Warrior". I just wondered what you meant by that: people who are heavily pushing their POV, or people who are oversensitive to POV and want to weasel everything down? Bathrobe 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's generic, it can mean both, I suppose. However, when writing it, I believe I was thinking primarily of the former. Raul654 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Mitochondrial Creatures[edit]

I'd like you to critique this article, if possible. I think it constructive to recieve an outside opinion on the subject and summerize if its worthy featured article material. -ZeroTalk 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's lacking on two very big FA-related fronts - it lacks a suitable introduction (one sentence is insuffecient) and it has no inline references (although, oddly, the references section uses the list format reservred for inline citation) Raul654 07:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Could I inquire your assistance in developing a more sufficent opening and reference format then..? -ZeroTalk 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I've taken your advice and editted the article accordingly. I'd like it if you could take a look. -ZeroTalk 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2006[edit]

Sorry to interrupt whatever (grin), but "extraterrestrial" is misspelled. I'd fix it, but the WP:TOFA summaries are edit-protected. RadioKirk talk to me 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Er... apologies, but I still see a hyphen in "extra-terrestrial" on that page. Is there a server lag? RadioKirk talk to me 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Smith Chart[edit]

What was the copyright problem with the former smith chart? The one you placed is hardly useful. Afonso Silva 15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The image you uploaded that I replaced is the exact same one I found on google images and uploaded back in my naieve days. Unless you created it yourself, you can safely assume it's copyrighted and someone will get mad if we use it. So while yes, the current ones isn't as useful, it's a lot less likely to get anyone into legal trouble either. Raul654 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It was marked with this: {{PD-ineligible}}

It can be used for images that are inherently ineligible for copyright protection because they are based exclusively on common knowledge with no element of creativity. An example would be Image:F Major key signature.png or things like multiplication tables. If you have any doubts, please ask.

It's trivial work, if it isn't, let's sue all the telecommunications engineers, because there isn't a single one that hasn't used a Smith chart. Afonso Silva 16:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems[edit]

Over a month ago, I posted you a queation on the copyright of the photos of statues. User:Raul654/archive3#Photos of statues. Finally, I have posted a bunch of copyright questions on the talk page of the uploader User talk:Brastite#Images with copyright problems. This user has recieved lots on notes on copyright stuff. Xe has labelled El Greco paintings from 16th century "copyrightedfreeuse" - see User talk:Brastite#Image stuff - and frankly, I don't this user just has uploaded zillions of pics from the net without caring for copyright. Probably we should have everything xe has uploaded deleted, except for those images that are obviously old enough to be PD.

How should one go about to handle this? Report pretty much every image this user has uploaded - no, that is not true because xe also uploaded lots of pics of old paintings which are PD-old, but maybe half of them - on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images? If so, they probably should be brought up all at the same time so people can see the big picture. I am assuming I won't recieve much of an answer on my question, either than the user re-labelling the images "GFDL-self" and such without further explanation. Checking the history of the images that others have brought to the user's attention, this is pretty much what has happened. // Habj 02:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

List them en-masse at Wikipedia:Copyright problems Raul654 02:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole lot - those who have a source and a license (probably false) and those who don't have a source? Or, should the non-sourced stuff first go through the procedure of {{subst:nsd}} + contacting the uploader? // Habj 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You've already contacted the uploader User_talk:Brastite#Images_with_copyright_problems. Give him some time to respond, but if something doesn't get fixed in the near future, bring 'em to CP. Raul654 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I was thinking more along the lines of all non-obvious-PD-stuff that the user has uploaded... but I guess we can start with this chunk. // Habj 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dietrich v The Queen[edit]

I noticed you chose this for tomorrow's main page article, but then you took it down again. Were there any problems with it? I got all excited there for a minute. --bainer (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - [46] (I wouldn't toy with someone like that otherwise; that's not cool) Raul654 05:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, I hadn't noticed that objection. The same editor tagged the page with {citationneeded} ([47]). The source was in the references section at the bottom, and linked to from the infobox at the side, but there was no footnote, so I added the reference in footnote form a short while later ([48]). I hope the article is back in consideration for the main page now. --bainer (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I add a new law?[edit]

The law is this: The speed of Wikipedia's expansion is proportional to the messiness and hostility of it. Corollary: The speed of Wikipedia's change in policy, structure, users, etc. is also proportional to the messiness and hostility of it.--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 07:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Flight of the Turkey[edit]

Raul, if and when you should feel like mainpaging S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897, please let me know and I'll give you a couple of images to choose from that'll look good at 100px, because the lead image is absolutely impossible for the purpose. Bishonen | talk 08:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

Acknowledged. Raul654 20:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Good article template[edit]

Mark, isn't it customary to go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25 and put a box around the discussion to close it out? Not that I am taking sides, but until 5 days ago the vote seemed nose-to-nose. I thought that there had to be a serious majority to delete an article or template. Be careful how you word the verdict, this one is touchy. Chris the speller 17:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 20:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
A couple of us fixed your box (you forgot the tfd bottom, and put the top in the wrong place). Could you also delete the Template talk:Good article, too? Gosh, with the haste, one might think you had an opinion on the nomination.... ;-)
--William Allen Simpson 20:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you could say that :) Raul654 20:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Help at RfA and RfB[edit]

Given User:Cecropia's resignation as a bureaucrat, some huge shoes have been left behind to fill. He's been responsible for 50% (234 of 467) of the admin promotions over the last year. You are the fifth most active bureaucrat in that time frame with 6%. I hope you can step up your activity level at RfA to help cover his departure. All the best, --Durin 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, not bloody likely. I'm already stretched too thin here. Raul654 20:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

removal of {{world}} from abortion[edit]

I was the one who added the template. There is too much US-centrism on that topic as there has been constant debate in East Asia as well, and there is barely any description of the issue there (where it is not merely divided into pro-life and pro-choice factions). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies[edit]

Hmmm, interesting. I'd never heard of it. If I see anything I'll add to it... it'd be good to find the Arabic title... so, I'll try to do that. gren グレン 01:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Has Stranger been so uncivil?[edit]

I saw your vote in support of this resolution and was hoping you could let me know why you chose to do so. In part, I am concerned that its wording may be misleading.

Thanks in advance,

StrangerInParadise 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll defer to the previous messages you have been sent in this regard - [49][50] [51]. Raul654 01:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I should conclude then that,

  • you agree that my UN Wikipedian messages constituted an uncivil attack?
  • the characterization of MarkSweep's out-of-process mass-blanking and mass-deletion as vandalism is uncivil?

The reason I ask is that this is the only issue (and MarkSweep the only specific person) in connection with which (whom) I have ever used the word vandal, whereas the resolution implies that I make it a regular habit of labelling my opponents with it. (This excludes, of course, uses of rv vand in summaries of very uncontroversial reverts). I'll point out that WP:VAND excludes from the definition Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, and that I am alleging, specifically, that the CSD-C1 subterfuge and recurrent out-of-process deletions are prima facia acts of bad faith, that is their bad-faith nature [was] inarguably explicit.

WP:VAND goes on: Committing vandalism is a violation of the Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others. I clearly could not deal with- or even keep up with- an admin using admin tools in a mass blanking/deletion session, so I sought help from others, which begs the question: how could I do so and not call it what it was? Very much to my surprise, finding an admin to deal with this proved difficult, so the argument wasn't simply gratuitous, it was, Hey, this is vandalism, you are obliged to stop him! Even if one disagrees with the conclusion, one should not see it as uncivil to raise the issue, even in the face of resistance.

Thanks again in advance,

StrangerInParadise 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with Mark Sweep's actions (in point of fact I haven't decided where I stand on the issue), they are by no means vandalism. Labelling them vandalism was a bad idea; repeatedly labelling them vandalism despite being told not to is not only a bad idea, but is uncivil and worthy of reprobation. Raul654 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite being told by whom? Every person who has said so (perhaps excepting yourself?) also happened to be a strong userbox opponent. Even if you disagree with my thesis (that this constitutes vandalism), don't you think that to bar utterance of it is to go too far, and why should userbox opponents be allowed to do so? BTW, the good faith/bad faith arguments, or that the resolution is overstated, do either of these things make sense?

Thank you for your continued indulgence,

StrangerInParadise 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Every person who has said so (perhaps excepting yourself?) also happened to be a strong userbox opponent. - their opinions are irrelavant; the fact of the matter is that they gave you good advice, which you promptly ignored. This is vandalism. The edits you labelled as vandalism were not. To say "Hey, Mark Sweep is removing a bunch of userboxes" is one thing; to say "Hey, Mark Sweep is vandalizing Wikipedia" is something entirely different, and (in point of fact) it is simply untrue, as the edits were not vandalism. You were told 'don't do this (label his edits as vandalism), this is bad', and you continued to do it anyway. So it's a little late to complain that you are being cited for uncivil behavior Raul654 04:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a cry for help (in addition to being clearly vandalism). Hmmm. Why are you so certain that this is not vandalism that one should be censured for even saying that it is? Bear in mind that I've not had a single pro-userbox admin disagree with me. I will be very interested in your answer.

StrangerInParadise 04:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you happen disagree with an edit doesn't make it vandalism; conversly, labelling an edit vandalism when it's done by a legit user whom you happen to disagree with is an insult, a slap in the face to the person who made the edit. It's one thing to do it without knowing better; it's something very different to do it despite being told (three times) not to -- that's obstinancy. Raul654 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I like to think of it as consistency. The "edit" in question was out-of-process mass-blanking and mass-deletion, with subterfuge (misuse of C1, falsification of edit summaries). Has this no impact on your view? Have you considered that my view, in the context of Wikipedian politics, constitutes a political view which perhaps should not be abandoned simply because opponents say, don't say that?

StrangerInParadise 04:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry - just because you happen to hold one set of beliefs does not mean you can insult other wikipedians when you want to, especially after being told not to. Raul654 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Told not to by userbox opponents only (and far more than three, BTW, all userbox opponents). How can you characterize out-of-process mass-blanking and mass-deletion, with subterfuge (misuse of CSD-C1, falsification of edit summaries) as simply an edit I happen to disagree with by a legit user? How, in light of WP:VAND (which I quoted above), can my view only be seen as an insult and not at least a reasonable reading of the policy?

StrangerInParadise 05:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Java featured?[edit]

Hi - I'm updating the mainpage appearance date of the articles in Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2005 and ran across the Java article. It seems to have been "promoted" to featured by this edit, which (as far as I can tell) doesn't actually correspond to a WP:FAC discussion. Thoughts? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, you're "new" here, I can tell ;)
Long story short - prior to December 2003, we had 'Brilliant Prose' articles (a self-promoted list of the best articles; roughly equivalent to today's "good articles"). Through November 2003, they were voted on and most were weeded out. The remainder became (in December 2003) the first set of featured articles. When we started tagging articles as {{featured}} in February and March 2004, none of the articles had any corrosponding FAC page; hence, the reason why Java has no FAC page.
For future reference, Wikipedia:Featured articles is the definitive list of what is and is not a featured article. If something is listed there, it is definitely a featured article. Raul654 09:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand all that, but can't find any evidence that Java was ever a Brilliant Prose article, or voted on (I'd expect to see it in Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science). Poking around some more, it was listed at WP:FAC here, added to WP:FA here, and the FAC discussion removed here. It looks to me like user:Sasha Slutsker simply boldly promoted this article on their own initiative. If you have no objections, I'll copy the FAC discussion to the appropriate subpage and transclude it in the proper month's archive. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Old edit[edit]

I removed the link because external links go only in the "External links" section, not in the article body. Of course, this was before the introduction of the References section. CRCulver 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Raul654 09:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article not chosen yet[edit]

Hello, Raul - just a heads up that tomorrow's featured article hasn't been chosen yet. If you get a chance to do so before tomorrow, that would be great. Thanks!Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WBT FAC[edit]

Raul, if now is too soon, when would be an acceptable time for renomination of We Belong Together on FAC? Everyking 00:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say it would be a good idea to wait least 4 to 6 weeks before making another nom. Nor should this be idle waiting either; the time would be best spent responding to (read: fixing) objections made in previous FAC noms and asking previous objectors if they consider the problems fixed. Raul654 00:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you think there are any objections left to address? I think the nom could succeed this time. Everyking 00:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been following the objections, so I'm not in a position to say whether or not they've been fixed (nor am I comptent to say -- I know very, very little about pop music). The best people to ask would be the people who made the objections. Raul654 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

TFA April 15[edit]

Not sure if you're aware or not, so just letting you know, but you skipped April 15 in choosing tomorrow's featured article. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 04:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Doh. Ok, give me a few. Raul654 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Raul654 04:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Great! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 04:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Retreat of glaciers since 1850[edit]

Thanks for promoting the article. If you don't mind, can I add it instead to the section under Geology and Geophysics and change that heading to "Geology, Geophysics and Glaciology"...reason is, and not to be presumptuous, but there are a couple more glacier related articles such as Glacier that I feel can be brought up to a FA level in the near future. If you disagree with me, I certainly understand.--MONGO 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about creating a new meteorology section (or something along those lines), so I have somewhere to put all these hurricane articles too. What do you think? Raul654 09:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Raul...that would be a good idea...I did think that there was at least one recent promotion of a hurricane article. Maybe the heading of Weather and climate as I see a number of articles related to climate that may be brought to FA level if some relatively minor work is performed...whatever works is fine.--MONGO 01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Mark, Is that enough, or do you need anything else? ST 08:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (Hebrew Wikipedia userpage)

Excellent - that will suffice. Thank you. Raul654 08:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Mark. After a stream of vandalism here and on your userpage, I semi-protected the userpage and Bishonen semi-protected this page. Just letting you know... Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

About 5 months ago, I was listening to an interview on NPR. They were talking with one of the cops in New York City whose job is specifically to find and arrest graffiti artists. Apparently the graffiti artists hated him so much, they took a picture of him off the official NYC police website, made a stencil of it, and started painting nasty graffiti with his picture and name on it. At first, he was upset by this, but his boss took him aside and told him 'once they stopped spray-painting their own names and started spray-painting yours, that's the sign you're doing your job well'. Raul654 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi! Thanks for your suggestion about how to get more respondants. So far, I have around 60, and the survey has been out there only for one day. I am afraid that contacting editors in masse will also mean contact vandals in masse. But I will think about it. Thanks again! --Mermes 02:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Hey Raul, thanks for clearing up that IP address incident last night. I guess I should have taken a better look at that IP's talk page before blocking. Anyway, I appreciate your cleaning up after me.

Also, I've been meaning to tell you that you're doing a great job with the featured articles. I've seen how FACs can get contentious and how closing them can be a tough decision to make, but you've shown that you have good judgment when it comes to figuring out which ones to promote. I imagine that that takes alot of time, and causes a fair amount of stress when people start complaining that the list hasn't been cleared lately or that you're unfairly giving extra time to a certain candidate or that you promoted something that you shouldn't have (or vice versa). I'm amazed that you keep up with everything. Don't burn out, and don't forget that there are alot of people that appreciate what you're doing and think you're doing a great job, even though it seems like most of your interaction with people is dealing with their FAC complaints. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) There's no way you could have known it was a shared IP address -- no sense in beating yourself up for being fallible.
(2) Thanks for the compliment. Yes, it does take a fair bit of time, some days more than others. Raul654 05:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article deletion review[edit]

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article Template:Good article for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. -- King of Hearts talk 03:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a reply on my talk page to your comment there on this general template issue. My guess is this issue might develop some and possibly work out more with more talk... and time. But, it's not central to the whole issue of the utility of the GA project, a much more important issue. --Vir 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Where can I request a bug fix?[edit]

Thanks, Raul. Autoblock may be bugged. It ought to unblock as soon as someone unblocks early. Where can I request a bug fix for the MediaWiki software? --Shultz IV 04:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, here, but what you are asking for is unlikely to be implimented, to say the least. (Mapping usernames-to-IPs is *slow* typically requiring 3-4 minutes per query). Raul654 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

URL Rewrite[edit]

Why would making the base URL / be bad? Willshepherdson 04:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it negates other possible solutions, such as (for example) my suggested naming scheme: (to get the Wiki article) (to get the stable article)

The Wiki and stable versions are explicitely identified, and that's a very good thing. Raul654 04:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Though couldn't the 'stable' version be located somewhere else. Such as: for the stable version for the normal Wiki version.

This way it is obvious that the "stable" archived version is different from the normal wiki url. Willshepherdson 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Must not read BBSpot at work, must not read BBSpot at work ... --Bth 09:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of administrator powers by you on Wikipedia[edit]

Please can you unprotect this page. Just because you do not agree with their views or are offended because they have talked about you and your Wikipedia actions on the forum is not a reason to remove the page then stop anyone from re-adding it.

Please do not let your personal views interfere with your role here on Wikipedia, you are damaging it with this kind of obvious POV-pushing.

I also note you failed to list the protection (and supply a reason) on Wikipedia:List of protected pages. As per the Template:Protected you put on the Wikipedia page in your edit, this should have been done. Bob, just Bob 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mistress Selina Kyle - Your spamming of Wikipediareview is not acceptable. I see your latest incarnation has been blocked, and the remaining 26 days of your 30-day ban have been restored. I suggest you use the time for introspection. Raul654 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

April 17 FA[edit]

Hi. I notice that Today's FA for April 17 is the next to be chosen. I thought I'd draw your attention to User:Rodw's suggestion of Chew Valley Lake, as that date is the 50th anniversary of the lake's "official opening" SP-KP 20:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Rush (band)[edit]

Hey there. I think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rush (band) might be ready to be promoted; I believe all objections have been crossed out/reduced. What do you think? — Deckiller 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I was a bit vague. I've clarified what I had in mind...[edit]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#By what process was "Featured articles" added to the navigation menu? --Go for it! 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Request: please restore the Community Portal[edit]

I called for a vote to oppose a reversion that was made on the Community Portal, to request that the version that was there before (actually a slightly modified version thereof) be immediately restored to the Community Portal page. I think enough feedback has been garnered to support that request. Here is the link to the feedback page, and here is the link to the draft itself. The Community Portal is locked in a version that hasn't been on there for months, which almost nobody likes, and this upgrade was already there (having been designed in place). I humbly ask that you place the draft back on the Community Portal. --Go for it! 03:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Once this is done, I'll start working on presenting a proposal to have the Community Bulletin Board placed on the nav menu and simultaneously removed from the Community Portal. It'll just confuse things if I present that proposal while the reversion proposal is still unresolved. So please, help me wrap up the reversion issue. Thank you. Sincerely, --Go for it! 03:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


I hate to be so anal, but please clarify the source by tagging this GFDL-self if you took it yourself. Thanks! -SCEhardT 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Raul654, you need to read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host.2C_blog.2C_or_webspace_provider:

"Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia."

"If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet." 14:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, but it is a long accepted practice for people to upload pictures of themselves, and is not, in-and-of-itself, considered to be problem vis-a-vis the no-webhosting rules. Raul654 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

James Aubrey photo[edit]

Greetings, Raul!
Hope this message finds you well. I observed today that the photo of Aubrey, a featured article, had been removed from his article and that the image (File:JamesTAubrey.jpg) was missing (deleted?). Would you be able to tell me anything about what happened to this image since clicking on its title is a dead-end. PedanticallySpeaking 16:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the page history for the deleted image page:
  • 19:06, March 10, 2006 Howcheng deleted "Image:JamesTAubrey.jpg" (orphaned fair use image tagged more than 7 days (I5))
  • 18:01, March 2, 2006 . . PedanticallySpeaking (remove orphan)
  • 03:12, March 1, 2006 . . Roomba (WARNING: This fair use image has been tagged as orphaned because it is not used inline. If it is not used in the article namespace within 7 days, it will be speedy deleted.)
Direct complaints to user talk:Howcheng Raul654 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit]

Christ, you do that all by yourself? Do you want an assistant or something? That's a lot of work. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deckiller has blocked AOL ISP and me in the process[edit]

Deckiller has blocked the AOL ISP I know this because I use AOL, and his block has effected me. Can you please remove the block promptly, I am in the middle of remodeling the Marshall, Texas article which currently has an inuse notice on it. If not can you remove the inuse notice from the page. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. Raul654 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I checked the log and I didn't see a block by deckkiller on, which suggestly strongly that he blocked some pain-in-the-ass logged in user and that user caused the autoblocker to whack the proxy. Raul654 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it was an autoblock. — Deckiller 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Why is this article protected? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of today's constant edit warring Raul654 01:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a warning to the edit-warriors would serve the same purpose without locking the article. At least one of them has just come back from a ban and would probably take a warning seriously. Alienus 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alienus. What's more, two of those edits (the ones under "of" and "today's") were ordinary edits, and not part of an edit war at all. The only issue here is Pro-Lick removing a photo twice, and Severa restoring it twice. That's hardly "contsant edit warring", and not IMO reason for protection. Unless you object, I'd like to unprotect, so editors may work on the article while we sort out the photo issue on the talk page, where I've just posted a request for more input. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and unprotected. Raul654 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the notice; I appreciate it. If you have any suggestion of ways to improve the article, they would be greatly appreciated. MusicMaker5376 04:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I will keep my eyes peeled. We're also looking for a better recording than the joke we currently have on the page for Beethoven's Ninth. Any points in the right direction on THAT one would rock. MusicMaker5376 06:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Swedish allotment system[edit]

I've done a rewrite, hope it is good enough. Might need some minor grammar checks and maybe someone improving the "prose" as my English often fails when it comes to that. :) – Elisson Talk 11:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I see now that my new intro wasn't clear enough, and the removal of one sentence made it even more unclear. Hopefully this one makes it a little better:
The Swedish allotment system was a system used in Sweden for keeping a trained army at all times. The oldest variant of the system came into use in around 1640, and in 1682 an updated system was introduced. Both systems relied on estates and farms that provided housing, salary and some military equipment for a soldier or horseman. In exchange, all other men in households providing soldiers escaped conscription, and households providing a horseman gained a large tax reduction. The system provided a well-trained, fast-mobilized and relatively cheap army that had large success on the battlefields of Europe during the 17th century, but the system also took its toll on the population. The allotment system was not replaced until the early 1900s, when the Swedish Armed Forces started using a conscription system. (continued...)
Cheers! – Elisson Talk 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the write-up accordingly. Raul654 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


I reverted you at Guqin. Please see the talk page for my explanation. WolfgangH 20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no you didn't (revert me or post an explination thereof)... Raul654 20:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Flight of the Turkey[edit]

Thanks! I put in this image and changed the last two sentences, please review. This image is another good alternative IMO. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC).

The one you picked is good. Raul654 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Really, it's better if OpenBSD is left protected from random schmucks right now, there have been more vandalisms today than the rest of the article's history. Just leaving it marked until tomorrow may be enough. 23:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's true that main page featured articles are subjected to a fair bit of vandalism - however, we generally avoid protecting them unless they are under serious attack (OpenBSD's vandalism was about average for a main page article). At the same time, look at how it improved over the last 50 edits - it's been changed to use the newer (better) cituation style, and the text of the article has gotten better too. Also, bear in mind that featured articles are supposed to exemplify what makes wikipedia great - in particular, this includes being editable by the public at large. Raul654 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I already did that[edit]

Raul, thanks for the hint. I already did that (on Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC before you sent me that message. Also I posted info about the last meetup on meta but no one apparently looks there and this is probably why we only had six people come, there did not seem to be a link from the meta page to the en WP page that I could find when I did that about a month ago. Anyway I am just trying to let people know. If you know anyone who is interested please let them know one way or another. Thanks. Alex756 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Discouraging use of cite.php on Featured Articles?[edit]

It seems that some websites that reuse our content are having trouble rendering the Cite.php markup that is becoming de rigeur for Featured Articles. See here [52] for an example (on a particularly visible mirror site, since is the where Google sends users when they click on "definition" next to a search term). I mention this here because you are an administrator who expressed concern about usting a FA star template on pages because of the possibility (if I recall correctly) that the markup would be visible on mirrors that automatically copy content. Should we start discouraging the use of cite.php in FAs? Thanks. Andrew Levine 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is a technical issue for the developers and/or the mirrors to take care of. I recommend filing a bugzilla report, although it's possible that the mirrors are simply not installing the cite.php extension (I'm not positive) Raul654 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) unblocked[edit]

Looking at contribs, your last block expired a couple days ago and apparently there was a range block. I haven't really seen anything in the contribs to warrant such a block, please let me know if you disagree / have any problems. -- Tawker 08:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Um, are we having a Scandinavian/ice theme month? Antarctica already, then an Icelandic volcano, a Norwegian king, and glacial retreat, before we get to the Swedish balloon, which is followed immediately by the Swedish allotment system... Not to mention that Buckingham Palace, Marshall Plan, Turkish literature, S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 and Swedish allotment system giving five vaguely European-historical topics in a row... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep[edit]

Thanks! I'm glad you liked the quote; I stumbled upon it while doing research for the Signpost and I had a feeling it would resonate with the people who remember/understand what instruction creep really means. Sigh... at least some people understand that "ignore all rules" is about actually getting work done, not a license to be rude, lewd, crude, or socially unacceptable. Good reading about you in the Hockessin paper by the way -- nice work in getting some well-balanced publicity for us! Cheers, — Catherine\talk 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Hey, how far are you going today? If it's up to May 1st, could you get History of Miami, Florida featured on that day? Also, I noticed that if you use every article on the TFA request page, you could fill up every date until May 31, though I'm not sure how your system goes, so it might not be practical for you. Thanks! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just about finished for today, but yes, I'll keep your request in mind. Also, I'm not about to schedule through May 31 - that'd be too time consuming (not to mention that hte longer the queue gets, the more headaches it causes me with people nitpicking at it ;). Raul654 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I guess it would take several hours to put all that together; and having to watch over 40 TFAs for the next month and a half would be a pain, LOL. Hey, Did you know there was a discussion on the main page about getting rid of certain types of articles from being TFAs, but the person who requested it gave up... probably because too many people ganged up on him. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't look now, but it's on FARC. Raul654 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing[edit]

Thanks for the wiki-birthday wishes, Raul. :-) AnnH 23:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 10:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OMG, what IS an Articled Feature? Where am I?[edit]

Raul, you and I were moving Wikipedia:What is a Featured article? back to the lowercase spelling more or less simultaneously. I think I probably deleted yours and created an infinite loop or something. My head hurts. Could you fix it, please? I won't touch any of those pages again. Bishonen | talk 05:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

One would think that clicking once would be enough for me, but I must have clicked the redirect 10 or 15 times, earnestly thinking that the page would magically appear... Joe 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Glad I wasn't the only one going into a spin. Bishonen Tulipface spin.gif talk 09:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

I have fixed it. Raul654 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps - what happened was when Bish moved it, she automatically overwrote and deleted the "redirect", which happened to be the real artice. Raul654 05:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark[edit]

  1. 22:55, 11 April 2006 Raul654 blocked " (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Blu Aardvark range, used for vandalism)

Has anyone ever told you how foolish that is? One user from a range vandalizes your user page, and you block the entire range - thousands of potential contributors - for a period of one month. It's people like you, who make decisions likes that, that are one of the major problems with Wikimedia today. A dedicated troll or vandal can circumvent any block or restriction that is placed upon them, but a potential contributor won't even know to do so. You can attempt to shoot a fly with a cannon, but all you are doing is leaving a massive hole in the wall. I advise you think very carefully about your abusive actions and the effect it has on Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects, such as commons) as a whole. --You know who 14:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There are exactly three other regular editors in that range, two of whom partially overlap with you. I have been in email contact with both of them, and one of them is preparing to file a complaint with your ISP against you (removed) if you continue to get the range blocked. Raul654 16:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Right. Because, you know, established users are the only ones who matter. This is one of the problems with Wikipedia. The newer users also matter, but we like to pretend that they contribute nothing. New users tend to submit valuable content and leave. Old users tend to sit and revert war over garbage such as whether or not Lincoln and Darwin shared a birthday. Which, I ask, is more useful to the project? Second, you run around accusing me of vandalism. Really, the only time I did actually vandalize, it was reverted in a matter of minutes. Little to no harm done. The same cannot be said of the repeated abuses of policy and such that occur on the Cabal level, which permanently damage Wikipedia. You know, such as blocking 50,000 IP addresses for 3 to 24 hours to get rid of a troll, who can just get a proxy if he was determined enough to do so? -- 23:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You cause the range to be blocked, and then you complain about the collateral damage the range block causes. Your hypocrisy beggars the imagination. Raul654 00:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If further information is required about this avowed vandal, it is publicly available at [removed]. BTW, he's done a page move on LART. Banning anons from page moves might be a good idea. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed LART to a redirect, Malber. Why? Because it was a very hideous soft-redirect to a wiktionary page, and because the disambiguation page seemed more useful in this particular case. But sure, you can lie if you like. -- 23:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work Raul. This clown doesn't seem to understand that certain terms of service exist with his ISP, and violating them will get his Internet permissions revoked. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm willing to let him go back to quiet editing (for example, I saw his edits to Lart, but I overlooked them because I thought it was an improvement) and maybe even unblock his Blu Aardvark account, provided he agrees not to vandalize or harass users anymore. Raul654 00:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Level 7[edit]

Hello! I just wanted to tell you that I got my hands on Level 7 last thursday, and was finished with it on saturday two days later, by lunch. It was one of the best books I've ever read; thank you for bringing it to my attention. Jobjörn 14:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Next, you should try David Brin's Uplift Series. Of the (many, many, many) science fiction books I've read, Startide Rising is my favorite. Raul654 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, since it's not explicitely mention in the book, you may be interested in knowing that the weapon described in Level 7 is probably a cobalt bomb Raul654 16:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it[edit]

On Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I came up with an edit conflict, thanks for fixing it. --Easter Monkey 04:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 10:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerks, tiny suggestion[edit]


I may be the only person who nitpicks about this, but (whereas it's April) I think it is time that the conditional sentence regarding the March re-evaluation of the Clerks Office is modified. Personally, as someone who was initially skeptical of the Office, I must admit it seems to have performed well. The final judgment is reserved to you ArbCommers, obviously, and I have contacted you because you added the text regarding the re-evaluation originally. My concern is especially that newer editors might find the outdated text confusing. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And, on a completely different matter, I'm trying to figure out the implication of your having User:David Gerard played by a dead man, Vincent Schiavelli, in Wikipedia: The Movie. :) Xoloz 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinion of the clerk's office is that it has been a limited success, and that the limiting factor is the small number of clerks (who are now swamped, as is much of the arbcom). Raul654 10:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of pending applications remaining. Either ArbCom could do the job of choosing them, or a new Head Clerk could be appointed. I might suggest former Arb. Mackenson for the position, since he has the advantage of recent community approval; or, alternatively, ArbCom could open the position of Head Clerk to willing b'crats, to expand the pool of potential holders for that office. Xoloz 13:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about Vincent Schiavelli - he's the only person who could successfully replicate the self-image David Gerard tries to project ;) Raul654 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft as a front-page FA?[edit]

Probably a crazy idea (think of the vandalisms!) but I have managed to clean up all the daughter articles, and the main one is even 200% better then it was a FA time. Any thoughts? If not, could you critique the article for me? I could use some more suggestions on how to improve it :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 23:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against putting this article on the main page, although there's a relatively large backlog of computer-related main page FA requests (Rule of thumb - computer, sci-fi, and war related requests are always backlogged). Raul654 10:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK - sorry about that - I didn't know :). In that case feel free to take your time, no rush :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 14:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Arty Spotting[edit]

Not to be confused with spotting a stain.....

Article request - Artillery spotting

You said: "I saw your comment to Looper5920. I have an article request that seems right up your alley. I'm putting the finishing touches on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (it will soon be promoted to featured article). On the FAC page for that article, it was mentioned that we don't have an article on artillery spotting. Would you be interested in writing one? Raul654 02:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)"

SimonATL 05:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC) replies in a stream of consciousness, multi-tasking sort of way: Looper - Yes, I'd be interested but Artillery spotting is only part of a much larger picture. What used to be called in WW-II, "artillery spotting" today is considered under a much larger category of Fire Support Coordination (FSC). This would be a much more useful article and here's why. FSC includes traditional "artillery spotting," Naval Gunfire (NGF)and forward air control (FAC). So you can clobber the "bad guy" from land, sea or air and such an article could be broken up into 3 separate parts plus a part on how all three are put together. We could put a redirect for "artillery spotting" right into that article. What do you think? I take it you're a historian, but perhaps, not formally trained in some of these things? I slaved through a friggin YEAR in the classroom at Quantico, VA and then out at the US Army's School of Artillery at Fort Sill, OK. I've been out of touch with some of this stuff as I retired in 98 with 22 years. But the good thing is that the Arty School puts out a GREAT technical mag on Artillery topics and since it's government property, I could draw heavly on it. Also, the same for the other areas. Another thing to consider is the evolution of the whole deal. From some little turk gunner with his little quadrant in a direct fire mode poundin the walls at Constantinople to the Napoleonic age, when things got better organizationally, to the US Civil war with its Federal (Yankee) iron rifled artillery kicking the crap out of Confederate brass canons with their defective fuses at Gettysburg, to the late 19th century when (yes, its hard to believe) the dang French (although they're quite clever in the engineering field historically, right?) invented a pneumatic recoil mechanism that allowed a cannon to recoil, recover from that and go back into almost the same position, allowing for much better control, to target acquisition by binoculars and balloons to locating the enemy by sound ranging, flash ranging and finally modern radar. So, its a fairly complex subject. But looking at your background in engineering, you'd really get off on it cause its a perfect melding of science, technology, mathematics (gunnery) and "violent execution" by artillery, the "King of Battle" as the "red legs" out at Fort Sill are called. Lots of rambling here, but you get my point. A quite interesting topic. Another consideration. To do this right would really require extensive graphics - you know, parabolic arches and stuff and maps of the spotter, the target, the battery and how all that comes together in the Fire Direction Center (FDC). By they way, looper, with your great math/tech/science background you would have been like #1 in your class at Fort Sill in the Basic Officer Course (BOC) and the Field Artillery Cource (FAC). Seriously, you would have sailed thru that stuff. They take the math brainiacs and put them RIGHT in that FDC where they call the shots and the Army LOVES the HELL out of good gunnery officers. You have NO idea how much and how FAR these guys can go. I was more music/art than math/science, so I had to "make" myself study the stuff, but I got good at it, actually and became an FDC inspector for a time, double-checking for their accuracy.

So, let's discuss the breadth and scope of this stuff. By they way, I couldn't help but notice that you're kind of at the top of the wiki food chain and probably inhabiting some secret temple on Wiki Mt. Olympus. Just how did this stuff evolve as far as it has? Its really quite sophisticated, IMHO (well, Marines have a hard time being humble) anyway, how do people become editors, admins and the like?

I've written a fair number of articles, including some totally new stuff and my background in ancient civilizations, Latin, some Greek, etc, has been helpful - dude - even Wiki articles in Latin! Anyway, as a medieval (sp) dude stuck in the 21st Century, Wiki is right up my alley, and unlike too damned many people, I can actually write a coherent English paragraph and some Spanish and French too boot.

Do you dudes have like Wiki conventions where you wear like the wiki version of Star Trek costumes and have Wiki groupies and hangers on? I mean what's the extent of this wiki culture? Call me some time. You can email me at SimonATL (at) cause I'd like to take about 20 minutes to get my hands around this whole wiki universe. I've been too busy editing in English, Spanish and Latin to notice much of the background wiring in the walls and cultural/political stuff like that.

Hey, you're the featured article guy. Then you'll notice how much I've expanded the Theodore Roosevelt article and ALL the TR-related articles, subject matter wise, much more interesting photos. Others like that Lee guy did the footnoting. I also added the entire section on his trip up the River of Doubt in 1913. And know what, because of all that work, and my writing an article on the Theodore Roosevelt (TRA) organization and on TR's great-great grandson, Tweed Roosevelt, I came to the attention of the Roosevelt family and they invited me to become a member of their Strategic Advisory Board to look at how IT and the Web can help them. So, you see, sometimes there are unintended consequences and I'm SURE you've had yours. Do like have Wiki groupies? Just kidding! Anyway, I'll help, but I've burned up so much time, I'll have to allot my hours, dig? thanks SimonATL 05:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC) All I understand at this point is that this dude had a great idea. I think Wikipedia is right up there as on of THE single great invention - as in the IP protocol, the Web, Web browser and Google/search and people like Bill Gates and Larry Elison (sp), ok, I'm lying about those two!.

PS - Dude, I clicked on your fan club link and nearly fell off of my chair laughing my proverbial ass off - that's funny as hell!

Retrieved from ""

First, I think you might have me confused with Looper5920 - he's a totally different user ;) The reason I mentioned him in my message was your comment, where said to him that you were an artilleryman, is why I thought my request would be up your alley.
I'll defer to however you want to write the article - you're the expert so it's only proper that way. As I said on the featured article candidates page, I know vanishingly little about the subject, so I will not be of much help in writing it. I wasn't even aware the term itself was dated, but your idea of making artillery spotting a redirect to the more modern concept of Fire support coordination strikes me as a good one. If you think structuring the article chronologically would be the best way of doing it, that's the way it should be done. However, scope should definitely be a consideration - you don't want to replicate the contents of, for example, the artillery article. Now if you want illustrations and diagrams, you *cannot* go wrong with Inkscape - it's free, powerful, and fairly easy to use (especially if you spend 15 or 20 minutes doing the interactive tutorials). I'd be willing to try my hand at doing the illustrations for such an article, if you provide me with descriptions of what the illustrations you want.
To answer your other questions - I'm not a historian, but american and (modern) military history is a hobby (Besides CNN/MSNBC, the history channel is probably the one I watch most). And yes, I've been to Wiki-meetups. With one exception ("Wikimania" - the world-wide Wikipedia meetup organized by the Foundation) they tend to be small affairs of about 5 to 15 people, usually done at a restraurant over lunch or dinner. You can see a list of previous ones at wikipedia:meetup. Nobody dresses up, unless wearing my Wikipedia hoodie counts.
As far as the culture, Wikipedia has evolved as a true meritocracy - someone who shows himself to be capable of doing a job well tends to be left in charge of that job (And, as David Gerard noted - "On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs.") In my case, for example, when we switched over to the current main-page layout in early 2004, the featured articles suddenly went from being a rather obscure backwater area of wikipedia to being very prominent. There were the obvious short-term needs (like some way of saying which article was going to be on the main page for each new day) and then there were the less-forseeable long term needs (for one person who could offer an authoritative opinion on featured-article related issues). I sort of "fell into" that role - I started doing it, no one complained, so I kept doing it. Wikipedia's culture has been influenceed by a multitude of other factors too, some philisophical, but many stemming from the specific experiences of the project (case and point - the arbitration committee). I'd be happy to go on about the subject in private.
When I put it on the main page, I did notice the TR article was quite good, although I didn't check to see who was responsible. Excellent work - I'm glad to hear they like it too. Raul654 08:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article[edit]

When the Joan of Arc article is featured on the main page on the 16th, I assume it will be protected from editing? The current main-page article, Equal Protection Clause, is being swamped with vandalism which began promptly after it was put up on the main page at 0:00 UTC.

I thought the procedure was to lock such articles during their 24 hours of fame, in order to prevent this problem?

No, we avoid protecting the main page featured articles (unless it is absolutely, positive necessary). See user:Raul654/protection for the explination. Raul654 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it may be necessary for the upcoming Joan of Arc article, which receives a fair amount of vandalism, insertion of strange ideas, etc, even under regular circumstances.
Well, that's par for the course. Absolutely, positively necessary means something along the lines of 5 or 10 vandalisms per minute using the log-in-log-out vandalism technique, sustained for the better part of an hour. (And if that sentence doesn't make sense, trust me, it's not a common situation) Raul654 13:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Would have to agree about the definite increase in vandalism. The minute the article on Theodore Roovevelt was featured, ka-blam, a zillion vandalizations. Equally interesting, on the next day, the vandalism was greatly reduced. I think its some juvenile, "look what I can do!" thing. SimonATL 01:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you feel actual physical nausea every time this comes up again, Mark, or is it just me? ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably just you BoG. You're not feeling nauseous are you Marcus Pelargonium (as we don't say in the old homeland). Anyhow, you know my views on the subject - I just shudder with horror when I envisage what will happen to BP on the 21st, is it fair to an old lady like HM? - ("God Save Her" indeed - she will need all the help she can get) which brings me neatly to Sanssouci can we have it soon - it's a real Wiki collaboration of minds and strangers. All that Wiki should be! Per favore. Li elemosino (as we do say in the old homeland) ;>D Giano | talk 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
BoG - repeatedly typing "No, see user:Raul654/protection" has caused me one type of physical pain ;) Raul654 00:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Fpopages[edit]

Template:Fpopages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (I am telling you because you have edited it). Batmanand | Talk 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry rush of blood to head. Ignore it. No longer listed. Batmanand | Talk 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please come up with some award like the Purple Heart[edit]

But not the actual award. Think about it! It always given from a wound to a US service member and, unfortunately, it often is given for some horribly agonizing injuries suffered by good men and women in the service of the US military. Can't we use something else? I don't think its continued uses says much for our sensitivity to other people's pain. Sure, we use the word in the course of everyday conversation, but let's not trivialize it. No amount of Wiki "pain" and "suffering" can even approach what I've actually seen in the lives of some of these people. Consider our own article (that I assisted in developing), for example on Lewis Puller the triple amputee son of Marine, Chesty Puller who, despite his best efforts, couldn't overcome his Vietnam war wounds or the other scars that experience gave him. Let's come up with something LIKE it, but not it. Maj Simon USMCR. Thanks. SimonATL 01:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that it trivializes others' pain, but I have gone ahead and removed it anyway. Raul654 18:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)[edit]

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Guqin Recordings II[edit]

I've recorded and added three of my recordings to the guqin article. Hope they are fine. I might add more later when I get the time. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 16:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Exellent. Raul654 11:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see you got some sound samples on Guqin. I had a couple of questions - (1) Did you have any problems taking hte samples you recorded, converting them into ogg, uploading them, and linking from the article? Is there anything in the documentation that could be improved? (2) Now that I can hear what a Guqin sounds like, I am extremely curious - what would Pachelbel's Canon (my favorite piece of classical music) sound like on the Guqin? Raul654 11:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

  • There weren't any problems recording, converting and uploading the recording. I used Audacity. Mostly copied what other articles have done to link them to wiki. As for transcription of Western pieces into Qin music, that is easier said than done. Transcriptions from other genres into Qin music usually yields poor results; like trying to fit a square into a circle. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 11:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Learning to use Vandalproof[edit]

I just didn't catch it! I was reviewing the VandalProof recent changes screen & this edit popped up so I reverted it. I have a dial-up (=very slow) connection because of which I didn't probably didn't see that edit in the recent changes refresh.


Flag of India.svgSrikeit(talk ¦ ) 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(P.S I think your talk page archiving is long overdue. I just say this as my dial-up took nearly a minute to load your page!)

Torchic FAC 1[edit]

Dear Raul, an article I nominated recently (which has received a lengthy debate) was removed from the nomination page, among others. I was rather suprised, I didn't find out myself, someone actually told me. The nomination was too short to reach consensus and, after shorting out some problems, was beginnning to receive support. Apologies if you feel like I'm blaming on you, I noticed your never left an edit summary so it easily could have been a mistake, but it just isn't right. If you could please revert this it would be deeply appreciated. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the the lack of an edit summary - I occasionally forget to leave one when promoting or removing nominations from the FAC. Also, about notification - I usually leave facfailed tagging to others.
Beyond that, the discussion was on the FAC for 5 or more days, which is the standard length of time an article stays on the FAC before being removed. I also must disagree with your assertion that it was reachign a consensus - there were numerous objections, and I didn't single a single support. Consequently, I do not think putting it on the FAC would be productive. I suggest you resolve the objections that have already been made (to the various objectors' satisfactions) and then renominate it at a later date. Raul654 11:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you actually see how many of the objections were "this isn't notable"? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 11:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I did see those, and I didn't take those into account. There were, however, numerous legitimate criticims made. Raul654 11:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The remaining objects were by Titoxd, who is on wikibreak, and the others were all being discussed. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 11:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, those problems might be under discussion, but suffice it to say, there are a lot of them and the article is apparently in need of a fair bit of editing. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Torchic is already one of the longes,t most drawn outpages I can ever remember seeing on the FAC. FAC is not the place for doing significant overhauls of articles. So, as I said, please address teh problems that have been cited, and then renominate it again later. Raul654 11:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
All the problems had been fixed. Fine, I don't care, apparently Pokémon FACs only pass on the third attempt. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I also object to this being closed so early. If the discussion is long and ongoing, that's not a bad thing. Everyking 08:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured List canidate[edit]

Hi. Raul, could I ask you take a gander at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mega Man weapons (2)...? I seem to have fixed everything amiss that's been brought up with the list, only to see no one has changed thier vote. I contacted them both on thier respective talkpages, but no sucess. Could I ask you to intervene...? I truly believe this list to be fit for featured list status. -ZeroTalk 11:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rudeness and WBT[edit]

I am not being rude. Personally, I believe that at this point most of the objections are picky and simply adding "extra spice". I am attempting in every way possible to address these objections, no matter what my opinion on them may be, that being good or bad. However, although I'm sure you're not interested, and will ignore this, I should alert you that HeyNow10029 and I are experiencing an edit war at Kelly Clarkson, and I think her objection is based on this, as it was last time. If you require elucidation that this may be the reason, see her comments at the current FAC for WBT. She is ignoring my suggestion and ranting about the bolded comment I made. Thank you and thank you, regardless of your decision(s). —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misconstrue what I said. I objected and gave reasoning for my objection, you're taking all of this way too personally and making allegations against other people, it's uncalled for. HeyNow10029 00:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate for spam blacklist[edit]

Raul, several anon IP's are persistently attempting to replace the official link for the Russian G8 summit with a link to a domain squatter [53]; can be added to the spam blacklist? For now I have the article semiprotected but would rather not have to do that for long. For more details see WP:RFP and the G8 article. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your amazing effort in raising (pun intended) Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima to a FA status. Superb work. Hbdragon88 05:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I added some refs and then went on vacation - when I came back, I was stunned at the added information and references to the article. Superb work. - Hbdragon88 05:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture to Commons?[edit]

Hi, I am translating the article about Attack on Pearl Harbor to Norwegian, and would like to use this map of the air attacks, is that possible? Can you move it to Commons? Ulflarsen 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the pic (plus some others) on Commons, so I managed myself. Ulflarsen 14:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Hey there. I am going to be giving a presentation giving a general overview of wikipedia at a university nearby. Hopefully this will increase the popularity of as well as other wikis.

I was told that you are practicaly an expert in giving presentations explaining wikipedia so I was wondering if you could hint me where to start. Hopefully you wont find my direct aproach unconfortable.

--Cool CatTalk|@ 01:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends very much on the point you are trying to make. I always start out with an introduction of what Wikipedia is and a general overview of how it works. Important points to make are:
  • Wikipedia is a popular internet encyclopedia website. It is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
  • Wikipedia is based on "wiki" software. Wiki software was invented by Ward Cunningham while on a trip to Hawaii. Wiki is hawaiian for "quick" (it's also the name of the bus service he used while on the trip). Wiki software is excellent for collaborative document editing.
  • Wikipedia's model is counter-intuitive, or (as one unknown person put it), "the problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it's a disaster". However, numerous external peer reviews (Wikipedia:External peer review) have shown that our content is, on the whole, comparable to most other accepted sources.
  • One of our primary missions is to make everything open and freely redistributable. That is to say, you can download the whole database and use it for more-or-less whatever purpose you want.

Beyond those points, it really depends on what the purpose of your talk is. I usually mine as a question-and-answer session. Raul654 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to prepare a powerpoint presentation. I was wondering if you had some I can disect. I'd love to have varisous statistics and graphs. --Cat out 11:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not, but there's a page on meta where others have put theirs. I cannot remember where it is off the top of my head. Raul654 13:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Presentations and m:Presentations. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent :) Raul654 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, sorry. Obvious oversight that. Marskell 15:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured content[edit]

Hello Raul654, I have left a short note at the end of featured content's talk page. You might want to voice your opinion on the matter. Shyam (T/C) 19:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[edit]

Why did this FAC fail? Every objection was dealt with and there was lots of support. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right - I made a mistake. Raul654 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
So how long will it stay listed? It seems like the conversation has died down. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll look at it again soon - I'm not going to let it hang there forever. Raul654 20:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Just noticed that the FAC nomination for Singapore was just removed from the FAC list and no promotion nor archival occurred (though I asume that the latter was intended?). Tganks. — TKD::Talk 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't see it in the archive - I'll take a look into it. Raul654 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. I had meant to restart the nomination (I wasn't happy with how it was proceeding). Raul654 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

FA Policies[edit]

I think you're really going to have to weigh in on the discussion, and decide if the procedures that Featured Article selection runs on are Policy, Guidelines or Essays. Since people are treating them as "policies which don't need to be policies". --Barberio 19:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied on talk:WIAFA. Raul654 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


am i allowed to delete things off of my talk page? Slasher600 02:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Just a note: A vandal messed with the image, and, as such, OrphanBot took note and tagged it as having no source. You probably want to retag it as {{GFDL-self}} or provide source information to keep it happy. — TKD::Talk 11:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Chicken in the pot believed compromised[edit]

SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Tongue.png שכחתי את לחיצת היד הסודית אז זה צריך להספיק

Ambitious work on {{Template:Communism2}}[edit]

Although it may be ill-guided, I am working on making all Communism-related articles use the template I recently created of {{Template:Communism2}} rather than the traditional {{Template:Communism}}. Please assist me in making this change, as for some reason v-protection is used against {{Template:Communism}} and I cannot edit it. Thanx --NicAgent 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note re Brad Patrick[edit]

Hopefully he will be in a position to say yes to that latter request. Pcb21 Pete 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking O^O[edit]

It wasn't just his attempted DOS. Read his contributions. See also, [54]. --Gmaxwell 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He's wrong about Danny, but people aren't blocked for being wrong. I don't appreciate his edits wherein he implicitely called me a liar, but I'm being forgiving here and I hope he'll stop.
As far as the blacklist workaround, I've already reported it on bugzilla. He changed the links on that talk page so the page was editable (it was triggering the blacklist). I was going to remove (or otherwise break) the links myself, but he beat me to it, so I don't see any harm in what he did. (Frankly, I wish he had let me know this weeks ago so I could have gotten it fixed the first time around.) Raul654 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
(conflict) Oh, I see how you missed this before ... he removed the prior warning [55]. OH. Did you read the link? he restored the links back to the article several times after he was instructed to discontinue. --Gmaxwell 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The timeline, as far as I can tell, is that I added wikitruth to the blacklist (16:22, 26 April 2006 UTC), he edited the wikitruth talk page so that it wouldn't trigger the blacklist (thus allowing people to edit it again), and you warned him a few minutes later. Avoiding the blacklist is bad, but I don't see any repeat offenses, and I don't think doing it so as to allow people to edit the page is bad (I was trying to do the same thing myself, although I would simply have broken or removed the links). Raul654 22:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure he did, [56]. --Gmaxwell 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hrmm... that's problematic, but (IMO) I don't think it warrants a permanent block. Protecting wikitruth (which someone did) was a good call, and perhaps it might have been a good idea to give O^O a short cool-down block. Permanently blocking him is (again, IMO) not a good idea - it seems like an overreaction against someone who was espousing an unpopular (and wrong-headed) opinion. As I said below, I'm trying to calm the situation down, and this isn't the way to do it. Raul654 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed Wikitruth from the blacklist[edit]

Hopefully you arn't too offended - I did it in order to kill this overly-useless edit war fow now. People will resist less when there is something more definate. If you have a problem, let me know. As a side note keeping up with this site is as hard as keeping up with the latest programming language at times... so, I'll leave it to you for now. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Had you actually been interested in ending the editwar, as opposed to pushing your position, your actions should have been to simply do nothing because the page had been protected. Instead you unprotected the page to restart the conflict and sabotage the efforts to get a discussion going, then used that as an excuse to revert an edit made with the support of our attorney. In any case, it doesn't much matter because you're not going to be allowed to pull a stunt like that. --Gmaxwell 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Take it easy, Gregg. Amgine has reverted the blacklist on meta. I'm ducking out there and probably from the wikitruth talk page too - apparently my actions have inadvertantly started a forest fire, and I'd prefer it if everyone calmed down. RN - ditto - while well-intentioned, I think your actions are only going to inflame the situation. Raul654 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Very well, I wish this thing would end - it is very distressing. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for distressing you, but I believe your actions were really out of line. It did not appear to me that you had any intention of discontinuing, but now that you've made it clear that you will I apologize for being so blunt. --Gmaxwell 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Now if only the rest of this situation could be thusly defused... Raul654 22:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gmaxwell. Also, Raul if you think I was really out of line and it would help the situation I can submit myself for deadminship, as I don't use the extra abilities much anymore anyway (although I guess that would remove my meta adminship too....). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I don't expect admins to be perfect; merely be able to recognize that they might have made a mistake. That's exactly what happened in this case. Raul654 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot bot flag[edit]

Hey there, Cydebot (talk · contribs) has been approved for a bot flag and I was wondering if you'd do the honors. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! May Cydebot delete a thousand userboxen in your name. --Cyde Weys 15:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Can you please come up with a stability requirment that is comprehensable to you, and does clearly state what you mean by stability? At the moment, it's a self referentaly defenition. --Barberio 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what is wrong with the current "Doesn't change much from day to day" defintion. It is most certainly not self-referential. Raul654 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you're not making any exceptions for what you've said in talk page discusions on what would be acceptable. For example, at a plain reading, the section does bar current event articles even if they are updated in a reasionable manner. --Barberio 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If a current events article is being in a "reasonable manner" (by which I presume you mean far, far fewer edits per day than, for example, this article) then I see no way that that requirement could bar them. However, the other requirements also specify that it doesn't omit any significant facts/details, which are often lacking from breaking events. Raul654 20:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If it fails on the other requirments, then it fails on the other requirments. But it shouldn't fail due to a vauge application of the 'Stability' requirement. --Barberio 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You are the only person who appears to think it's vague. In point of fact, stability issues do not come up often, and when they are valid, it's usually abundantly clear that an article is not stable. Raul654 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC and FAR[edit]

I was wondering if you had any comment on the current suggestion to merge WP:FARC and WP:FAR. There's a lengthy discussion on the FARC talk page at present and some significant (though not unanimous...) support. Marskell 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the discussion, but I haven't been reading it closely. I am hesitant about the proposal - it seems like it might be a case of burning down the house to roast the pig. Raul654 08:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you do it up with pineapple and veggies...
The verbiage attending may seem to make it more complicated than it would be in practice. The quick notes in favour: solves the review period on talk page issue; should be less antagnostic; the weird act of nominating for removal something that you don't actually want removed would be avoided. Nothing actually gets nom'ed for removal. It gets brought up for review, with removal being one possible outcome. Marskell 14:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's a summary User:Marskell/Featured Article Review. When I first wrote it it was longer and really didactic but I've edited so that it's not straightjacket (I hope); obviously any detail can be changed, but the basic idea is to bring the review period into the process. For example, Worldtraveller's comment that he didn't want to wait longer to actually starting getting feedback wouldn't be an issue. Note, there are two alternatives for the last section. Marskell 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that makes it much clearer... I'm starting to warm to the proposal. Raul654 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I do have to say this seems incredibly obvious in hindsight. FARC isn't working as few are following the guideline of working things out on the talk page first. In a single page we can handle improvement and removal with the minimum of process and the least hostility. There are minor details to work out, but it seems a step ahead. - Taxman Talk 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
And glad you found the Userpage more enlightening. I think I may have come out of nowhere and been over-eager, making it seem radical. At essence it's simple: as Tax says, improvement and removal in a single page. Marskell 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Arb Case Mistake[edit]

Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.

In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WP:CITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:

Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from [Evidence] Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [57].

I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.

I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 15:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't participate in your case. However, your edits to the page do not contain sources, and the link you provided to the talk page (the one you claim contains your sources) doesn't actually contain sources either. Raul654 15:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for information.[edit]


A year ago this week, you redirected Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitration Committee noticeboard to its parent page. I was looking for all possible discussion boards within the "project space" when I noticed this. Could you please explain to me the rationale for this decision? You made a reference to Requests for Clarification in the edit summary; however, I could use some clarification on that. Cheers. Folajimi 15:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification is a section on the main RFAr page - see here Raul654 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this considered the new notice board? Folajimi 16:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand the question. The arbcom noticeboard was shortlived, and was used exclusively to do what hte current requests for clarification section does - allow people to request clarification of our rulings. Raul654 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You did an excellent job answering a question you did not understand! :) My intent to include it in the list of noticeboards used for the project is pointless since its raison d'être has been Overcome by events. At any rate, thanks a lot for your responses; it is greatly appreciated. Cheers. Folajimi 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob McEwen[edit]

Greetings, Raul!
Hope this message finds you well. I've put a notice on the talk page for Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article asking that my suggestion Bob McEwen not be featured until I can update it. I have been working on other things since it achieved featured status and there is material from the campaign that should be included. In addition, next Tuesday is the primary election and I'd like to include that as well. I will let you know when I add this additional material. PedanticallySpeaking 15:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I was considering asking you about this. (Was it this edit that dropped the hint?) I was going to schedule for May 8 (and even did the write up, which is sitting here on my desktop ask I type this), but I saw that there's a primary on the 2nd so I didn't feel comfortable scheduling it until the article is updated. Raul654 16:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Image deletion warning Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion on its entry.

Heinlein Template[edit]

Hello. I'm not going to change your edits back again. I would just like to understand further what this policy is, as obviously edit summaries can't explain what you mean exactly. The reason I ask is because I have added this to other templates and will take them down if I am conviced that it violates policy. Thank you, Chuck 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from creating an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia's main mission is to make the database re-usable outside of wikipedia (for other sites, like, for example). This necessitates keeping Wikipedia-related designations ("metadata") out of articles and templates used in articles. While the policy hasn't always been listened to (e.g, in the case of stub tags), I do try to remove any new instances I see - in this case, the Heinlien template. Raul654 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me...thanks, Chuck 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article question[edit]

Good day Raul. I read your comment on the AfD for the PATRIOT Act article concerning using an article's featured article status as a basis for an AfD vote. Would you please elaborate for me? I'm unclear what you are referring to when you said "That perspective turns wikipedia policy (that any AFD-survivable article can be featured) on its head."

My vote was not saying that articles that are kept after an AfD vote can become featured. It is the other way around here -- a featured article being sent to AfD. Though I'm active on Wikipedia, I confess that I have not spent time in the featured article area, so I'd appreciate more information.

When I saw the article on AfD, I looked at the article and saw that it had featured status. From the featured article page, I read: "The featured articles are what we believe to be the best articles in Wikipedia. Prior to being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria." I interpreted that to mean that the article had been reviewed, and consensus had been reached that it not only qualified for inclusion in Wikipedia, but it was one of the better articles in Wikipedia.

From the time of reaching featured article status to the time of AfD tagging, the article had only 3 edits - fixing linking to the House of Reprentatives and Senate judiciary committees, and "have an adverse effect of" to "hurt". So, to me, it was essentially the same article that reached featured status.

I look forward to learning more. Thanks. —ERcheck @ 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy we have adopted, vis a vis featured articles, is that any article that can survive AFD can theoretically become a featured article. It seems absurd then, to use an article's featured status as a defense against being deleted - it turns that policy around 180 degrees. Raul654 00:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I don't agree that it turns around the featured article concept, but rather honors it. Even though you don't expect to have FA act as a screen for an article being encyclopedic (i.e. not AfD), there is still peer review and consensus of those who participate that the article is a good article, in fact , as described in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, "our very best work." It would be unseemly for an article that was given FA status to then be deemed worthy of deletion — would make that bronze star meaningless. If an article is one of the "best articles in Wikipedia", one should be able to assume that means it meets all of Wikipedia's policies — NPOV, verifiability, and No OR — and be worthy of existence. (I see that a number of Wikipedians who have weighed in the article also see FA status as important in their vote.) NPOV and verifiability are explicitly mentioned in the FA criteria. In the specific AfD that brought this up, the nomination is based on OR, which I would expect to be addressed by FA review. I acknowledge your objection, but also have a basic faith that those who review FA are steeped enough in Wikipedia policies to take note of OR. —ERcheck @ 01:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said on the AFD page, the FAC checks for most things - including NPOV, NOR, 'etc - but the articles there are *assumed* to be "encyclopedic" (because I DO NOT want the FAC to became a second AFD). This assumption only makes sense if we are willing to, in principle, allow AFD nominations independent of the FA process (e.g, where FA status is not used as an argument in favor of inclusion). Raul654 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Message,[edit]

Excuse me, May I ask you about something? I have a question about the way of finding new Wikipedian to send welcome message. Because I want to give new person(Who becomes wikipedian) a welcome message. Please, COuld you explain to me how? I will wait for your response. Daniel5127, 01:42, 2 May 2006(UTC).

Replied at User talk:Daniel5127#Finding new users to welcome. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Rick Block stole my thunder :) Raul654 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fan edits[edit]

Greetings Raul! A few months ago I ventured into the dark, murky world of Resident Evil article editing. Resi has a massive fanbase as you are probably aware. At the time I completely rewrote and cleaned up Nemesis (Resident Evil) it was fairly good. More reliable, canonical content would have been appreciated, sure - but it was good. I speculated that it would be flooded with misspellings, misinformation, speculation and other such evil phenomena...anyway save for the occansional visit I left the article alone for awhile, and just now got around to a decent examination. The cynicism was justified, as a fully fledged comma whore has canvassed much of the article, as have dozens of other eager fans just wanting to make a difference. Now aside from a bit of sneak vandalism (now removed), these guys/gals have edited the article in good faith. Always assume good faith; Nemmy's article is a fine example of the workability of this assumption!

However, I was pondering the situation to myself as I partially cleaned up the said article - If an article subject is popular...but most of those likely to edit have good intentions but aren't experienced with Wikipedia/grammar...then what is the answer? I could camp the article, however many of the canonical details I put in are edited by misinformed persons, Ie. Whether the Raccoon City explosion was nuclear or not - it was not, as established in Outbreak...but lots of fans have not played Outbreak. Then theres time issue and other such considerations. There must be countless thousands of articles like this. Thus...seeking enlightenment this acolyte Wikipedian humbly requests a brief council with an admin. What is the answer? Is there an answer? Please do tell... - D-Katana 21:31 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines)[edit]

Just asking why was it removed from the WP:FAC page. I didn't see either on the featured or failed logs. Was it failed? Circa 1900 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops - a mistake on my part. I have restored it. Raul654 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Circa 1900 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

$ ping[edit]

- Taxman Talk 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thug Ride, again[edit]

Someone has added Thug Ride to the FAC list again, this time tampering with the previous vote history [58]. Dmoon1 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

regarding "civility"[edit]

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.


Not licensed, no rights released

I haven't looked thoroughly at your situation (I am currently on break from the Arbitration committee as this is the buisiest time of year for me) but a quick look at the findings of fact shows that your comments have, in fact, been uncivil. The decision cites deletion-related discussions in particular. Personally, I avoid AFD like the plague, and my life has been significantly happier as a result. Might I suggest you redirect your energy into a more productive, less-confrontational area of wikipedia? (For example, the featured article canddiates page, where you have a track record of giving useful feedback). Raul654 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

I was interested to read about the CFP-2006 conference in WP:POST/News and notes. Is there a transcript or a report or notes or something available somewhere?

You may be interested in these links on "How to Place a Company in the Wikipedia"(!) Gratifyingly, the results seem to be "you need to be NPOV" and "you need to be notable". Examples referred to are LabVIEW (kept, NPOV-ised) and Dollar Rent a Car Los Cabos (deleted via AFD as non-notable/advert). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

About the conference - better. I believe all the events in the grand ball room (including Vinge and Godwin's speeches) were video captured and webcast. I don't know where you can get a copy - I can email Lenny and ask. Raul654 15:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
About the companies-in-wikipedia - it does please me that they are afraid of using us as a PR tool. I hope the politicians take the hint. Raul654 15:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I think you may want to take a look at this as I feel Davenbelle may still be lurking. --Cat out 09:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Raul, you'd uploaded this image: Image:Dilbert IIT.jpg. It's very compressed and ugly. Is it possible for you to get a .png version instead? (Plz reply on my talk) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not possible - I found that one on google images. It's too bad - I was actually looking for the one where Asok says he'll refrain from gratitious uses of his mental powers, like heating his cup of tea by holding it against his forehead ;) Raul654 15:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I wish we could get the image of the heating the tea cup one though. It's such a famous one! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Egyptian soliders after crossing the Suez canal.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Egyptian soliders after crossing the Suez canal.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 01:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Add more informations on UN[edit]

Hi, Raul654. May I ask you about adding the article on UN? I think that there must be important world in article UN. Maybe, Someone already mentioned before. How about this sentence in article UN. UN was established in 1945. About establishment. Is it ok to add the information about establishment in article UN, and how United Nations UN was formed. That's all I ask you. Please, reply my question on my talk page. Thanks. Have a great day. Daniel5127, 03:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, You mean the establishment of UN is mentioned in History article in UN.

Daniel5127, 03:55, 14 May 2006(UTC).

Public Domain Music[edit] Hi, I want to use some of the music from the sound page in my film, but I'm not sure how to go about crediting the people that put it up or the license holder of the different pieces. Could you give me any help? Thanks for any help you can give me. Mattel84 15:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I should mention that most of the music there is *not* in the public domain. It is copyrighted, and the terms for reuse are set in the license granted by the copyright holder. (See wikipedia:Copyright FAQ). What you have to do in order to comply with the license very much depends on which license the work(s) use(s). For the creative commons works, I suggest you look at the creative commons FAQ (and this answer in particular). Beyond that, I'm not a lawyer so I don't like to give legal advice. Raul654 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Electrostatic induction[edit]

I can see from your profile that you are an "engineer" of sorts - perhaps you can help expand that article, which is in need of more information by an expert. Thanx --NicAgent 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do - but definitely not before the 24th. Raul654 22:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA[edit]

Request for Adminship
Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, Highway Rainbow Sneakers

FAC on zoophilia[edit]

I see we're both working on this article. To avoid mis edits I figured I'd mention where I'm at, give you a heads up.

I'm not as clued in on style, the areas I'm looking into are content and struucture. So for example, citations, and moving legal and religion out to their own articles. A draft of the "legal" is at but I'm not happy with it, the content is good, the structure's not unreasonable, but the flow is somehow diabolical right now. I haven't moved the core content over yet. Could you look at this and see if you're able to help knock it into shape a bit, before I go further? It'd be appreciated :)

As for the rest, I'll look at your edits tomorrow, and if I see anything positive to add I will, obviously.

I'm still apprehensive on the article's FAC-ness, but I am assuming you wouldn't be putting this work in if you thought it was pointless. So if you can, I can too. I'll do the best I'm able. Its been a tough and initially unfamiliar subject to research well, though. FT2 (Talk) 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit - Would it make sense to move the bibliography to a separate article? "Bibliography and reference sources on zoophilia"? It's quite sizable in its own right. How does that go down, style-wise? FT2 (Talk) 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, keep the bibliography in the article. Raul654 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Quick heads up, there's a slight render bug in cite.php, affecting the render of the link in footnote 20. I've checked it, it renders fine when not in a footnote, and I've reported it on bugzilla. Please ignore the ugly fix I put into the footnote to get at least something reasonable rendering, I'm hoping they'll fix it reasonably quickly, it doesn't look complex to debug. 'Bug' due to "=" symbol in URL confusing the render engine, now fixed, (thanks Platonides!)
I've been otherwise adding cites, and trying to not disturb anything already improved. Thats the heads up for the time. FT2 (Talk) 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed all of the issues I raised except one - the "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations" should be prose, not lists (Nixie raised a similiar objection). Beyond that, two other issues Nixie raises should be address - quotes should be de-italizied (objection 5), and the remaining refernces need to be moved into footnoes (objection 7). Also, a number of people raised concerns about hte lack of citations. I think if/when those objections are fixed, if they are not withdrawn, I may start the nomination over. Raul654 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the work. It does show. A couple of edits only cause me concern, in part because there wasn't discussion and I do have real concerns about the information removed. Theres also a few enhancements this has all highlighted. I'll put my points and a quick review of the article as it stands on the talk page, so others can contribute, and look forward to seeing discussion on them. Last, if you would be willing to cast an eye at User:FT2/draft_laws and if you could spend a few minutes helping knock it into shape, I'd really appreciate it. The information's good but the flow bothers me and I am concerned whether its a smooth read and fits together well. I would value a 2nd opinion, thanks. FT2 (Talk) 10:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Question on FA about "offensive" topics[edit]


I recall that there have been quite a few debates about whether articles about "offensive" (primarily sexual) topics should be able to gain featured status, and if so, whether they should be featured on the Main Page. However, I'm not sure what the outcome of these debates has been and I haven't found clues in the policy pages either. Do articles about "offensive" topics receive any kind of special treatment when it comes to featured status or Main Page content? Thanks,--Eloquence* 09:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No to the former, yes to the latter. In other words, as far as awarding featured status, the rule we have adopted is that any article which could survive a trip to AFD could theoretically become a featured article (for the purpose of FAC, we simply assume that anything that is nominated could survive AFD).
As far as main page content, there are a *few* featured articles (there's no official list anywhere - it exists solely in my head) that will never appear on the main page. As of now, there are about 4 articles that fit this bill, sort of. Wikipedia will definitely never appear as a main page featured article because I consider it to be extremely gratitious self-advertisement. Caulfield Grammar School (a run of the mill high school) I am very hesitant to ever putting on the main page because I believe it very likely to inflame the high school deletionism/inclusionism wars; Hopkins School (a somewhat more notable high school) I am a bit hesitant about putting on the main page but I might give it a shot for May 30th which has been requested by the article's author; Memory Alpha I am still undecided about for reasons that are valid but hard to describe (basically it amounts to the fact that it would be confusing and/or look bad that we are advertising a relatively unimportant site, and another wiki at that, and one affiliiated with Wikia at that) Raul654 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
PS - I was pleased that the Prostitution in the PRC article (the FA from 2 or 3 days ago) was well received. I don't think I saw anyone complain about the racey content. Raul654 15:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that answers my question. Personally, I'd be more comfortable if you'd say "I put these at the permanent bottom of the list of Main Page candidate articles", that is, in the scenario where we run out of articles to feature, you'd even feature these before repeating yourself. But otherwise I think this minimal editorial judgment is probably better than a policy on something which is so hard to define.--Eloquence* 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


I believe that the votes choose the articles and you choose the timing...and it would be better to reword to avoid any confusion. One user was complaining about you having too much power even though he was referening to things that the consensus on WP:FAR does. I tried to reword it without changing any other sentences, but that made things a bid convoluted. Either way, some reword should be made, as the current wording is incorrect and can cause some confusion in itself to newer users.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The text on your userpage is still incorect, you probably should do a slight reword sometime.Voice-of-AllTalk 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the word "choose" to "schedule", which seems to be what you are getting at. Raul654 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice fix...(why didn't I think of that :D).Voice-of-AllTalk 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Seems unlikely to be the work of the US government. More likely a web designer at the air force base with a lack of knowledge of copyright law. ed g2stalk 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


The discussion I started on Java video over on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) has been picked up by the person running the organisation that owns the technology. They have opened up a discussion m:Talk:Video policy. The proposal I originally made was met in some cases by opinions that seem to view it as being the work of the devil simply because the codec was proprietory. Setting aside the fact I am convinced Java is unrivaled in its ability to popularise video. The tone of the discussion opened on m:Talk:Video policy makes clear there is room to accomodate these concerns, and IMO the medicine on offer is verging on the philanthropic, so it could be a good route for Wikipedia. What if terms could be negotiated so that it was free for Wikipedia to use - providing they supplied the servers/webspace? I would hate to see this dismissed because of purists arguing it is incompatible with the spirit Wikipedia when all it may take would be some dialogue to arrive at a position that is favourable and compatible with Wikipedia. I don't see why video needs to be the poor relation to text and pictures, but it feels very much to me that this is the way it is. Pragmatic is a word that I would have liked to have seen on the thread that I started.

Dinky icons[edit]

They are proliferating - I have added {{Japan article}} and {{Hong Kong article}} to TFD over the last day. The latter is used on Hong Kong, where it conflicts with the {{featured article}} and {{Spoken Wikipedia}} icons. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

oh god! That's it. I'm putting them *all* up for deletion and I'm going to put forward a policy that they are never to be used. Raul654 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I have put those two on TFD already - I hope there are no others. I think there is still wide consensus (barring present company ;) for {{featured article}} but I am less sure about the utility of {{Spoken Wikipedia}}.
So that is how new policy gets written. Are you proposing to delete stub templates and categories too? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Categories are not necessarily wikipedia metadata ('category:Living people' is not wikipedia-related metadata; 'category:articles in need of clean up' is) I am convinced, however, that stub tags belong on talk pages. The problem is that it's a long-standing tradition (from back in the days when bad practices proliferated in the absence of experience) not to and getting people to change their minds is not easy. Worse - the fact that stub exists is used by some people as a justification by others for making even more meta-data templates. Raul654 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have renamed the policy to Wikipedia:Keep Wikipedia-related metadata out of articles to make the distinction (versus other metadata) more clear. Raul654 23:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
By that reckoning, doesn't {{Spoken Wikipedia}} indicate to readers that there is a (free) spoken version of the article, in just the same way as an interwiki indicates that there is other content elsewhere? Is that Wikipedia-related metadata? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose, in the absolute strictest sense, that is correct - it is almost equivelent to an english audio interwiki (it actually a pointer to an en audio version, so it's a bit less functional than an interwiki). On the other hand, the icon at the top right is (a) redundant with the spoken box, (b) breaks the layout, and (c) is the camel's nose in the tent (and only encourages the proliferation of these damned things). Raul654 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with (a) and (b). (c) we can fight with the pointed stick or comfy chair as necessary. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Raul, what is your position on templates such as {{Geolinks-US-buildingscale}} (more of them at Category:Coordinates templates), which utilize {{Coor title d}} to place the geographic coordinates in the top right of an article (though below the line)? They're not exactly metadata templates, but I was wondering what your opinion on them are. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have executed the following code on Cydebot. This is really getting ridiculous.

python -remove "Hong Kong article" -summary:"Robot - removing inappropriate meta-data icon from articles." -always -namespace:0

--Cyde Weys 00:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopkins School and May 30th[edit]

While I understand you are hesistant to put a school article on the Main Page, I would like to make one final request. You have currently assigned May 30th (the 2nd of two requested dates for Hopkins School) to Nostradamus, which was neither a requested date nor a particularly important date (in skimming over the article) to the subject matter. The only remaining date for months that will have any real connection to Hopkins would be June 9th (Graduation Day), but the date of the founding is a more permanent anniversary rather than just a singular happenstance this year. If you feel putting Hopkins on the Main Page would disrupt Wikipedia too much, then by all means don't do it, but I feel like a community promoted article that has gone through every test available on WP should be allowed a Main Page appearance (and May 30th is a very nice and well-connected day for Hopkins). In short, if it's not too much trouble, could you bump Nostradamus to another day and schedule Hopkins to appear on the Main Page on May 30th? Thanks either way. Staxringold 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I had intended (albeit hesitantly) to fullfill your request, but for some reason I was thinking you had requested the 31st (not the 30th). Raul654 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very very much! Staxringold 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Small side request: Any chance of using the student pic I put in the suggested write-up rather than the school logo? It is a more engaging photo and has the benefit of being free. Staxringold 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Settling a debate for an FAC[edit]

I am engaged in a heated debate with User:Gmaxwell. He has given my FAC article Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith a Strong oppose because the article has no "free illustrations". Now getting past the idea that I think it is ridiculous that I am given a strong oppose for having no free images, I don't believe that this is a valid reason to oppose an article at all. My reasoning is that free images are not required according to the featured article criteria. His reasoning is that Wikipedia is clearly stated as a "free content encyclopedia" therefore my not having free images somehow lowers the value of my article's free content mojo. I believe that this is simply a personal preference of his. I'm not budging and it doesn't appear that he will either. Now we're getting into arguements over what is a free image (I asked why the screenshots from the film, which I made, were not free images, to which he ignored me). I'm asking you to swing by the article and settle this dispute with us and if I am correct please ask Gmaxwell to stop opposing articles with this reasoning, as he has done so to a few other articles as well. I'd also like to note that he appears to be the only user voting on the articles, to care at all about free illustrations. The Filmaker 15:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Could you please add the appropriate TfD notices on templates that you nominate for deletion? See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to list templates for deletion, otherwise all these debates should be speedily closed. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I know full well how to nominate an article for deletion, thanks. However, people are expected to use a modicum of sense when nominating articles for deletion. Adding TFD to a template which is used in 1000 high profile articles (including one prominently linked from the main page every day) is an inherently bad idea (and that's just the FA template). I have left a note on the relavant talk pages, so that the people who are most affected will see it. Raul654 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I know; however, you should still put the deletion notice on the templates' talk pages (some of which are active), or somebody who is more process wonky than me can come along and speedily close the debates. Kusma (討論) 22:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have already dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles (where the featured article template was first proposed) and template talk:Spoken Wikipedia. Raul654 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Pointing you to the instructions was a bit silly, I apologize for that. Kusma (討論) 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


I think that Penda of Mercia should be in the History FA section, not the Royalty, nobility, and heraldry section. There are other rulers listed in the history section. Penda was a dark age warlord or chieftain—it strikes me as quite anachronistic to put him down with British monarchs of the early modern period and such. Everyking 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion, but I'll take your word on it - I've gone ahead and made the swithc. Raul654 06:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene reply[edit]

Re: this edit - please see my comment to Eloquence. Raul654 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am considering stating this explicitely at the top of the FAC. Raul654 05:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I am a bit dense early this morning, but I am having a hard time connecting the dots between my edit and your response to Eloquence. Are you referring in particular to "(for the purpose of FAC, we simply assume that anything that is nominated could survive AFD)"? Why do we assume that? Or am I missing your point altogether? In any case, regarding that particular FAC, it seems I am in a distinct minority believing it shouldn't be an article at all, so I'm not disappointed it made FA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes - that assumtion is the statement I was referring to. We assume it because, to be frank, I don't want FAC turning into another AFD shit-storm. To that end, I think would be ideal for us to simply avoid the matter all together, and assume that anything that is nominated is notable enough to be kept. Also, for this reason, I am adamantly against using an article's featured status as reason to keep it (as I said during the recent patriot act AFD nom). I hope that answers your question. Raul654 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I think I get it. If I feel like objecting because it shouldn't be an article, I should swith venues and actually nominate it for AfD (where it being featured or not shouldn't be prejudicial - in theory). Otherwise the FAC becaumes an AfD. Reasonable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Raul654 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you accept nominations for common sense bricks?[edit]

Because if so, I think Just zis Guy, you know? has earned one for this edit explaining exactly why edit-warring doesn't work, even if you're right. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion[edit]

Hi Raul,

I noticed you nominated the templates {{featured article}} and {{Spoken Wikipedia}} for deletion.

There is a procedure for listing templates for deletion here.

I noticed you have not taken the time to complete steps one and three of that process. If you could take the time to do that now it would be most appreciated. I will also try to raise awareness of the deletion so those who wish to have input on the process can.

Also please consider listing the templates you submit for deletion separately in the future.

Cedars 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I recommend you to close the voting and start again with separate nominations. And provide an extra option for {{Spoken Wikipedia}}: delete it or remove the icon. CG 07:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

FA Huricane Mitch Summary[edit]

The summary has inacurrate information regarding the top wind speed. It should be 180mph (as stated in the article). Also the thumbnail image has changed due to the inaccurate wind speed information shown on it. TimL 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 00:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

June 1 Featured Article[edit]

I noticed that you recently chose the featured article for June 1, passing over the request for 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to be featured on that day. Before trying to convince you that 2005 Atlantic hurricane season should be on the Main Page then, I'd like to see if you could tell me why you chose to pass over it. Thanks! —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 02:15 UTC

I didn't notice there was a specific date attached to the request. I'll look into it tomorrow (I was just about to quit for the night). Raul654 02:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for considering it. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 03:07 UTC

The KLF[edit]

Hi Mark. Is this article now officially featured? If so, can I have the pleasure of adding the template to the article which displays the featured star? --kingboyk 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (OK, I'm too impatient so let's approach this from another angle - I've added {{featured article}}, if you haven't promoted it and this is all a mistake, please untag it :) Thanks!)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elisa Villar[edit]

Since I adduce an April comment of yours toward the proposition that a blanket proscription against one's uploading photos for unencyclopedic uses (e.g., on a user page) would not command the support of the community (and would, in any case, likely impede the forming of collegial relations on which much of the encyclopedia depends), you might want to offer your thoughts; I concluded that, under your analysis, the image (which isn't actually up for deletion) ought to be deleted, but I thought I ought to let you know that I quoted you (an argument from authority, no less!). Joe 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That user has no edits outside of his/her own userpage - so that clearly is a case of a user using wikipedia as a webhost. On the other hand, as I said in my previous comment, it is a long-accepted practice that a "regular" editor can upload a picture of himself to his userpage. Where you draw the line between someone who makes few or no edits outside his userpage (and is thus using wikipedia as a webhost) and someone who has many thousands of edits (whose picture is clearly acceptable per long standing practice) is a subjective question. Raul654 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree w/r/to that user's having used her page for unencyclopedic purposes and having contributed nothing to the project. The question you raise w/r/to line-drawing is an important one, but we also ought more clearly to note that it is permissible that one should upload a pic of him/herself for userpage use because having a picture fosters interpersonal communication and then encyclopedic collaboration. As someone noted at MfD, the criteria in view of which images should be deleted would seem to extend to the uploading of personal photos for use other than in mainspace; perhaps we should make clear (somewhere) that userpage use is also acceptable, where the usage is de minimis and designed to facilitate the writing of an encyclopedia (as against to help one's social life). Joe 21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Are you on? Can you hop on IRC for a few moments? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Crab Nebula[edit]

Dude, does my objection on Crab Nebula's FAC mean nothing to you? Spell out your reasoning on that one. Worldtraveller had produced something that was hardly more than a stub, just a neat and tidy looking one, and he himself hinted repeatedly that he was holding back info. Also, if you know anything about him, he's always doing this kind of thing. I had a big controversy with him once in which he clearly spelled out his views, which place him in about a minority of one. I ask you to restore that nom and let it run for at least a while longer. Everyking 06:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not be the longest article on wikipedia, but it's considerably more than a stub. To be frank, I agree with their point that "it's not comprehensive" is simply not helpful if you cannot give them some indication of what's missing. I'm not an astronomer (in point of fact - both WorldTraveller and ALoan, the primary authors, are or have been) and, having read it myself, I didn't consider any significant fact ommitted (arguably the composition of the nebula, but I don't know enough astrophysics to say whether it would be anything other than mostly helium) Raul654 06:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's helpful—I'm saying "write more of what you know". Or "use those 'Crab studies' to expand this". It's kind of like "reference the info more thoroughly" or "proofread it"—they're general complaints, but they are certainly valid ones. The fact that astronomers wrote it makes my argument stronger, actually—they are clearly knowledgeable enough to keep expanding it for a good long while. They just aren't inclined to do so. Everyking 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I don't consider a general "proofread it" to be especially helpful in fixing a mature (read: not chock full of errors) article. *Of course* the author has already proofread it, and will continue to fix errors when (s)he notices them. However, the point of doing peer review is to give the author feedback about what the problem is, and "proofread it" does not help. For the same reason, "It could use more references" isn't quite as bad, but still isn't terribly helpful. It usually just means the nominator will throw in a bunch of references for trivial statements that don't really require attribution; it doesn't harm the article, but it doesn't improve it greatly either. The FAC instructions, in fact, clearly say that all objections require a specific actionable reason, which "proofread it" (or, in this case, "it's too short") fail to address. Raul654 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the implicit praise, Raul654, but I would not classify myself as a primary author here - Worldtraveller wrote almost all of it; I only copyedited. I was an astronomer, but I worked mostly on a somewhat larger canvas: Worldtraveller is more expert on this kind of astronomy.
There is a (short) paragraph on composition - like most astronomical objects, most of it is almost certainly hydrogen, with traces of other elements; Worldtraveller may be able to dig out some papers on abundances, but I doubt they will be very interesting.
Of course more could be said about the Crab, but plenty of knowledgeable people think this says enough for an encyclopedia article on this topic. "Compehensive" does not mean that every trivial detail is pinned down exhaustively: part of the art of writing is knowing what to leave out. Unless Everyking can point to specific omissions, I'm don't think more needs to be said (for example, on the talk page, he is asking for more details of the discovery by John Bevis in 1731 - I doubt there is very much of interest to be said there either: he had a telescope; he spotted the nebula; end of story). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As the remanant of a supernova, wouldn't most of hte hydrogen have already been fused? Raul654 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The Crab was created by a Type II supernova. Type II supernovae are characterised by the presence of hydrogen emission lines. The spectra of Type I supernovae have no hydrogen emission lines (the most famous kind, Type Ia, are white dwarfs, which are mostly carbon and oxygen). But even in Type Is, the progenitor star does not burn all of the hydrogen into heavier elements - the outer gas envelope is blown off in an earlier stage, leaving a core which later explodes. I'm struggling to find a quick link to an analysis of abundances or masses of the various components, but I would be surprised if "most" of the initial mass of any star was turned into something other than hydrogen. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Video issue[edit]

I remember one time I couldn't get the audio and video to sync up, so I hacked up the source of ffmpeg2theora to drop or duplicate frames according to the MPEG timestamps, but it still didn't work. Turns out the Theora file was fine all along. The problem was the software I was using to play it back (xine) which has since been fixed. That's something to think about, but of course your problem could really be ffmpeg2theora's fault, I dunno. You can email me one of your source video files and I'll experiment with it later. —Keenan Pepper 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Common Sense Brick[edit]

Raul's prestigious and coveted Brick is much appreciated. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC).


Raul, it seems that Bangladesh is the only remaining item in WP:TFA candidates. I know you have set up the schedule for several weeks ahead, but in case you need to include a country page in June/July, I'd request you to consider adding Bangladesh. Thanks. --Ragib 07:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no - I have 36 others waiting there. Raul654 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

FARC and FAR merger[edit]

Here's the sub-page again if you're still up to do the merge of FARC into FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/sub. The explanatory notes are longer but the actual posting instructions are the same, with the exception of wait for article talk. I also did a simple template: Template:FAR/sub. Marskell 12:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I don’t understand this edit. That page is the one that explains the process for selecting TFA and it also has a transcluded version of the current TFA right up top. Thus that is the logical place for people to go in order to learn about the TFA process and to see the current day TFA. If you think it is redundant, then I suggest that Tomorrow’s Featured Article be merged into this page (this page is also the parent of all the other subpages under it).--mav 12:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to merge them all into a single page, which explains the process, which allows requests, with space for emergency "don't put this article up because _______" - right now we have two seperate pages and each of hteir talk pages to do this, and it just doesn't work. Raul654 19:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

New Law?[edit]

I think I came up with a suitable candidate for your laws.

The usefulness of #wikipedia is inversely proportional to the amount of people in it.

Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

June 6, 2006 Featured Article Image[edit]

Could you use Image:Krazymainpage.jpg as the image instead of Image:Ignatzoffisapuppkrazy.jpg? The advantages are that the former has clearer detail, and it is better to have a public domain image on the front page rather than a fair-use one. Thanks. Andrew Levine 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics[edit]

Not to drop something bad on you whilst your stress-o-meter is in the orange, but I screwed up the revision history of Three Laws of Robotics, trying to re-capitalize the article name (in the midst of other, more constructive edits). Is there any way to merge the old history from Three laws of robotics back where it should be? Anville 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have fixed it. Please avoid doing it again in the future - fixing page history splits rather easy to screw up. Raul654 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. Thanks! I don't think I have made this mistake before, and I will be very careful to avoid doing it again; of course, there remain an infinite number of blunders in my stupendously gauche future. Please offer comments on the current state of the article, if you have any complaints. I just went through a footnoting spree and am running out of time for the day, but I'll try to get around to addressing further problems in the most expedient manner. Thanks again, Anville 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

When objections are ignored...[edit]

...maybe it would be possible for you to briefly describe your rationale for doing so on the nomination page. I see Half Life 2 is an FA, although I gave examples of extremely flabby writing which were not dealt with, and as it is I'm not sure if you overlooked this, or decided my objections were inactionable, or what. I was always under the impression that any unresolved actionable objections would prevent a promotion even if there were loads of support votes, but more and more I get the impression that lone objectors are likely to be ignored. Worldtraveller 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your objections were not ignored. They were debated at some length and almost nobody agreed with you that the writing was "flabby". jacoplane 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Of the examples I gave, I only saw Linuxbeak himself claim they weren't flabby writing. Worldtraveller 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult making a decision in situtations like this, where someone lodges an objection which is very subjective that others disagree with. I didn't feel the size of the article as a whole was a problem (certianly there's a great deal of precedent both for shorter and longer articles) and the two examples you cited (one of which was fixed in response) didn't strike me as being overly verbose. Raul654 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I can do is say I disagree about the verbosity - the two examples I gave both gave an alternative wording a third as long as the original. Neither was fixed, actually. I've written longer FAs myself so I am not worried about article length per se - I just really don't like seeing articles that take so long to say what they're trying to say that I get bored mid-sentence. I really feel this article could have been much better. Worldtraveller 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture for PSW article on main page[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 25, 2006, I'd chose a different picture, preferably one of the PD paintings the article is using. I also asked what others think at Talk:Polish-Soviet_War#Main_page_pic. I'll leave it to your discretion whether you want to change the pic or think the current one is good enough (I thinkt he phote is has no good contrast - looks grayish on the main page - and shows nothing interesting).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I changed the pic at the top of the article and explained at talk. I think the new image (map) is best to use at the mainpage as well as the most neutral and informative. Reasons at talk. Please take a look. Thanks, --Irpen 06:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw when you changed it. The idea for putting a map on the main page is a very bad one. I've replied on the talk page. Raul654 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet-Polish article[edit]

The article is biased, pro-Soviet, especially the text on Main Page. Is the Main Page a right place to present the views of the Soviet side of the Polish-Soviet (Russian) war continuead in many articles in many Wikis? If the article is good, the level of the Wikipedia is 1 mile under the Pacific Ocean. If you are involved in the war, you should misuse your position to support one side.

Xx236 08:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Raul. It's been quite a while since the whole Bulbasaur thing was in the news and I wondered if it had died back down enough to get on the main page, before I go about nominating it. Thanks and kind regards, --Celestianpower háblame 08:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You have had it listed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Bulbasaur since March 12! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's nine from the bottom, I sit on the page. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah - I thought it had been delisted after Raul commented that it should "lie fallow" for a while. I'm just wondering if that's still the case. — Celestianpower háblame 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering it. Apparently an article I put up there and thought might cause an explosion (Hopkins school) didn't, but one I never expected problems from did (Bob McEwen). Raul654 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian related FA nominations[edit]

Dear Raul 654, Have you noticed that whenever an article is put up for FA nomination that has come through the Wikproject India review process, a lot of people identifying with that project instantly support the nomination? I am not suggesting that the articles are not good enough for FA status (they often are) but that it appears to be a self-nom-by-proxy system whereby several people involved in Wikiproject India all support the article quickly after its nomination in order to make it look like it has community support. Also, "Object" or "Comment" remarks are quickly replied to in polite but forceful fashion with a tone of "how dare you suggest my article is not good enough". It makes one (me at lease) wary of commenting on India-related nominations for fear of being shot down.

Am I making this up or have you noticed something too? I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks! Witty lama 13:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(Still at the beach... won't be back until 5/31) - yes, I had noticed that they tend to vote as a group. I didn't pick up on any snarkiness in their replies, but now that you mention it I'll pay more attention for it and comment on it when I see it. Raul654 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark unblocking[edit]

You might want to comment here since I recall you had a lot of problems with this user and he was vandalising your userpage using socks and IPs a while back. jacoplane 22:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm responsible for unblocking. This is another experiment such as the one with User:JarlaxleArtemis. Just informing you ahead of time.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Torchic FAC[edit]

Dear Raul, thank you for doing all your amazing work with featured articles first of all, I extremely admire your work at Wikipedia. I wanted to leave a message about the recent Torchic FAC, the second nomination of the article. I am worried that, unfortunately, this FAC has turned into nothing more than a mockery. I by no means am questioning the objections of the reviewers, but it has now turned into an argument between reviewers about secondary sources, and, which I am frankly shocked about, people telling me I should write about other topics. I feel that this article is fit to be an FA (I have seen plenty worse, Wario for example is a trainwreck, and I've cleaned it up). I feel that this FA is not being taken seriously because of both the subject matter, and the fact I nominated it. I feel like I've wasted my time with this, I can only see one actionable objection, which I haven't completed because I feel like, "What's the point? It won't pass anyway". This has caused me great stress and upset, I just get the feeling that I'm 4, and I'm hopeless.

Sorry for droning on. Regards, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I'm at the beach at the moment, so I'll look into the matter when I get home tomorrow night. Raul654 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Hang ten, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
No offence, but has this not garnered enough support? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm mulling it over - particularly Taxman's objections. Raul654 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Can I just ask you, have you ever came across a fictional character article with such information? Personally, I believe that asking something of an article that doesn't exist is no reason to block it from FA, especially if other articles are allowed. Or maybe it's just 'crats like to have a go at me? (not you Raul, Francs2000 pushed for deletion last time if I can remember). Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"Can I just ask you, have you ever came across a fictional character article with such information? " - Dracula ;)
Like I said, I have nothing against the article - I just want time to think over the objections that have been expressed. Raul654 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Is there any home address I can send generous bribes too? ; ) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


That troll u uploaded last year is magnificent.. Can you put it on HarryPotter's userpage please? Only jokin -- max rspct leave a message 20:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

June 8 featured Article[edit]

Sorry to nag but you typed (on the June 8th Featured article intro) that:

The next World Cup Finals will begin in Germany on June 9,. On the contrary. The two finals will occur on the 8th of July (Match for the third place) and on July 9th, there is the Grand Final. Shouldn't it be: The next Football World Cup will begin in Germany on June 9,

It's up to you, Jean-Paul 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. The "finals" are the month long tournament that occurs every four years. That month long tournament is considered the "final" to the 4 years of preliminary matches that occur beforehand. Raul654 18:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
But if you look at many of the sponsorts, the sticker albums and so forth, you seeFootball World Cup written on them. Jean-Paul--Talk to me 15.56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, right, most people think of the tournament (the finals) as the whole "world cup", but there's more to it than that. And to anyone who is confused, I suggest they read the article :) Raul654 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Wheel warring[edit]

Hi. As you recall, I consulted you before reducing MSK's ban length, as I do for all blocking admins, wherever. Why is it that you did not find it fitting to consult the blocking admin in this case, and why have you continued wheel warring after the user was reblocked? Are you bestowed with special authority I am not privy to, one which supercedes normal admin actions as outlined in WP:BP? If so, please specify. Thanks. El_C 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not imbued with special authority. I do, however, support the right of any admin to launch an experiment in cases like this (which Lethe, by reblocking Blu <5 minutes after I unblocking him, rather rudely cut short). That is to say, if Blu is allowed to edit on a contigency basis and does badly, then he'll be reblocked in a short time (and I will not unblock!) and we're not harmed much for it. And if Blu is allowed to edit on a contigency basis and does well, then we have regained a previously good user and we're all the better for it. As I see it, there's little to be lost and much to be gained. Raul654 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That does not respond to why you operated outside consensus and the normal channels. That does not respond to why you immediately reblocked (wheeling). I suggest you voluntarily suspend yourself from admin actions for a week, to set a good example. El_C 01:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I will not be using my admin powers again in this case (a moratorium on admin action from me is a non-starter - I write the FA summaries and protect them pretty much every day). And I understand the claims of IRC cabalism, however, my decision was based entirely on his actions on Wikipedia and WR (or, to be specific, lack of any "beyond the pale" type actions on WR). Raul654 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you have examined the facts carefuly enough. And I think that operating unilterally in such a heated case (esp. with already existing IRC-unilateralism concerns) was a mistake on your part. Blu is worse than Selina, btw. Much worse. El_C 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, how so? Blu had one bad day on Wikipedia, Selina was *constantly* throwing bombs to the point where I had to block her for 30 days per bad edit. Off wiki, they might do some trivial amount of sniping, but neither of them has done anything beyond the pale as far as I am aware. ANd Blue has already given an apology (and in response to Kirill's questio, he posted clarification. So how is Blu worse? Raul654 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
His apology strikes me as rather half-hearted and overqualified, but that aside, Selina didn't falter in the face of Nazi hatespeech, Blu did, in a big way, on the original proboards Wikipedia Review. El_C 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not psychic, so I cannot offer any insight into Blu's actions. I can say, however, that from what I have seen WR is more tolerant of people with intolerable views. Holding that against Blu Aardvark seems unfair to him. Raul654 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
By virtue of not being psychic, next times, try to guage on the opinions of others on-wiki, no matter how stagnant you may find that discourse to be. El_C 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Raul654, I asked a specific question about a specific incident 4 times. I have not gotten an answer frrm Blu's supporters. Additionally, I believe that I made it known that I wanted to be included in discussions about their return to Wikipedia. I used the word "compromise" to show that I was willing to discuss and reach consensus. Yet, I am excluded. Why? --FloNight talk 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What question, specifically, have you asked? Raul654 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


I support what you are doing[59], although I admit to being oblivious of the social dynamics going on here. Also, if want arbcom on this one, according to one member their mind is already made up:

"I would like to reassure you that I, and I believe a majority of the ArbCom if not in fact all of us, do NOT welcome MSK or BluAardvark back to Wikipedia; in fact, quite the reverse. I believe those who do are a tiny percentage of Wikipedia's admins, let alone the organisation itself inasmuch as such exists. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)" [60]

(I'm honestly unsure why anyone would want to edit again after the beating Aardvark has taken...) RN 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


If you really believe that "admins should be given discretion to conduct such experiments" then we should codify that somehow. This experiment violated policy, so I am not sure what the parameters are of the experiments that you think should be allowed. Until such time as there is a policy that applies to all admins I suggest that we should limit our experiments to those which are within current policy, or which admins are willing to frankly declare are being done despite the rules. (IAR). -Will Beback 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inventing this out of thin air - there's always been leeway for admins to do this kind of stuff. Hell, Ed Poor unblocked Plautus satire, of all people. Raul654 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, and where is Ed now? Not an admin anymore, in part because his experiments were increasingly wild and the results increasingly disruptive. If there is this leeway, let's codify it so that some admins don't end up banned or de-sysoped because their experiment was not approved by the community. Again, if someone wants to flatly say they believe that they are dealing with an occasion which requires ignoring the rules then that's different. Heck, I'm not even sure what is referred to by "this kind of stuff" or "such experiments". We have a blocking policy, which incorporates an unblocking policy. Please let me know what policies can and cannot be broken on an experimental basis. Also, if the experiment blows up, is there no responsilibity on the part of the admin? Are disastrous experiments without consequence for the experimenters? None of this is clear. -Will Beback 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my attack[edit]

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


I know this request is unorthodox, but could you look at the Deconstructivism nomination again? I was the last standing object vote, and I changed my mind. I had voted on the original version nominated, which wasn't FA status. However, the nominator then improved the article, but failed to notify me of this in my talk page before the nomination was archived last night. I now believe the article is FA status, and respectfully request the article's promotion despite not being an active candidate. Just because I was a few hours late in being notified of changes doesn't mean we should clog the usually bloated FAC process with another nomination, which I believe is unnecessary. However, you're the director of FAC, so I'll stand by whatever decision you make. Respectfully, RyanGerbil10 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There's not enough feedback for me to call it consensus, but with your change, I'm willing to let it "cook" a little longer on the FAC. I've restored the nom. Raul654 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll see if I can't enlist a few more people to look it over. RyanGerbil10 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I recently nominated this article, and it was promoted. It has the notice on the talk page, is listed on WP:FA but has no star on the article page. Is there something I am missing? DVD+ R/W 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't normally add the star to the article myself (On principle I object to its existance) Raul654 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I figured out how to add it myself, why do you object to them? Also, where do I submit the article to post it on the main page? Thanks, DVD+ R/W 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a requests page (which is filled to overflowing) - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Raul654 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, expect to see it in line soon. DVD+ R/W 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As for why I object to the star, I am strongly opposed to putting meta-data into articles (it makes our content difficult/impossible to reuse effectively or easily). I consider the star (and other stuff like it) to be database pollution. Raul654 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what meta-data is but I've found that wikipedia has an article on it, which I am about to read. What are some other examples in wikipedia? DVD+ R/W 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Keep Wikipedia-related metadata out of articles, a languishing proposal I wrote. Raul654 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark[edit]


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark/Evidence:[edit]

You recently protected[61] this page but did not put in a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, article talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Please be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Raul, can I ask you if you are the only person who seems to archive, promote/not promote all of the featured article candidates on the WP:FAC page? Doesn't that get boring all of the time, 'cause I think you seem to be the only one... Thanks, Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He is the Featured Article Director, but other people add and remove articles from the WP:FA accordingly. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, there have again been some grumblings about Checkuser being behind. If you decide you want another person on it, I'm willing to help out. --Improv 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples[edit]

No problem, Raul. Nice to see a pic of you! Tony 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Feature Article Promotion Question[edit]

Hi there. I came home from work today to discover that the article Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondant's Association Dinner has been promoted to a featured article. I can't hide the fact that I am disappointed to see this happen. My feeling is that I raised some signifcant, previously unadressed actionable objections less than 24 hours ago, the majority of which was not discussed. I realize I did jump in on the conversation late. Until now, I thought I had a handle on the way the Featured Article consensus-building process worked, but now I'm not so sure. It seemed like there were other objections raised previously by other editors, and while a lot of them were addressed, others weren't. I don't mean this as a criticism of the promotion, I'd just like to know how the process works. Is there a time limit on the discussion that I didn't come in under? Please let me know. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 21:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you're a busy guy, just checking in again to see if you saw the comment about. I don't mean to be impatient, but it's been on my mind. Did I do something wrong? -- Lee Bailey(talk) 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies. This thread seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. I dealt with Rlevse's objection reworking the line he objected to personally; I felt that Fieri's objection about a lack of context had been addressed (this was, I believe, the first of your objections) - the article now includes a mention of the fact that Colbert does a conservative character and the purpose of the press dinner; the comment about the blog citation is valid, but minor - - a number of other valid cited sources also mention that his routine fell flat with the live audience.
Beyond that, I disagree with your characerization of how the article treats Cohen and Calame; I think it accurately summarizies their positions. Calame said in his blog that they didn't mention it and wishes they had, but never really gave a satisfactory explination other than 'it was familiar territory. Raul654 19:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your getting back to me. My objection to the Calame quotation is that the line sounds as though Calame's article was critical of the NYT, when the overall tone seems like that of someone responding with to letters with an explanation, in a normal editorial capacity. I thought it was sort of unfair to quote him as saying "that doesn't explain why Colbert wasn't covered" as though he were demanding an explanation, given that this line is actually used to introduce explanation, which isn't mentioned at all in the article. It might have been a poor explanation, but I really thought since it was the closest we'll get to an official explanation from the Times, it was extremely relevant to the discussion of the media's motives in excluding the story. What could be more relevant? As for Cohen, I don't think his article was incredibly substantial or eloquent, but it seemed to me that if you're going to quote the guy's criticism at all, an effort should be made to quote the most substantial part. The isolated words that are quoted instead sound like name calling rather than criticism -- I thought Cohen did have a bit more to say than calling if all Colbert "lame", "rude", and a "bully", even if the article was mostly fluff.
But I'm getting away from the point. I admit some of the stuff I mentioned my objection is minor. However, I don't feel that all of it was. To be honest, I was surprised by the article's promotion because I felt that my objections were raised in good faith and were specific and substantial enough to at least provoke discussion. The promotion was especially distressing to me, because I ultimately ended up curtailing the explanation for my objection, thinking I'd have time to clarify these points later, since I'd already written quite a lot. I thought that time for discussion -- and clarification -- was inherently implied in the term consensus-building, and feel my argument wound up being less effective because I operated under this assumption. I could see doing this if a person raising an objection wasn't being reasonable, and their motive was apparently to stonewall the nomination, but I don't think this applies here.

Meanwhile, while I am still not 100% clear on the rules on consensus building in Wikipedia, I also thought some of Tuf-Kat's objections to the article still stood, as well as Fieri's, which would have made the final count somewhere in the neighborhood of 11-3. You've mentioned you feel Fieri's objections were addressed, but my understanding of the process is that an editor is supposed to change their vote with a strike-through if they feel their objections have been addressed. Looking at Fieri's objection specifically, it doesn't look addressed to me. Fieri asked for content about the nature of the event, historically, for example; this wasn't provided or even mentioned once in the discussion, except in seeming agreement that it should be there. As for my objection on those grounds, I didn't feel they were addressed either: I would have liked to see substantial discussion of Colbert's speech as comedy; there are many examples of this in the unquoted parts of this article's sources already.

Personally, I do think this article has come a long way, but in the end I thought the quotation-heavy style warranted intense scrutiny of balance and accurate summation of sources, as well as extra emphasis on brilliance of prose, since it's quite possible putting this article up on the main page will result in an increased number of articles on everything from films to political candidates adopting this style. It doesn't matter to me so much that I'm willing to go to war over this, which is what I feel putting up for de-featured would amount to, but I will say that whether the feeling was justified or not, I did feel somewhat shut out of the discussion. I realize you've got a lot to do on Wikipedia. But if you felt my objection was insignificant or inaccurate, it would have gone a long way if you'd just said so in the article's discussion and given me a (and others!) a chance to respond.

Respectfully, -- Lee Bailey(talk) 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I could see where you might not want to reply to all of that. :) I wasn't expecting any action to come out of this, but was interested in hearing your thoughts. Not a big thing. I'm still new to the "process" side of Wikipedia, so I'm taking this as a live-and-learn Wikipedia experience. Nice pick on the featured article of the day today, by the way. Very timely. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have said before, on the FAC, some objections are more serious than others. Objective issues with the article (incorrect statements, copyright problems, 'etc) tend to be show-stoppers. Subjective ones (it's too short/long, not enough citations, 'etc) tend to be less serious. There are many cases where it's a subjective judgement call. If we only promoted articles when it was unanimous, then we would hardly ever promote articles. I didn't mean to distress you, but in cases like this, it's hard to make a decision (promote/not promote) that will make everyone happy. Raul654 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I get that. The problematic thing for me, though, is that I also think the most important elements of Wikipedian policy are subjective and at times even quite subtle -- NPOV, for example.

And yes, I realize there's no way everyone's going to be happy all of the time when it comes to article promotion... but damn it seemed like that thing closed fast. I'm not upset, because this isn't the hugest issue in the world to me, but I'm not sure what would have been lost by letting the comments sit for a day, to see if others thought my points were subjective (and subjectively wrong). I don't really think that would have changed anything, except that I would have been a lot less frustrated. It's one thing to say, "I disagree with your arguments". It's another to say, "I think they're so lousy that it's irrelevant to let anyone make up their own mind about them". Personally? I didn't see the rush. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the number of articles nominated on an average day, it's important that the FAC is regularly pruned, or else it would quickly get huge. My rule of thumb is that I avoid promoting/archiving articles until they have been there at about 5 days; beyond that, some articles languish there for a long time for lack of attention, but most are promoted quite quickly. Raul654 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, that does change things. I'll try to keep the five day rule of thumb in mind. Still, if the FAC process is not supposed to last longer than about 5 days, have you considered mentioning that on the featured article candidates page? I interpreted the word "consensus" to imply that the argument would be open until there was agreement or an obvious lack of progress in the discussion. If I'd known the discussion would face a cut-off after 5 days, I wouldn't have wasted so much time on my, well, vote. Hopefully someday more adminstrators will be willing to take on a part of the FAC workload -- I can't imagine why they wouldn't be, given how much influence this project has over Wikipedia as a whole. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like to put things like that in writing, because people complain when you decide to change it ;)
It used to be 7 days a while back (circa 2004), but the FAC was simply getting too big, so I shortened it to 5. If it had been in writing, people would have complained. This way, if I don't like how things are going, I can change how things work with a minimum of hassle. Most everyone who looks at the FAC on a regular basis is aware that things fall off the queue quickly, and they're used to it. Raul654 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I would think even an approximation would suffice, or a range of days, or a worse case scenario -- something. That's great if everyone who's been through the process a few times eventually figures it out, but the whole thing about not biting the new editors should still apply here; I'm actually a tough bastard and will survive being bitten more than once, but I think in this case, clearly, someone else might have just walked away thinking they have no say in the process, which is a terrible way to feel on a wiki of all places. Just the existance of time restrictions on the debate changes the nature of the "rules" for the procedure radically; even if you gave an estimate that was off by a week, it's still closer to accurate than thinking you've got all the time in the world. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Inside Joke[edit]

Could you please start a Wives of Generals article? Thanks! (Rajah 21:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Quoting law #6[edit]


Just wanted to tell you that I'm quoting law #6 in a paper (well, wiki paper) I'm writing for my seminar about ethics in the virtual world. Unfortunatly it's in Hebrew, so you probably won't be able to read it.

ATB, Eranb 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Here is when I added it - 01:19, November 28, 2004 (UTC). Raul654 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi I noticed you blocked, and they're currently requesting unblock. I can't see why you blocked the user without any prior warnings for doing a test edit. Kevin_b_er 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was a bit jumpy with the main page FA vandalism. I have unblocked him/her. Raul654 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

please do not harrass me[edit]

Your message to me is unacceptable. Please read my reply to that guy, Im not offending or trying to offend italians, coz Im currently in Italy. But Im seriously wondering on the real identity of this guy, becouse he claims that I've never been in a club and do not know dance music. So, maybe this guy knows me personally? I'm recently trying to make a hard work here, I'm trying to fix the inconsistency and lack of logic of many articles in the "music genre" cathegory. A user, despite the fact that I'm wworking on 2 articles at the same time having put the {{inuse}} template, Housemusic and Club music is reverting my edit endless. Ciao Brian W 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Main page picture[edit]

Why did you revert yourself? I think that the picture with the engorged eye is a bit too graphic for the main page. (The Image is also a bit big)--SomeStranger (T | C) 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See here Raul654 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha, I did not notice that. It's changed now anyways, thanks for your time.--SomeStranger (T | C) 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

colbert on main?[edit]

What's up Raul, I just wanted to see if I could maybe get Colbert's speech at the WHCD onto the queue for the main page, unless it's on your shitlist of pages which will never get on ... I'm not adamant about its inclusion but it would be kinda cool :) --kizzle 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to give us more info than that. What article, exactly, are you talking about? It would help to provide a link. And keep in mind articles must first be featured before reaching the main page. Are you sure this is a featured article? --Cyde↔Weys 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya I knew Raul was familliar with it because he just promoted it a couple days ago, otherwise I would have provided a link :) --kizzle 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (searching for "Colbert" on WP:FA produced this answer in 3 seconds). Kusma (討論) 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflit with Kusma) Kizzle is referring to Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, which I promoted a few days ago. Kizzle - I have no problem putting this on the main page. Put it on the requests page, and I'll get to it. The queue is quite long, however. Raul654 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just managed to find the article on my own after about a minute of clicking through links on Stephen Colbert. --Cyde↔Weys 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Mail dellivery sir.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied by email. Raul654 20:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War[edit]

Done. Thanks for reminding and for bearing with me. Yours, ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

June 12 TFA[edit]

Hey Raul, wouldn't Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gif be a better choice for the image for this date? The current image, I feel, doesn't showcase the tsunami as well as it should. What do you think? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that, generally, pictures are superior to maps for illustrative purposes. The map shows the areas affected, but the other picture does a much better job of illustrating the nature of the disaster - think of it as the "oh shit" factor ;) Raul654 05:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, but I still think it's kind of difficult to see what the picture is portraying at first glance. This is the main reason why I wanted to change it. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps kicking it up in size a few dozen pixels will satisfy your concerns? Raul654 20:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding whether User:Richard Branson violates username policy[edit]

Hi Raul654! You recently made an inquiry on User talk:Richard Branson regarding the potential violation of username policy. I have Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inappropriate_username.3F (wikilink moved) with evidence supporting your suspicion. - - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Complaint on OTRS, ticket #2006060510011091[edit]

I am in complete agreement with your edits to Malayalam Britannica, Theodore Pappas, Encyclopædia Britannica. User:Cruxit seems to have a real bug up his XXX regarding the subject matter. It's been all I could do to change his edits to make them NPOV let alone actually get him to provide sources for his information. I'm curious though, what does "complaint on OTRS, ticket #2006060510011091" mean? I am not familiar with that at all. Lawyer2b 05:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OTRS is our email ticketting system (see OTRS for a general description). Anytime someone emails a compaint to the various Wikimedia Foundation email addresses, it goes into the system, is assigned a ticket number, and is handled by one of about a two dozen people (members of the communications committee, plus Mindspillage, Danny, 'etc). In this case, we recieved a complaint about those paragraphs, I agreed with the complaint, and zapped them. I put the ticket number in my edit summary because if I (or someone else) came back in a year, it would be nearly impossible to find the complaint without it (The Wikimedia Foundation gets a LOT of emails). Raul654 05:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for spam blacklist addition[edit]

Hi Raul!

I know that there exists some sort of spam blacklist, but I am not sure how to add items to it or request items to be added to it. There was a pornographic link spammer some days ago using a number of different IPs to add links to less-than-reputable sites. I blocked two of those IPs for a week (User: and User:, but a Google check today confirmed to me that he has targeted more articles than this one. I don't know if this spamming is going on right now so I. You can check the undelete page of Category talk:Public domain for the sites which should be blacklisted. Thanks, Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done Raul654 20:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember me?[edit]

Hello, do you still remember me? On 18th September 2005, you had "made" me an administrator. Right now, I created a stub, and the redline Marconi Foundation (an article requested by you) is now glowing blue. If possible, I shall try to add a little more contents very soon. Regards. --Bhadani 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. Thank you. Raul654 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with a user[edit]

I'm having a problem with a user that I hoped you might be able to help me with. Got into a debate with User:Swainstonation, and after immature edits like this and this I attempted to disengage and requested that he do the same. Since then, he has persisted with harrassing edits on my Talk page. I opened an etiquette alert but it doesn't seem to have been noticed. Might you be willing to offer a third-party look at the situation?

Cheers, — ceejayoz talk 18:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Question[edit]

What time is the new article supposed to be changed? What time and Time Zone?

00:00 UTC Raul654 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So shouldn't Krazy Kat have been removed earlier today, as I remember it yesterday.
It switched at the proper time (midnight UTC, 8 PM US Eastern daylight savings time) to the new FA, Muhammad Ali Jinnah Raul654 02:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We Belong Together[edit]

Along with a collaborator, we are going to continue rewriting a portion of the article, however, since we're rather busy for the next two or three days, I was wondering if you could keep the article at FAC a little bit longer than usual so that we are given the opportunity to complete the process. Sorry if this is a bother. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can do that, sure. Raul654 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Malmedy massacre controversy[edit]

From Talk:Malmedy massacre: Wow, what a nutty edit-war in this article over the last two days! Raul654 and Viriditas, thanks for reverting all those inappropriate edits. Raul654, you were the one that changed the discussion of the O'Reilly controversy from a brief reference under See also to a paragraph under Legacy, back on 2006-06-04 10:52:34. Would you be willing to go back to a one-line See also? I think it might discourage some of these edit wars. Normally I would WP:Be bold and make the change myself, but you obviously care about this article too, and I'd like to have your buy-in. (And the other changes you made at the same time were fine, I think.) I think all the text needs to do is a) be visible to a diligent reader researching the O'Reilly controversy starting with Malmedy massacre, and b) point to Bill O'Reilly controversies#Malmedy_massacre specifically. Thanks to you and the other positive contributors here for your care and effort. --Jdlh | Talk 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already replied there. Raul654 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of Britannica related article is inappropriate![edit]

Hullo, You have deleted an entry named Malayalam Britannica, edited out cardinal parts of the article on Theodore Pappus and edited out reference to Malayalam Britannica from Encylopaedia Britannica main article. I think it was unwarranted and highhanded. What was your purpose in doing so? Cruxit 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Becuase the paragraphs in question were uncited, and we recived a complainton OTRS that they were flatly false. Unles you can provide a reputable source that agrees with your edits, they need to go. Raul654 15:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by reputable source? I quoted from the book itself. Anyone could check it. If you cannot check it due to it being in a lnauguage that is not known to you, I am helpless. Kerala is a small geographical territory. Conspiracy of silence could effectively be clamped on such a local literary and critical discourse there if you have clout. The local publisher has it. I could only fetch this link with a clusy search. It is enough to prove what has been reported as "flatly false". I request you to reinstate the entry immediately. Don't you think it would be proper to disclose the identity of the parties who made the complaint? The article needs to cite the case number, the page numbers of the errors mentioned etc. That will be soon done. I could assure you that this page would be off the web very soon. Cruxit 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA world cup article intro for the 8th[edit]

Hello, I have consulted my sports teachers and the official FIFA website and they call the world cups Football World Cup and not the World Cup Finals

This needs to be changed and FAST (I can't)

Jean-Paul 14:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

P.S. Please leave a reply on my Talk page. I cannot see replies that are posted here. Thanks

Actually, I think the official name is the 'FIFA World Cup'. This does seem to be a bit of a non-issue however- and using the word 'football' may lead to problems due to its ambiguous meaning in the US and the ROW. I don't quite see why this needs to be changed (see also my response on the Main Page Talk). The World Cup Finals are THE World CUp Finals. Badgerpatrol 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Badgerpatrol - the current name is the correct one. Raul654 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Then change it to the next world cup, the finals occur on the 9th of July. It is NOT the entire duration of the tournament

Jean-Paul 07:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me P.S. click on the link above and leave a message on MY TALK PAGE

Please follow this link (which is the official FIFA world cup website:

The Official Website

If you look carefully it says the official site for the FIFA world cup. The FIFA website says FIFA world cup Germany. Another site ; They all say the same thing.

Jean-Paul 07:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me - "Follow the friendlies of all 32 finalists LIVE". Yep, that pretty much proves my point. Raul654 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the logo: World CUP Germany 2006 Jean-Paul 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think the logo (which, almost by definition, I supposed to be small and memorable) is more authortative over the fact that they *repeatedly* call it the finals on their own, official site. Raul654 07:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why ON EARTH is the article called 2006 FIFA World Cup??? I don't seem to see a world cup finals there.... Jean-Paul 15:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it talks about more than just the finals, like the section on the qualification round Raul654 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, Jean-Paul 16:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

TFA guidelines[edit]

Hi Raul—fyi, I've proposed some guidelines for the TFA request process that will hopefully help make it more useful for you. If you get a chance, take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Requesting_TFAs. Thanks! --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


what about the messages he left on my talk page, jerk off--The Nation 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

he called me an asshole and he only thought about himself in his resolution , and i get the citation, that is bullshit--The Nation 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, he (ceejayoz) has shown a lot more patience with you than I would have if I were in his shoes. If I any more uncivil posts from you, you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. — ceejayoz talk 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

fuck u, u homo fucking jackass, i no longer care if i getr blocked, it only means i get vacation from recent change patrolling, fine by me , autofellatio lover, hell block me forever, i do not give a flying fuck it only means means more vandalism for othetr people to deal with, all the admin here is gay any way, especially you, have you seen your picture, id be suprised if u even got a boy to look at u let alone go out with you, jerk off--The Nation 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC), tell thesame to ceejayoz or whatever the fuck that fags name is


Dear Raul45, A couple of days ago I edited Yom Kippar article in what you viewed a biased POV manner and you subsequently blocked my IP address (then) for a week stating that Vandalism was the reason. My edit was to change "invade" to "reclaim" in reference to Egypt's and Syria's military operations in both Sinai and Golan Heights. I also changed "captured" to "invaded" in reference to Israel's previous overtake of these lands.

Not far from now I've replaced "captured" with "invaded" which was with no doubt what Israel did in 1967. I didn't repeat the "reclaim" edit because upon talking with other wikipedians on #wikipedia I was told "reclaim" represents a POV and that "invade" merely discribes the military occupation. Yet again my IP address was blocked. This time without giving any reasons. I would ask you to reconsider your own blocking policy as they seem to me supressive. I'm eager to here from regarding that behaviour.


Never attempt to explain throughput vs response time (Chen 1989) to a system administrator unless it fits his theory of the day. - O^O

There is no system. Why would you try to administer what does not exist? Raul654 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
When modeling a system that does not exist, does one use a queue depth of zero or infinity? - O^O
One digital path ends with a divide-by-zero exception, the other with a stack overflow. Buddha tells us to choose the third path. Mu. Raul654 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the path of Z. Buddha is wise indeed; he lights the way to coherency of memory and finity of state. - O^O
Cache coherency is a devil's bargain. One cannot follow the path to Nirvana without accepting multiple states of being. Raul654 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Poke back[edit]

Yeah, I'm here. What's up? —Khoikhoi 01:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Check your email. Raul654 01:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, check it now. —Khoikhoi 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I'm poking back as well. Email received and replied to. Who knew we'd get recognition for our obsessive compulsive editing behavior anyway? ;) Tombseye 03:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of, uh, stuff, I got another question. Just out of curiosity, what are Watchmen's chances? Tombseye 03:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks all right - you might want to drop Zzzz a message on his talk page asking him to follow up on his comment. Raul654 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I dropped him a message and nada so far. Everybody else is cool with it so far and if we do a checklist of Zzzz's comments, they've all been met. I could pester him some more if that's the hold-up. Tombseye 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 8, 2006[edit]

I would like to thank you for your consideration of other people's work. Trying to improve the WC article and being ignored is a real boost in confidence, and gives me more reasons to work at WP. --Panairjdde 09:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You do realize that I made five different changes to the blurb in response to requests you made on the talk page [62], which is far more than any other article I can remember. Raul654 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what the deal is here, so I can't comment on that specifically, but it seems to me that yesterday's featured article went fine and you were very responsive to comments and suggestions. [Pats Back]. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch televison for a month. Badgerpatrol 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The change is made[edit]

As you'll no doubt notice, I placed the new version of FAR today and a notice directing people there from FARC. I hope this doesn't catch you off-guard but it had been five weeks, there was general consensus, and it had been roundly announced, so I thought boldness was in order. Marskell 09:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for scheduling the apocalypse, I'll have to make sure I stick around that day. Also, thanks for all the work you do on FA generally. Dragons flight 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 :-) William M. Connolley 17:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage fix[edit]

Yes, that was a typo. Thanks for fixing my user page. How embarrasing.... But nice to know somebody reads them. --J Clear 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome :)
I regularly vandali...erm, "tweak" other people's user pages :) Raul654 02:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you're busy and pretty stressed, but...[edit]

I just noticed that the temporary block notices on Lir's talk and user pages don't agree on the expiration of the block and neither agrees with the block log. You reset the one year ban on Jan. 31, the last blocking action taken against Lir, which is why I'm asking you to look into it. I would change them myself, but don't know if I'm missing something. Thanks. —WAvegetarian(talk) 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume the date on Lir's user page (April 13, 2007) is the authorotative one. Raul654 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Press release - 1000th featured article[edit]

Hello Mark, for today's press release a graph comparing the growth of featured articles on ENWIKI and DEWIKI has been chosen to be part of the selected material for media purposes. Thus I would like to inform you that I have created an English language version in slightly improved quality. Perhaps these two graphs should be exchanged. Just have a look here. Best regards --Marbot 20:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Mark![edit]

If I may be so WP:BOLD, may I suggest Lindsay Lohan for the featured article for 2 July 2006? Given that's her 20th birthday, it made sense to me, anyway ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the reminder if you've seen this... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article nomination[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Hi, even though most of the people (with some being administrators) are supporting the article on becoming featured, there are still those that object, and most of their objections are based on how the article is "too long" and needs to be shortened. I just want to bring to your attention this dilemma that if information gets removed to help trim the article, then others will object simply because it's not "comprehensive." Hope you understand. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 23:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree that O'Reilly does not deserve his own section, but do you really think that the "legacy" of Malmedy includes what this goofball said on his stupid talk show?? I'm thinking of removing any mention of it in the article and instead including it on the O'Reilly page. Stanley011 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you had asked me after the first time, I would have said no (and in fact, I did say just that on the talk page). However, after teh second, he's caused a suffecient controversy to warrant some mention. I am in favor, however, of adding more (non-O'Reilly) legacy to that article, and at some point I also plan to merge the contents of the malmedy massacre trial article back into the malmedy massacre article (it should never have been split off in the first place). Raul654 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Renominating featured articles on the front page[edit]

If an article has been featured on the main page over two years ago, could it be renominated? Is there a guideline for this? Cheers, jacoplane 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And, out of curiousity, do you ever worry we'll run out of FAs if we keep trying to have one up everyday? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 09:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
To answer Jacoplane's queries in reverse order - insofar as main page featured article policies, there's nothing written down anywhere. For over two years now I've been making it up as I go along (sssh - don't tell anyone! I don't think anyone's caught on - I've got them all fooled :) For this reason, however, precedent becomes a very important guide. I believe around New Years 2004 (end of 2004/beginning of 2005) I asked what people thought about the possibility of "re-featuring" articles and, if memory serves, it was almost unanimously negative. I was considering it then, but set the idea aside. I admit as time has gone on, the idea of never featuring the same one twice is one I've grown to like.
To answer Caeser's question - yes, I worry about that constantly. However, we are generating about 45 new featured articles per month (none of which, save about 4 articles that were featured, defeatured, and "refeatured) have appeared on the main page previously (we are also defeaturing about 15 articles a month, most of which have appeared on the main page, so the net change in featured articles is about +30 per month, or about one per day). Thus, every month, the pool of potential main page articles grows larger by about (45 new FAs that have never appeared on the main page - 30 used per month=) 15 articles. So running out is not a realistic worry at this point. Raul654 10:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, one last thing to keep in mind: the current pool of potential main page articles is HUGE - 273 (it's easy to count using a spreadsheet program). That means we could shut down the FAC for 9 months and run purely from what we have in the tank now. Raul654 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Football (soccer)[edit]

I see you have marked this article as featured based on the votings/comments from the community, however discussion was still commencing and I am seriously in question of this article because it fails FA criteria 2a. Can you please look over the article again? Thanks! — Wackymacs 12:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Swainstonation RfC[edit]

I have opened a RfC on this user and was wondering if you might certify it. Thanks. — ceejayoz talk 05:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that he should be allowed to remove warnings from his talk page; I also don't think very highly of RFCs (they're pointless - they do literally nothing). I have been keeping an eye on him, and I was going to let the recent 'dumbass' edit summaries slide, but if he keeps it up, I'm going to give him another block. However, I think you need to disengage, and stop commenting on his talk page - IMO, it's going to escalate the situtation. Raul654 05:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, so why waste your time commenting on my RFC when you could spend that time catching real vandals on recent change patrol, and you are making it sound like you are my big brother, please do not publicly say you are "keeping an eye on someone", it sounds creepy, just a heads up.--The Nation 04:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Much like ceiling cat, Raul sees all. Raul654 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What?--The Nation 04:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How did the United States FAC fail?[edit]

I'm not sure why you failed that nomination even though most people voted in support. I kindly ask you to provide an explanation. Also, when can the article be renominated? Finally, what can be done next to help bring the article to featured? Thank you.--Ryz05 t 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

today's featured article - Colbert at WHCD[edit]

That thing's been sitting there forever, what's the process and/or timetable for it to get a date? --kizzle 07:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 39 requests ahead of it in the queue! Raul654 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow! Take your time then :)--kizzle 21:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Mosque, which is a featured article scheduled to be shown on the Main Page on June 14, now sports disputed tags in two different sections. What would you advise to do in this case? I don't think it's a good idea to show to the world an article with disputed tags. Pecher Talk 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you still on Wikibreak?[edit]

{{fixit}}. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 08:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Music samples[edit]

You did a lot about sound samples on Wikipedia so I thought that you may be interested in the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Music samples. Regards, Jogers (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Sorry to see the wikistress level going up. Keep your spirits up — you've given a lot to Wikipedia, and we all realize that. Cheers. AnnH 13:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I request you the same. As a small bit to reduce your stress, I've done some edits to bring NPOV to the article on Maneka Gandhi. I've specifically addressed your concern that the article focusses too much on her family ties rather than her individual accomplishments. I've added some citations and will edit the article further when I get time. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, Mark. I'm sure a little ceiling cat-related activity will lift the spirits right up! *ducks* Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 23:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiCheers.png have a beer. Screw that - make it two WikiCheers.png WikiCheers.png Although don't drink and edit! -- Rick Block (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all. I'm very grateful for all the wonderful, supportive comments I've gotten both on this talk page and by email. A word of explination - I was/am weary of having to put out forest fires all the time. At the same time, I was feeling under-appreciated for the work I do on wikipedia.
Oh, and Linuxbeak, your comment did make me laugh. Raul654 04:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I award this Ceiling Cat Barnstar to Raul654 for being a sick bastard. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosque article[edit]

Someone let me know yesterday that the mosque article is the subject of two disputes. As you're aware, I had scheduled this as tomorrow's main page featured article, but it can't go up while the disputes are going on, so I've taken it off the queue. Please let me know when the disputes are over and I'll fast-track it back onto the queue. Raul654 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Message received. Hopefully we'll get everything straightened out soon. joturner 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Selena FAC[edit]

I wonder why you removed the Selena FAC early, there was only three objections along with 4 supports, one of them was fixed but Petaholmes became inactive soon afterwords. And Rory096's was very questionable. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you add a few extra days to the FAC and see if I could fix Rebecca's objection please as that was the only key objection left. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh I give up on Rebecca's objection, I can't really expand the article without becoming too crufty. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I can put it back on the FAC for a few more days. Raul654 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Jaranda wat's sup 03:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings[edit]

Forgive my impertinence. I was marking the {{facfailed}}s and reviewing the archived nominations, and I was wondering if FIFA World Rankings should get a little more time? It seems like the nominator is actively responding to the objections, and the objection that there's a copyvio in the history seems... strange? If really a problem, couldn't we delete that version? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it more time. Raul654 02:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice Job on Writing Your Articles[edit]

I'd just like to say good job on writing all these "featured" articles for the front page. I've read quite a few of them now and they're always very in-depth. It must take you a very long time to write and research a new topic to write about everyday, while also keeping things varied and interesting.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading your articles in the future.


John Pearce


Dear Raul654,

I apologize for nearly losing my temper about the June 8th featured article.

You "won" because you proved your point, and I accept that,

(but I still call it the World Cup and not the world cup finals!)

I think we had this debate because I lost my temper too quickly when you didn't "get ploughed down" (in other words, accept

what I was saying), and my safety valve was about to burst (I was really ticked off).

But anyways, that is all behind us, and I hope we will be able to be on better terms in the future,

Most sincerely,

Jean-Paul 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Parlate Italiano?

Apology accepted. Raul654 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism (not sure)[edit]

Maybe we haven't met before, but I know I could help here. First of all I found this [63] and reverted it. It was from an anon IP ( In my opinion it was nonsense and I reverted it. If you consider it was not, you can revert my changes. Hoping to help you, juan andrés 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the edit you reverted [64] was nonsense and reversion was in order. Raul654 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to homosexuality[edit]

Hi, you appear not to have closed the AfD for this page yet have carried out the redirect (which was the obvious consensus). The page that needs properly closing is this. --Wisden17 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

done. Raul654 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK on main page[edit]

Would you mind giving an opinion on the inclusion of the Banu Nadir item on DYK? I can see the merit of including it, but I am slightly concerned at the message it appears to be sending out. The article from which it is drawn seems to suffer from some POV issues, although I must stress that I'm not any kind of an expert on this subject. It's a given that Wikipedia ought not to be censored, but I wonder if that can be taken as far as pointless inflamation of religious tensions. Again, I can see both sides of the argument here- but I would appreciate the viewpoint of a third-party with more experience of process and protocol than I. Badgerpatrol 03:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Don_King.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Don_King.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


There's renewed discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s]. Among other things this could help better organize meetups, gatherings at large events and cons, and local outreach. Cf. the mailing-list and meta-page on the topic... both of which could use TLC. +sj + 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


You seem to be well-versed in policies and so on, so I have a question. People are claiming that guidelines, being "guidelines," not "policies," only have to be followed on a voluntary basis. What's your take on the situation? Exploding Boy 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: A policy is something that must be followed; an actual guideline (as opposed to something that someone has unilterally decided to call a guideline) is something that you should follow unless you have a damned good (convincing) reason why you shouldn't; (and "because I don't agree with that guideline" is not suffecient) Raul654 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking about a guideline that has been created by consensus, and is tagged as a Wikipedia guideline, not, for example, something someone has on their user page. Several users recently, when invited to comply with the guideline, have refused on the grounds noted above. The page on policies and guidelines states that guidelines are "actionable," which I interpret to mean "must be followed, or may result in a block." Would you agree? Exploding Boy 00:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"I don't have to comply, it's only a guideline, not a policy" is, in my considered opinion, not a suffeciently compelling reason. Raul654 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Depending on the circumstances, a block might be appropriate. Raul654 02:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. So would you agree with my interpretation (that refusing to follow a guideline is blockable)? Exploding Boy 03:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Potentially, yes. We have guidelines for a reason. Raul654 03:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. This is all annoyingly vague (not your comments, but the guideline / policy thing). Apparently some users feel that guidelines are merely suggestions, to be followed only if they happen to agree with them. Some users have refused point-blank to comply with carefully written, consensus-made guidelines and have challenged their enforcability vs. that of policies. I've asked for clarification on the Village pump and the guideline/policy page, but so far to no avail. Unfortunately, no one seems to actually know, and the wording "guideines are actionable" is vague. Exploding Boy 03:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire process by which guidelines and policies are generated is vague. The difference is one of degree, not of kind. Both represent our best practices and both are created through consensus and experience (along the lines of - 'hrm, this practices works well. Let's make it the standard'). However, a policy is something you must follow, whereas a guideline is something you should follow unless you can come up with a reason you shouldn't. In other words, guidelines are not absolutes, but are more than mere suggestions-which-one-can-ignore-because-one-doesn't-like-them. Raul654 03:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well thanks. While I totally agree with your interpretation, I'm going to wait for some more input before engaging certain users on this issue again. Exploding Boy 03:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Blondin Award[edit]

The Tightrope Trophy

Glad you're feeling better! In recognition of your always well-balanced editing, you are this year's recipient of the Bishonen Tightrope Trophy, a coveted award bestowed on the few who carry the wikipedia on their shoulders. (The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls.) Bishonen | talk 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Re: Bird identification[edit]

Thanks very much for pointing me in User:Jimfbleak's direction. I've asked him his opinion on the identity of that baby gull. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair issues[edit]

Hi - I've just added some discussion points to the Tony Blair take page - you may wish to give a view. SP-KP 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Raul654. Thanks for promoting the chromatophore article to FA status. It being my first, I must admit to feeling quite pleased with myself. Now to find another suitable stub and see if i can repeat the process! A quick question perhaps you could answer for me. I notice the article doesn't have a bronze star at the top right. Is it my responsibilty to add it as nominator? If so, could you tell me how to do it. If not, how/when does the star get added? Thanks again! Rockpocket 02:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For compliated reasons, I don't add that template to articles when I promote them. However, I've gone ahead and added it to the chromatophore article. Raul654 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh. I see. Thanks again. Rockpocket 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday![edit]

Balloons-aj.png The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day.

Many happy returns!!!

Thistheman 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you :) Raul654 04:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Birthday candles.jpg Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Mr. Turcottetalk 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice Work[edit]

Nice work reverting vandalism on the AIDS page, you let the inappropriate comment stand for all of four minutes. Kudos! BigNate37 08:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Azeris extension[edit]

Hey Raul, how's it going? I have a small favor to ask. Can you extend the time for Azeris as an FA candidate? Although the majority of people think it's up to snuff (granted many of them are Azeris so I'm going by non-Azeris here), Tony1's brought up some copyedit issues that are pretty dead-on and I'm just one guy who wrote up most of the article and then copyedited it, but it's been a little time consuming and I'm going to need a little more time. Possibly someone else may help out, in which case this process should end sooner rather than later. We're talking within the week hopefully. Say, if YOU have time, feel free to copyedit as well. Let me know and if you have someone you can suggest who isn't busy and can help out, then let me know. Ciao. Tombseye 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sound of the day[edit]

You've be active in a number of sound uploads, so I thought you might be interested in this. The idea is to first build up a "sound community" outside of the featured content system, before we pursue anything like WP:FSC.--Pharos 13:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sort of ignorant of classical music, but as you've uploaded oodles of it, perhaps you could make a selection for the Template:SOTD/Classical which kicks in at UTC midnight (the Capoeira Angola up there now is a placeholder). Thanks.--Pharos 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

image uploading[edit]

Re: wiki commons, That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for pointing that out. --Rajah 07:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. You don't know me but I borrowed your quote from book of Matthew. Thanks. Lingeron 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. Raul654 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming on front page[edit]

Thanks for helping to keep an eye on the article while it's on the front page. Do you do this for all front page articles, or is this a special effort? --Stephan Schulz 08:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Experience has taught me that controversial articles need a certain amount of babysitting while on the main page. Raul654 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Raul, I hope you don't mind but I deleted an article which was a FAC. I did this because it was a stub, and so clearly a joke/mistaken nomination. I've left a note on the User page of the person who nominated it explaining to him, and pointing him in the direciton of more information of what FAs are. I'm not sure if what I did was right, as I guess I'm treading on your toes a bit, but with something as obvious as that I thought that the best policy was to be bold and simply archive it before any more people waste their time looking at the article to find it is a stub. --Wisden17 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call the removed article a stub, but yes, it doesn't meet FA requirements. Raul654 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it has two stub templates on the page, and is only about 12 sentences long, but either way certainly not FA. --Wisden17 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Global warming picture[edit]

I've reuploaded that problem image as Image:Global Warming Predictions Map 2.jpg, and it has a completely different stored filename (one without "/ad/" in it). Just reuploading the image with the same filename seems to use the same storage location, so that doesn't get around the problem. It's possible that deleting the image completely and re-uploading it with the same filename might work, but I've not tried that yet.

Adblocking does seem to be the problem - I disabled my adblocker and could see the original image, and now I've reenabled it and I can't again, but I can see the replacement image. I've been bold and changed the link on the FA template and the article, at least while it's on the Main Page - apologies if I've trod on anything in the process. I think there's a Bugzilla report related to this problem - if I can find it I'll update it with this workaround. — sjorford++ 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw (Raul sees all). Anyone with a mozdev login should file a bug report (to get wikipedia whitelisted). Raul654 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The file paths are based on a hash of the filename, so the location is fixed for a given name. People have complained to our devs for a long time to try and get a caching scheme that avoids "/ad/" but so far to no avail. Approximately 1 out of every 256 images are placed in that branch. Dragons flight 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I figured it was some kind of hash. If our devs won't fix it, hopefully theirs will. Raul654 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the problem is triggered by several different adblockers, not just Adblock, so ultimately it's something we need to be aware of at our end, despite Brion's opinion to the contrary :) Apparently image storage is due to change completely in the foreseeable future, so this problem should go away. What I was going to suggest is if there is some way of getting a list of all images in the /ad/ directory, so we can be aware of this problem in advance and perhaps re-upload as many of them as possible with different filenames, but that was before the figure 1/256 was mentioned - that sounds like a helluva lot of images. I guess it's just something to be aware of, on the Main Page particularly. — sjorford++
I've figured out a way to highlight such images using CSS - I've tweaked my adblocking software to allow those images through and then added this line to my monobook.css:
img[src*="/ad/"] { border: solid red 25px !important; }

So I'll keep an eye out for future main page images with the same problem. — sjorford++ 11:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Raul654 11:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use woes[edit]

Hi, Raul. I'm experiencing fair use woes again. Maybe you could help? If so, please see my note on User_talk:Danny#Fairuse_woes. Best, El_C 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's actually pretty easy. Put a description explaining why you have to use that particular image in that/those particular article(s). See Image:DeWeldon Gagnon.jpg for an example. Raul654 03:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
These are low-res pictures of major Israeli public figures taken from newsources. What to do in such a case; what rational is suitable? El_C 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, for reasons that I'm sure you well know, we prefer copyleft images to fair use ones; fair use ones should only be used if no copyleft ones are available. The first thing to do would be to check Flickr's creative commons searches ("the first one - Attribution License", and the last one - "Attribution-ShareAlike License" - are both acceptable), and maybe piddle around on google images and see if anyone has personal ones they might be willing to let us use. If none of that works out, then you can safely say that no copyleft equivalent is available and fair use is OK. Beyond that, it's for education purposes, and it shouldn't negatively impact the re-sellability of the photo (e.g - low res). Raul654 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you! I'll do it right now. Best, El_C 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

En garde, the cat and I fight to the death![edit]

The ceiling cat and I have fought a good fight tonight. For now, I have prevailed against its onslought into the random articles. You too have taken some swipes at the evil cat and its appearences. For that, thanks. It's annoying getting rid of the aol vandal's work each night. Kevin_b_er 08:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together[edit]

Hi Raul. This one was posted on June 3rd, but has never been closed. -- Malber (talkcontribs) 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed from the FAC page and the talk page has been tagged as facfailed. It doesn't get any more closed than that. Raul654 10:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

I recall TFA's talk page was the place to submit specific main page requests. Is this still true? The format has apparently changed for this and I know there's been talk about it. Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) is my 2nd FA and I want to request it for 21 Aug, the 94th anniversary of the first Eagle Scout, Arthur Rose Eldred. What is the current process for this? Rlevse 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests Raul654 10:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Linday Lohan[edit]

Hey Raul! I was thinking that featuring Lindsay Lohan on July 2nd wil end up sparking up more complaints about TFA that day. The anti-TFA cabal's going to have a field day with the article's placement on her birthday, similar to that of Kadie Strickland, and is going to flood the mainpage with the same dead argument about TFAs that's been beaten for the two past month. Wouldn't it be better to feature her on July 3rd instead, that way she's still featured recently but causes less controversy? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just about had my fill of people complaining about this kind of stuff. I intend to leave it as I have scheduled it. Raul654 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

History of New Jersey[edit]

Hey Raul,

I was wondering if History of New Jersey is going to find its way up to the main page ever. I put the request up back and Feb, and I have yet to see/hear anything new in regards to it finding its way to the main page. May you give me a status update on it.--ZeWrestler Talk 14:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Scheduled for July 4. Raul654 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Regarding de-listing FAs I was wondering whether tough ones have been closed in the manner of FAC itself (a single, well-founded, and actionable objection is enough to remove its status) or whether it's been like other processes (no consensus between the comments in total means the status quo remains and FA status is kept). This springs from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hinduism which I don't know what to do with. Marskell 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proliferation of metadata templates[edit]

I noticed that many metadata templates have been created and are used in many articles. I know you have nominated some for deletion, could you nominate all other metadata templates (you can find them in Category:Title templates) for deletion? Just one thing: I think the only useful templates are {{featured article}} and {{featured list}} so I would prefer we keep them. Thank you. CG 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated {{Part-of}}, {{Coor title d}}, {{Coor title dm}} and {{Coor title dms}}<nowiki> for [[WP:TFD|deletion]]. [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 09:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks. I would have nominated them myself if I had gotten back earlier last night. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC) == [[Azeris]] == Hey Raul. I believe all the [ issues] have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks. [[User:Tombseye|Tombseye]] 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC) == Hurricane Katrina == I would appreciate some kind of explanation regarding your promotion of [[Hurricane Katrina]] to FA status. FAC instructions clearly state "Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured article status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived." At the time of your promotion there were numerous outstanding unacknowledged and unresolved objections yet you went ahead and promoted it anyway. If the instructions of FAC have changed, you need to update the template and remove the above-mentioned quote. If the instructions haven't changed, you need to explain your actions. I would prefer to have this issue resolved amicably, but am prepared to bring the issue to the arbitration committee if I must. --[[User:Jayzel68|Jayzel]] 16:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC) :Silence does not help Wikipedia's credibility. --[[User:Jayzel68|Jayzel]] 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC) First, not all FAC objections are equal. Objective ones (factual inaccuracies, copyright issues, 'etc) are far more problematic than subjective ones; that's assuming they have any merit at all (because not all objections are even correct). So, to be blunt, consensus does not mean unanimous. Now, as to the specific objections to the hurricane katrina article, the outstanding objections were: * - ojected "per Wackymacs", who withdrew his objection and supported, rendering this objection was moot. * zafiroblue05 - objections that the criticism of the government section (which is actually a summery of a much longer article) is too short. **The FAC objections specifically say to use summary style; his objection seems to be that it follows that style. * Worldtraveller - Objected that that the article specific image widths instead of defaulting to user preferences. True and valid, but very minor. * Avenue - Same as Zafiro. * Jayzel - Your specific objection was addressed, at least to some extent. Nagin and Blanco are mentioned more than once each, and it links to both their names. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) **Nope, that was ''one of many'' reasonable objections I had. FAC instructions clearly state: "If enough time passes without ''objections'' being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived." This did not happen. My other unacknowledged and unaddressed objections included: "First, as Louisiana and Mississippi were the hardest hit areas, why is there no discussion about how these state and local governments prepared for the storm?" (Some info about Louisiana was added ''after'' the article was promoted to featured status); and "You also haven't acknowledged my concerns re: local and state 'reponse' to the action." {This is still unaddressed). Lastly, most of Avenues objections weren't addressed and fixed until also ''after'' the article was named featured. It doesn't matter if people now support the article, the problem was that they didn't at the time the article was promoted. The FAC instructions unquestionably need to be amended. As it is now written it is misleading at best and outright false at worse. --[[User:Jayzel68|Jayzel]] 01:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ==My regards== [[Image:Upholder order.gif|thumb|left|On completion of around 35,000 edits by me, and having seen several nooks and corners of the [[Wikipedia|Project]], I found you really deserving of the award [[Wikipedia:Personal user awards|Order of the Upholder of Wiki]]: presented to [[User:Raul654|Raul]] with compliments and regards! --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]] To-day, I completed 15 months of my wiki-life. Still I feel that I have a long way to go! This is just a very small present from me in honor of your contributions and initiatives. Your [[User:Raul654/Raul's laws|Rules]] are really wonderful. Please accept the small present. Regards! --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) :Why thank you :) [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 19:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC) ==The Illuminatus! Trilogy request for "Todays featured article"== hi, may i ask if there is a reason why the [[The Illuminatus! Trilogy]] featured article, which was requested for TFA on 12 march 2006, has still not yet been scheduled to appear on the mainpage? is there a specific reason why it cannot appear, as many later requests have been taken but this one has not? thx. [[User:Zzzzz|Zzzzz]] 18:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC) :Articles featured on the main page are not decided on a first-come-first-serve basis. I try to limit the number of science-fiction related articles on the main page to about one (or at most two) per month (for system bias reasons). I just today scheduled the three laws of robotics (which had been requested since january) for July 5. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC) == [[Mosque]] == It's not ready for the main page just quite yet, as you can see by the edit history. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 07:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC) :Sigh, indeed. Now it's not just {{t1|pov or even just {{t1|disputed}}, but rather {{t1|totallydisputed}}. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 13:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC) == These votes... == Are [ these votes] really you? [[User:Savidan|savidan]]<sup>[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]</sup> 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC) :Oh, I am sure they are: Raul quite understandably doesn't like any of these fancy widgets. Just look at the TFD and DRV for {{tl|good article}} [] [] -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ::Aloan took the words right out of my mouth. I feel strongly about keeping metadata out of articles (which makes our database significantly easier to reuse); doubly so for those metadata templates that break the standard article layout. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC) :::I agree these fancy little absolutely-positioned things should go. That said, I feel compelled to point out that the coordinate templates aren't, I think, ''metadata'': they show data about the subject of the article, not about the article itself. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ::::Seems ironic that you would be one of the biggest opponents of metadata and yet be in charge of the FA process. Anyway, did someone mess with your picture? [[User:Savidan|savidan]]<sup>[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]</sup> 00:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :::::If you'll notice, with the exception of [[template:featured article]] (which I fought tooth and nail) and the link-FA template (ditto), there is no featured-article related meta-data in articles; everything is kept to talk and wikipedia namespaces where they belong. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 02:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) ==Today's FA is "Yada yada"== Little tidbit from my page: the ''[[OED]]'' now has "featured additions". Latest FA is "yada yada". :-) [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC). :Linky! [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC) == Albums as "Todays' Featured Article" == Hello. Seeing as you are the featured article director, I was wondering if albums could be choosen to appear on the main page, or do they fall under the catagory of "promotion"? For instance, would such an album as ''[[Illmatic]]'' be denied, given these circumstances? [[User:Chubdub|Chubdub]] 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :No, I have no problem with putting an album as the main page featured article. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 06:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC) ==Clarification== I am seriously entertaining the possibility of placing the page [[State Military characters of Fullmetal Alchemist]] up on the FA pages, but before I do I want your very qualified opinion on whether this is article is best qualified as an article, or as a list. When this went up on peer review there was enough ambiguity to suggest that it could have been either, and I would rather file my FA request the right way the first time around. Thanks in advance :) [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :Although it doesn't have a list form, it strikes me as being suspiciously like a list (of characters). It is lacking a proper introduction, at any rate. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 06:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC) ::I know. Thats one of a few things that I have yet to tweak before putting in for an FA request. Thank you for your input, I apreciate it. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC) ==Regarding [[Dr. VS Mani]]== This article was created by me quite a while ago. It was listed as a copyvio, which was left unchallenged because of my failure to look up my watchlist carefully. I supposed that I had reworded and changed various sentences of the article to make it look different while keeping the facts same. A discussion for the matter is taking place [[User_talk:Kcordina#Dr._VS_Mani|here]]. I would definately appreciate it if you could advice me on the same. And I am aware of [[Meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia]]. Thanks and regards, --[[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] 09:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC) == Please advise == Hi, since you're an upstanding member of the community I thought I'd come to you for advice. I have encountered a new user exhibiting troll-like behaviour called [[User:Nietecza]] whose contributions have solely comprised edits linking Poland with Anti-Semitism ([[Special:Contributions/Nietecza|see them here]]). I [[User talk:Nietecza|tried to give them a friendly word of advice]] and [[User talk:Brisvegas/Esperanza|this was the reply I received]]. I will soon have to cut down on my wiki time, so what do you recommend I should do? It will probably be only a matter of time before other users notice these contributions and also grow concerned. Thanks for your help. All the best, '''[[User:Brisvegas|Brisv]]''[[User:Brisvegas/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]''[[User talk:Brisvegas|<font color="red">gas</font>]]''' 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :It's been noted that once a discussion degenerates into name-calling, someone will inevitably be called a nazi. Since [[User:Nietecza]] actually ''started'' with that accusation I'm left to wonder...where can the duscussion go from there? --[[User:Doc Tropics|Doc Tropics]] 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) == Dumb newbie question == Hi Raul, I love your Laws! I have a dumb question: if someone is accumulating too many wiki-cookies for good deeds, is it possible to convert them to "ribbons" as I've seen done with Barnstars? If so, how? I goofed around with the mark-up for a while but got nowhere. You're a resident expert so I thought I'd ask you. BTW - It's not for me but someone else wondered and now I'm trying to figure it out for her. If you have time to answer you can post it here and I'll be watching. Thanks in advance for your patience with a newbie :) --[[User:Doc Tropics|Doc Tropics]] 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :There's no rule one way or the other. :You might want to photoshop them together into a single image and replace all of them with that single image. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. Sounds like a good "rainy day project"...oh wait, [[WP]] is my rainy day project :) --[[User:Doc Tropics|Doc Tropics]] 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC) == Actuary and FA == :Re:[ this edit] - I meant to put it under 'Business, economics, and finance' but I messed up :) [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) No, thank you! :) -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) ==Webster== A couple of hours ago the Daniel Webster FAC failed. It only recieved two votes, one up and one down. Even failed nominations are helpful in valuable feedback; with this nomination's minimal feedback this entire nomination has thus far been pretty much useless. The one negative vote claimed that the article contained elements of a POV and the examples listed and others indpendently found were immediately toned down (frivolous stuff about respectibility and strong intellect). The point is that I don't see how a future renomination can possibly pass if the article is so substandard as to worthy a failing without actionable feedback and I was hoping that you would be willing to reopen the nomination in an attempt to gain that; two votes either way and a discussion between two people can hardly be called a candidacy. [[User:TonyJoe|TonyJoe]] 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC) == [[Bangladesh]] == Hi Raul, [[Bangladesh]] is now the only country-related FA left in the queue. The last country article to be featured was [[Pakistan]] which appeared on main page on May 29, 2006. Bangladesh was nominated in mid april, and now in the last quarted of the queue. So, would you please consider having it in the main page sometime in July? Thank you. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC) :Thanks a lot for scheduling it for July 14. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ==[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark]]== This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above. For the arbitration committee. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC) :Acknowledged. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ==Promotional zoophilia== Hello Raul Any justifications for your reversion? [[User:JHartley|JHartley]] 06:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) :I have replied at [[Talk:Zoophilia]] [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 06:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks for the prompt reply Raul. [[User:JHartley|JHartley]] 06:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ==Gremlins== Hi Raul, would [[Gremlins 2]] be a suitable article to propose for the main page, or is it too trivial? [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] <small>[[User_talk:CanadianCaesar|Et tu, Brute?]]</small> 08:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) :I have no issues with featuring it at some point. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 04:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) == Zoophilia - thank you == I didn't realize you were still watching this? Or did you pick it up on Recent Changes patrol. Either way, I thought that as you're (apparently) watching it, you'd like the following information. Following the FAC review, I've decided to try and move key areas to their own articles, in summary style, which the review really made me realize were not rounded out. [[Zoosexuality and the law]] is one written since FAC review, and the unpublished draft [[User:FT2/ap|Animal pornography]] another. I'm having to take a break from working on these though, to fix up the [[Neuro-linguistic programming]] area, which was heavily damaged by forged cites from a recently blocked sock-master [[user:HeadleyDown|HeadleyDown]], after which I'll be coming back to fix those up and get the main article ready for FAC 2. It was a tough article to get ready, and FAC review has helped clarify a lot for me about how to improve it further. Many thanks for your help and support, for running F.A. -- and see you around on this or other articles. 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ==[[Richard III (1955 film)]] FAC== Hey, uh, this article has been up at FAC for quite some time, and consensus has been reached for quite a few days, with 3 Objections withdrawn (1 weak), and 5 Supports (1 weak). So...what's going on? [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]<sub>([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])</sub><sup>([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|Let us to it pell-mell]])</sup> 01:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC) :Has Monocrat withdrawn his objection? [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::Yes, he most certainly has. Sorry for the late response, I was expecting you to post on my talk page [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]<sub>([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])</sub><sup>([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|Let us to it pell-mell]])</sup> 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC) == WikiStress == I noticed your WikiStress meter is up high, is there anything I can do to help lower your WikiStress? [[User:Minun|<font color="#ffcc00;">''' ''Minun'' '''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Minun|<font color="#ffcc00;">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC) == [[Micronation]] FAC == A user tried to create a FAC for [[Micronations]] at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jasper High School]], which I moved to its own subpage at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Micronations]], before I realized that there was an orphaned (and apparently never properly completed) nomination from a couple of weeks ago at the correct location: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Micronation]]. Not sure how you want to treat this. — [[User:TKD|TKD]]::[[User talk:TKD|Talk]] 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC) :Put it on the FAC (which I see you have already done). [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ==[[Lindsay Lohan]] FA== You made her the featured article for today - this also coincides with her birthday. Did you intend for this to happen? --[[User:NicAgent|NicAgent]] 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :Yes, it was specifically requested for today. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 02:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::I wonder who's the secret admirer? ;) (Not me, though I welcome the move.) —[[User:AnOddName|an]] '''[[User_talk:AnOddName|odd]]''' [[Special:Contributions/AnOddName|name]] 17:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :::[[User_talk:Raul654#Greetings.2C_Mark.21]] [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ==BOT - Regarding your recent protection of [[Lindsay Lohan]]:== You recently protected[] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on [[WP:PP]]. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. [[User:VoABot|VoABot]] 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC) == Featuring [[Lastovo]] == Please don't feature [[Lastovo]] for the time being. Some images appear to have been mislabeled as GFDL or public domain -- see [[User talk:Luka Jačov]]. I'm removing them (the user is trying to restore them), but the whole article should probably undergo copyright review.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 17:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC) There is no problem cause images are self-made. [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 17:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :I have just reverted to the version from a few days ago that didn't have a trivia section (sans the pictures eloquence removed). Trivia sections are very, very bad writing. Converting well written prose into trivia lists is a major step backwards. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 17:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :As far as the pictures - a couple of them look self-made, but the one of hte island looks like it was taken from a jet or helicopter. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :: I'm going to continue this on Luka's talk page.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :::I've recheduled another geography article in Lastovo's place. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Ok remove disputed picture but just give the article back. [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Could you please anwser me? [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC) : I've [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lastovo|listed the article]] at [[WP:FAR]] because it has some considerable problems that need to be solved. I'd also support putting off its display on the Main Page for now. Besides the image copyright problems (which are apparent), it needs some more work to actually be ready for the Main Page, because it seems not to meet important FA criteria. ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]][[User:TodorBozhinov|Bozhinov]]'' 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::Before it can go on the main page, the image issue needs to be worked out to Eloquence's satisfaction, and the trivia section must be removed (FAs should avoid lists in general, and should never, ever have trivia sections). I'm not sure what other issues Todor is referring to though. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Remove pics remove trivia just get it back... [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC) So could you please return it back...:-( [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::: Raul, I've listed the issues with the article at [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lastovo]]. They include a badly needed copyedit, more refs, better formatting (the article uses hyphens instead of dashes), etc. I'm not sure whether these could prevent it from hitting the Main Page, but it simply doesn't look ready this way. Let alone those copyvios. ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]][[User:TodorBozhinov|Bozhinov]]'' 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::::The number of refs is fine, and hyphens versus dashes are a trivial issue. The images eloquence flagged are not used in the article any longer, so I don't see any reason why this shouldn't go on the main page. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 19:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::::: Yep, it's OK now. I was referring not to the number of refs, but to several unsourced statements and some weasel words, but they were in the Trivia section that was removed. I'd be happy to see it on the Main Page now. ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]][[User:TodorBozhinov|Bozhinov]]'' 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I have been of the same opinion regarding Luka Jacov - see my opinions i have posted on User_talk:TodorBozhinov user talk page. I have ancestry linked to the island and only want to contribute to that particular article to make it better. I was excited to see it nominated for the main page, but understand that it is probably not fit to be put there due to current concerns. Please let me know what needs to be done, and if the chance arises to link it to the main page then that would be great. I also ask if Luka has done contributing to the article then please refrain from dominating the article, especially when your opinions are in the minority or go against the general concensus reached in peer reviews and the featured article process. Best regards Uvouvo 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC) ==[[Cryptography]]== {| class="messagebox" style="background:#f0e68c; height:75px; width:75%" cellpadding="6" |[[Image:Tournesol.png|75px]] |I just wanted to say '''thanks''' for your hard work on featured article status. I can tell it opens you up to lots of criticism, and you probably don't get much appreciation for it. My first foray into the Feature Article process with [[Cryptography]] was a good experience, and I hope to continue to be involved. But anyway, '''Thanks!''' [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |} == Lastovo copyvios == As I said, I suspect there are more copyvios throughout the text -- see [[User talk:Luka Jačov]]; the user has been warned about copying and pasting text in the past. Some quick checking immediately turned out a copied passage from , i.e. the text from "Origins of the Lastovo Poklad" has been copied verbatim. The site has a copyright notice from 2000, and turns up a copy from 2002, while the Wikipedia article was created in 2005. I really think the article needs to be subjected to systematic copyright check, with possible deletion of many old revisions due to copyvio.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Dont worry we've got the permission... [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :There are too many issues cropping up for me to be comfortable running this article on the main page. I think I'll put this one on the back burner for a while. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC) It seems to me user Eloquence is not quite sane person and he is trying to sabotage article apparence for the reasons only he knows you really should put article... [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :Keeping ourselves lawsuit free is definitely in the best interests of the project, and that's what Eloquence is looking out for. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Come on this paranoia should be stopped nobody is going to sue cos of couple of pictures us in worse case they are just goin to tell us to remove the content. Most people and especially small comunities like Lastovo would be more than happy that their picture appear on wikipedia. Picture are taken by Lastovo tourist community that gave blessing of appearing their picture on wikipedia... [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 21:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :I appreciate the point you are making - however, there is no such record of any of this on the image pages of the various images, or linked into the text in teh article, or in the permissions queue of Wikipedia's email system. Until these issues are straigthened out, it shouldn't go on the main page. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC) could you please reply me.. [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ok remove the picture and diputed text and then its suitable [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Is everything ok now? can u put it back? [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :No, as I said, I think this article needs a good looking over first. I'll let people comb over it first and it everything is settled aftwerards, I'll put it back into the queue. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I think its not fear... [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 21:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Ok I am going to ask for permissions, Can you give me your mail so they could send you aswell? [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :Have everything cc'd to: permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :Also, make sure the terms of the permission is as clear as possible. Vague permission grants are not helpful. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC) What is cc? [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 22:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I ve got permission for image Fumari.jpg. [[User:Luka Jačov|Luka Jačov]] 23:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I have been of the same opinion regarding Luka Jacov - see my opinions i have posted on [[User_talk:TodorBozhinov]] user talk page. I have ancestry linked to the island and only want to contribute to that particular article to make it better. I was excited to see it nominated for the main page, but understand that it is probably not fit to be put there due to current concerns. Please let me know what needs to be done, and if the chance arises to link it to the main page then that would be great. I also ask if Luka has done contributing to the article then please refrain from dominating the article, especially when your opinions are in the minority or go against the general concensus reached in peer reviews and the featured article process. Best regards [[User:Uvouvo|Uvouvo]] 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC) == Coulter Confederate flag edit == I'd like to ask you to revert your recent edits to this very sensitive section. (I don't revert people myself.) The "kente cloth" quote is taken out of the context of a long article about the confederate flag (it was comparing two textiles, each of which could be seen by someone who wanted to as a symbol of slavery). Whoever posted the quote asserted that it generated controversy, but nobody could ever find any actual public debate or argument about it (other than assuming from their own POV that it was controversial). The edit not only removed the request to provide evidence of the controversy, but removed a link to the full text of the original article where folks could make up their minds about the "cherry-picked" nature of the quote in context. (My belief, which is shared by others in talk, is that the quote WAS cherry-picked to make it seem as though Coulter was being critical of negroes (both American and West African.)) The remaining link is not to full text of the article, but only identifies a book in which the article may have been reprinted. Since most viewers don't have the book, they can't even tell if the link/reference is valid. Additionally, I don't understand the comment you made about "wrote about writing," or whatever it was. If there was some clunky language, surely it could have been fixed without removing all the other stuff. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :The quote does not come from the jewish world review article; it comes from Coulter's How To Talk to a Liberal book (which I do not own so I cannot provide a specific page number; I found it by searching the web for that particular quotation). However, it is definitely misleading to point to the jewish world review article as the source of the issue when the quote itself is taken from coulter's much more widely read book. ::That's why JWR wasn't sourced for the quote, but as a way to look at the whole thing in the Confederate flag context. I'm guessing that the book didn't just repeat the columns verbatim, but that it embellished them. The kente quote in the article seems (to me) to be an expansion of the kente quote in JWR. Maybe I ass-u-me too much about that. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC) :And yes, it did cause a controversy - "Since Coulter’s topic was the Confederate flag issue, a confrontation of some sort was inevitable. Previously Coulter had written a column on the Confederate battle flag which pointed out that slavery had existed longer under the Stars and Stripes than under the Stars and Bars, that the flag symbolized more than the slavery cause, and that, in any case, there were no visible pro-slavery advocates around to make leftist concerns about the implications of its presence valid. These mildly expressed views were a call to arms to the Cornell vigilantes." [] - and that's coming from a arch-conservative David Horowitz. ::Now THERE'S yer trouble, or actually two of them -- 1) there WAS a controversy, but nobody ever provided a citation for it. Not only that, but a well-meaning person deleted the call for a citation. And 2) the controversy was about the Confederate flag part of the article, but the quote alleging a controversy was from a minor kinte cloth paragraph. IMHO, he/she who used the kente quote was trying to impute racism to Ms. Coulter. Why else would they quote a paragraph that was only used to illustrate Coulter's flag argument? [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC) :As far as the sentence I removed, it was horribly clunky: '''She wrote''' that it is wrong to condemn the Confederate flag on the grounds that it was a symbol of slavery '''by writing:''' (emphasis mine), but this could probably be fixed with some rephrasing. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 22:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::Clunky, yes. '''Horribly''' clunky? Well, OK, maybe. ;-) I didn't see it because it's hard to separate the plain English in an edit that includes a lot of reference stuff. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC) ==Bluegene/p== It is indeed to achieve a capacity of 1 Petaflop at least. Take a look at the discussion, if you need I can provide additional info. :The documents you cited are ancient - the powerpoint was two years old, and the article was 3 years old. In that time, I know of at least 3 other projects that claim they will be the first to achieve a petaflop. Take those claims with a large grain of salt, and the older documents in particular are not valid. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC) == {{tl|Spoken Wikipedia}} == I have an idea you might like regarding the {{tl|Spoken Wikipedia}} template. I have just noticed that similar ideas have been [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Archive 1#Position of links|suggested]] some time ago. You can find (and modify, if you like) my proposed template at [[User:T J McKenzie/Spoken Wikipedia]], and here's what it would look like: {{selfref|There is a [[:Image:Douglas Adams Part 1.ogg|spoken version]] of this article.}} This could be put at the top of an article, as, for example, {{tl|otheruses}} is. Benefits include the following: #No icon anywhere. #It's wrapped in {{tl|selfref}}, so mirrors that blank that template won't need to worry about the metadata. #The link is to :Image: rather than Media:, so interested people can find out relevant information about the recording, but people who aren't interested don't need to put up with this information being in the body of the article. #At the top, it can be read easily by eyes or a screenreader '''before''' reading the rest of the article. #It will simplify the task of people uploading recordings; it makes no difference how many parts they upload the recording in, and they needn't specify the date in two places (as with the status quo, where they have to specify it in both {{tl|Spoken Wikipedia}} in the article and {{tl|Spoken article entry}} with the actual recording). In its current state, this would be used in conjunction with a [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia#Location of spoken article list|suggestion]] that has recently been revived. If that suggestion isn't put into practice, then this template would also need <nowiki><includeonly>[[Category:Spoken articles]]</includeonly>

thrown in, too.

I believe that if this goes ahead, then the changeover would require a bot to move all the existing transclusions of this template up to the top of articles. I hope this wouldn't be too difficult.

It has just occurred to me that the {{selfref}} wrapper may not be necessary. Do mirrors usually copy the Image namespace over? If so, then the link wouldn't be broken at all, and it's not as if it says something like "Wikipedia has a spoken version of this article.". I don't know. What do you think?

I hope you like this idea. It could help solve your issue with the proliferation of icons. If you do like it, we can suggest and support this idea at Template talk:Spoken Wikipedia. T J McKenzie 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! The spoken article template belong at the bottom of the article, in the external links, where the documentation says it should be. It should NOT be placed at the top of an article. Raul654 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does this template belong in external links? --T J McKenzie 09:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Because it has been decided that the spoken template is roughly equivalent to the sister project templates, and teh external link section is where those belong. Moreover, it is in very bad form to start putting large banners all over articles. Raul654 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that in its current form, the Spoken Wikipedia template is far too cumbersome to go at the top of articles. However, what I've suggested above is much more discreet; more discreet than, for example, {{redirect3}} is in Rocky Mountains, where it runs onto two lines in my browser; and at least as discreet as pretty much all of the Disambiguation and redirection templates. --T J McKenzie 06:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII[edit]

Thanks for putting this on the main page. Your changes to the intro are fine, but there are some capitalization errors both added and preexisting that don't seem to be getting responded to at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors. Joturner has summed it up there. Are you the only one with the ability to edit the TFA on the main page? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alison Krauss[edit]

Hiya Raul! As you may or may not know I've been working on Alison Krauss for a while now, and have it nominated at FAC. Currently the voting stands at 3 oppose, 2 support, 0 neutral, and I would have absolutely no issue with it failing, my working on the article to fix anything requested, and nominating again. However, despite repeated attempts over a long period of time to get the three oppose voters to re-examine the article (Their only requests were to make the article more comprehensive and I've added a very detailed "Artistry" section after the style of Mariah Carey, filled out the bio info, and fixed up the references). What is the proper conduct in this situation? The voting stagnated after the three opposes, but I've fixed their requests and they haven't even responded on my talk page let alone the FAC. I'd hate to go through all the work of fixing the article up, re-nominating it (though, I've already done the fixes they've requested so I don't really know what else to do) and having the FAC fall apart again with unresponsive opposition. What should I do? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Raul! That was such a nice thing to do! I swear I'll continue to work at fixing any objections people bring up, I was just worried by the 3 who stopped responding that brought voting to a near-stop. Thanks again! Staxringold talkcontribs 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


I also got permission for that picture as well and told the guy to send permission to as well. If it didnt come maybe its because guy doesnt knows english and he send it in italian. If you want check it let some Italian speaking user send him mail: . Luka Jačov 11:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I have fixed the image page accordingly. Raul654 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So does he speaks english? Luka Jačov 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but an immediate family member of mine speaks italian natively. Raul654 21:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Iqbal FAC[edit]

Hi Raul654 - is there a particular problem to fix with this article? I've addressed most concerns. There have been a couple of anons engaging in revert wars and violating WP:NPA, but the main issues have been discussed and solved[65],[66]. This Fire Burns....Always 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to promote until I see the people who registerd teh objections agreeing that they have been addressed. Raul654 04:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The 1st person to object was user:Anwar saadat. I've addressed his objections, but as you may know/did not know, Saadat is a continual opposer of Indian subject FACs/RfAs and violator of WP:NPA - the problem has been serious enough for several users to ask that he be taken to RfC[67]. Also his two points here[68]:

(1) Article is "poorly written" and "difficult to pin-point Iqbal as progressive and regreesive": the fact is, the article must not offer an opinion about Iqbal. The article tackles his life and work in a most chronological manner, separating poetry from politics. Iqbal's opposition to Western values like secularism cannot be branded as "regressive."

(2) It is not fair to assume that Iqbal was secular pre-WWI because of his rigorous Islamic faith and grounding. "Law practise" is the correct use of British-Indian-English.

Saadat placed a similar "object" vote on Sikhism, citing user:Zafiroblue05's objection but did not rescind his objection when Zafiroblue05 himself did so.

I'm not trying to malign this user, but I have legitimate reason to point out that his object vote is not WP:AGF. Any valid reasoning has been addressed by me. And user:Arniep cited Anwar's rationale, which has been addressed. Nevertheless, I respect your concern and hope you'll let me know what you think now, so I can get to work on it. Thanks, This Fire Burns....Always 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus[edit]


How do I get the FA star on top of the newly FA'd Knights of Columbus article? --Briancua 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RN beat me to it - [69] Raul654 06:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Andy's suggestions[edit]

Date links. AndyZ has been advising people to act contrary to the MOS, not in compliance with it. Being linked from the WIAFA page legitimises this. Rebecca 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear... Raul654 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOVing the zoophilia article[edit]

Hi Raul. I believe you are the more independent of the editors on the zoophilia artilce. Which of these versions of the opening do you consider the more neutral and less argumentative: My version: [70]

Or the more recent version?:


I have placed some more argument for this on the zoophilia talkpage.

JHartley 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Using this diff - I think your version of the introduction is generally better, although there are a few things I would tweak. In order: "perform sexual acts with animals" is far less kludgy than "exercise their philia". The "Legal and ethical experts...zoophilia should be illegal" sentence is probably too specific and too hotly debated to go into the intro; I think it should be stated later in the article. I have no opinion on which paragraph (the DSM or the crime against nature paragraph) should go first, but I think your version of the crime against nature paragraph is clearly better. And I'm very much in favor of using a simple {{otheruses}} rather than the more detailed 'here's a defintion before we actually define it in the article' otheruses template. (and while I'm on that note - I fail to see Zoosexuality and zoophilia are seperate topics deserving seperate articles) Raul654 06:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much Raul. I'll see if I can make some satisfactory adjustments. I appreciate your input. JHartley 07:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Iqbal Article[edit]

Hi, I have very genuine concerns about the factual accuracy of the Iqbal article. I think it would be great if somone who's not from Asia to discuss this issue in an unbiased manner. I'll make further comments on the talk page. -- 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article request[edit]

Mister Essjay - I'd like to request an article on Advocatus dei (God's advocate) Raul654 06:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article writing? Is that for the encyclopedia thing I keep hearing we have on here? Oh, and it's Doctor Essjay, you lowly Ph.D. candidate! ;) Essjay (TalkConnect) 07:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Did you got permission from this site cause I did so if you didnt send them mail again. Regards! Luka Jačov 11:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. I have updated Image:Kuzma.jpg accordingly. Raul654 15:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin actions[edit]

Where on earth have I commented on an admin action aside from an admin's own talk page? Everyking 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I had forgotten we had carved out that exception for other admin's talk pages. However, that exception was *not* created to allow you to harass others. Raul654 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
In the future, please carefully review situations before commenting on them. Everyking 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on your comments to EM, and your previous violations, and your recent edits to several Ashlee Simpson articles, the arbitration committee is currently discussing a series of modifications to our previous remedies. Raul654 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I will be fascinated to see how these modifications can be made to work within the context of the existing ruling. My comments to EM are protected by the ruling, Ashlee Simpson articles have nothing whatsoever to do with the ruling, and as for "previous violations", I haven't been blocked in months—and you in fact were the one who unblocked me on that last occasion. Everyking 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As you have a well established record of testing the boundaries of such remedies, and as there has been little apparent change in your behavior since we institutied it, in all likelihood, the new remedies will be more encompasing and permanent in duration. Insofar as Ashlee Simpson, since you have gone back to your old editing habits, we will have be reconsidering our decision to let you edit those freely. And as far as me unblocking you - I did it contigent on you changing your behavior and avoiding conflict. Shifting the harassment from the ANI to their individual talk pages is hardly an improvement. Raul654 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm hmmm. Can you explain exactly what you find objectionable about my conduct on the Ashlee Simpson articles? I have been significantly less aggressive on the matter than EM, confining most of the controversy to the talk pages, so why does EM get the the apparent backing and me the opprobrium? This was an equally good question 18 months ago, but I don't remember getting an answer back then. Everyking 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Which of the two of you had multiple arbcom cases revolving around a tendancy to cram ashley simpson-related articles full of cruft, when everyone else in the community said otherwise? Raul654 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How's this going? Is it all being done in secret? Or has it been dropped due to lack of substance? Everyking 06:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to "Here is my attack"[edit]

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. I sincerely apologize for my actions. Because you are a beauracrat, could you restore my old pages as well? I am truly sorry, and I especially apologize to John Reid. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Raul654 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

FFX FAC[edit]

Heya Raul; I was wondering if anyone has approached you yet asking for a July 19th selection date for a front page display of Final Fantasy X. Is this still possible? Thanks! — Deckiller 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the front page thing works, but maybe FFX can take the 11th instead of Microsoft as (perfectionist side speaking here) I've got some tidies I'd like to do before it goes up. (I don't personally mind if it means another month or two wait). RN 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually did make the request a while back, but it hasn't been accepted or rejected yet. I appreciate your offer of the 11th (and would gladly accept it if Raul couldn't find another way to fit it in), but if possible, I'd prefer the 19th (which is still an empty slot at the moment) since that will be the fifth anniversary of FFX's release. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you got it, so congrats on that! BTW that was an interesting main page run with Microsoft yesterday - not the usual entire-article edits that often happen but some good tweaks and interesting comments! RN 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Ryu Kaze 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Raul654 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if you have time to speedy delete the above recreated metadata template (as you closed the original debate, it has since been recreated and speedy deleted a couple of times). It places a star in the top corner of an article. Thanks. Niz 12:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: its since been speedy-deleted by another admin... now you may be interested in the new deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8. Niz 12:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Email for you[edit]

Email headed your way. Can you let me know whether in fact it is important, or what you think? Many thanks :)

FT2 (Talk | email) 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Hello Raul. (Note wasn't signed in when I reverted) Why do you consider my addition to culture:United States vandalism? This information is verifiable and true. ? Would you like to re-write it?HappyVR 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect, not to mention ludicriously biased, to the point of being vandalism. Raul654 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
What about gauntanamo bay, bombing of vietnam, operation in iraq(illegal under international law). All these are examples of the systematic (state sponsered) abuse of other human beings, which includes murder, multilation and terrorism.HappyVR 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to debate this ridiculous point. Raul654 18:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

FA date request[edit]

While you generally try to make FAs completely random in when they appear on the main page, if I provided 50-100 possible dates for you for Sesame Street, would you consider? They'd be essentially random to even the biggest Sesame afficiado, but have meaning. -- Zanimum 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

50 to 100 dates is overkill. How about you provide 2 or 3 dates in July or August? Raul654 23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I thought you were against scheduling FA appearances altogether. If you didn't mind, November 8 is the anniversary of the show's first broadcast, that would be the best date. August 17, August 3, August 31, August 19, August 20, August 15, in that priority order. I'd like to not have it in July, as there's still a lot of work to be done, despite it being an FA. Thanks! -- Zanimum 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, not only are you not against it, and have a page for requests. Oh boy. -- Zanimum 19:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


did you see the diff?? - CrazyRougeian talk/email 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I so object. Email me for more discussion of this if you want. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 04:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
What's going on, Mark? Are you unblocking - or have you accepted my position - or are you still thinking about it? - CrazyRougeian talk/email 05:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 06:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My unblock[edit]

I appreciate you unblocking me, and I appreciate Bishonen's contacting you. I would prefer that my account remain blocked for a year though. I intend on taking a vacation from Wikipedia, but the damned thing's gotten rather addictive. Right now I don't have the time or the will to engage in a lengthy process with Arbcomm, and would prefer a decided course of action be made without all the mess. A year-long block should solve the problem. My past arguements and the quality of the some of the Islam-related articles demonstrate the point I make on the POV-bias here, and I only request that people take a look at it. The problem is for everyone to see, and I really can't stomach trying to draw attention to these problems again. His Excellency... 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Half-archived noms[edit]

You just archived these five noms but left them them on FAC too; where do they stand? Khan Wali Khan Museum of the Portuguese Language Leonhard Euler Aortic dissection CharmanderBunchofgrapes (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. I wanted them archived. Raul654 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A simple problem that takes forever to describe[edit]

Hello again, Raul. Someone, User:Jboyle4eva, recently nominated the World Cup to be a featured article. That's not really the problem, though. He filed the current nomination, which should be Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive1. This meant that is was impossible to edit the nom from the FAC page. I fixed this, moving Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive1 to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup. Simple enough. The real problem lies in the fact that the World Cup already has a failed FAC nom in its history. That meant that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive1 already existed. Jboyle4eva "solved" this by moving Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive1 to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive2. I cant move Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive2 back to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive1 because I'm not an admin. Hopefully you can help with this dreadfully tricky-to-describe problem that really isn't that hard. I hope. Cheers, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
A quick solution, indeed. Thank you. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 07:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal relating to Today's featured article[edit]

I've made a proposal over at today's featured article. Being the FA director, I wondered if you had an opinion on this somewhat academic issue. --Oldak Quill 09:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Forza Italia[edit]

Thanks for the message - I was there! You can tell your father he was right to throw you in the air! it was one of the most emotional experiences of my life, up there with the children being born. I just wish I could have followed the team back on back to Roma - but the real world is calling as well as Italia. Giano | talk 19:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue Gene[edit]

Hi Raul654

Would you be willing to explain to me what the purpose of the Blue Gene supercomputer is?

  1. Is it a supercomputer built to design the next generation of supercomputers?
    No. Computers-that-design-other-computers is science fiction, at least for the moment (there are some genetic algorithms that can come up with original designs, or have been known to infringe on patents, but their applications have been limited). For Cyclops64, every bit of the VHDL code is written by Monty (the project leader) himself.
  2. It's fairly simple to understand what the Earth Simulator is doing, but why do you need a supercomputer to design supercomputers? Is it in order to design circuits used in microprocessors or is it to design new materials to make smaller components (e.g. transistors)?
    As I said above, the purpose is not to design other supercomputers. However, as good as computers are today, there are problems in biology, physics, 'etc that are still far beyond the current generations of computers. Off the top of my head, very high resolution MRI machines require computing power on the order of a supercomputer (which is why this is the very first application for Cyclops); ditto for phased array radar. Beyond that, bioinfomatics problems (protein folding, genome decryption, 'etc) require large amounts of computing power; in physics, high resolution simulations of atoms in fusion events require computing power orders of magnitude beyond what is currently possible (And there are applications that require even more power than that)
  3. The Cyclops64 article states 'The Cyclops64 project aims to create the first "supercomputer on a chip"'. Does this mean it is a project to build one supercomputer on a chip that will be used for other purposes or is it a project to build a regular supercomputer that will design a supercomputer on a chip?
    The purpose of the project is to design a Cyclops64 chip (a single integrated circuit) which can be used in a number of applications. (PS - I should clearly state - my answers here apply only to Cyclops64; Blue/Gene is a family of projects, and 'Blue/Gene' by itself usually refers to Blue/GeneL, which I have almost no direct knowledge of) Raul654 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance,

- -  sYndicate talk  23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - -  sYndicate talk  15:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

New Userbox[edit]

Hi Raul,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link and after being insulted regularly by trolls I decided to fight back. Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )


 Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Policies & guidelines

This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.

File:Welding pipe.jpg[edit]

Hi Raul, re your note on commons:User talk:Raymond de, I found that Template talk:PD-CAGov suggests that works by the California government may not be public domain after all, and that the template on Commons now redirects to the copyvio template. I've replaced the image on Shielded metal arc welding and Welding with a US Gov't image, so there isn't an immediate problem. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Raul654 06:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Small request...[edit]

I really hate to ask, but would you mind trying a tad bit harder to include an edit summary? Seems to be very hit-or-miss with you. I know it's not required, but it helps out. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All is Well?[edit]

The mosque article is now rid of {{fact}}, {{pov}}, {{disputed}}, and {{totallydisputed}} tags and the near lack of changes since late-June seems to indicate that all is well. Do you think it's ready for its Main Page appearance or is it really deserving of a {{calm-between-the-storm}} template? joturner 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Italy beat France[edit]

Hi Raul,

Just to let you know there's been some debate (at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news) on the use of defeat or defeats, beat or beats in the ITN section. In British English (in which the 2006 FIFA World Cup article is written) teams are always referred to in the plural, so the current form "Italy beats France" is wrong, and jars to people from Britain. "Italy defeat France" was changed to "Italy beat France" as a compromise - it's the correct present tense form in British English and since it's also correct as a past tense form in US English it doesn't jar so much. I'd appreciate it if you could change it back to 'beat' (and maybe put a note informing others that the plural form is intentional and correct). Cheers — SteveRwanda 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, someone's just made the change. Sorry to bother you! — SteveRwanda 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting unfree image cleanup?[edit]

Hi. You just used rollback on my image cleanup at Wayne Gretzky. Can you clarify whether this was an error or not? Jkelly 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not an error. I made it very clear on the talk page [72] that that image should not be removed until and unless a suitable replacement image is found (the two free images in that article being of particularly poor quality do not qualify as a suitable replacement). Furthermore, your edit added the same image to the article twice, which is why I had removed it earlier [73] Raul654 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Joel Brand[edit]

Thank you. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're most certainly welcome. Raul654 06:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Varian Fry.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Varian Fry.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo images[edit]

So did you received information about licence? Luka Jačov 09:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but he did give a specific permission to use the images. Could you email him and give him a nudge? Raul654 17:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this article. It's scheduled for the main page in about a week (24 July), but has two images without a copyright tag (Image:SLB.jpg and Image:Kuzma.jpg) and there are some comments from its review made on 4 July that still have not been addressed. Pagrashtak 18:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We have specific permission to use the images; the only reason they don't have a tag is that the copyright holder didn't mention terms as applied to others. However, I feel this is a relatively minor issue. Raul654 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
As you might be aware, specific permission is not sufficient. The images must be licensed under a free license or released to the public domain. Pagrashtak 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

TFA: July 25th[edit]

Hi Raul - in the article Alpha Phi Alpha that is slated for the main page, I have a concern about the first sentence which ends "...founded by the blacks." I strongly object to the use of the word "blacks," (seems crude and derogatory - not just in the racial sense, but it seems as if it is talking about crayons or paints, not people) and I request you to change the word to "African Americans," as it is already linked to an article called African Americans. Cheers, This Fire Burns Always 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, I think you should change the wording to "Black students," although I disagree with it just as much. This Fire Burns Always 13:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the main page blurb to 'African americans'. Raul654 06:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha[edit]

someone is vandalizing the Alpha Phi Alpha article which is scheduled as featured article on July 25. This user has repeated vandalized the article for months. The users, who are one in the same are bobbydoop and mikeandike, however; he now edits without signing on, saying previously that he has forgotten his password. I guess he was waiting for it be featured before reverting back to a version that must be at least 4 - 5 months old. any help you can provide will be appreciated. Ccson 22:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

He's using AOL, which greatly complicates matters. If he tries any funny buisness on the day it is featured, he'll definitely be blocked; if he persists, I'll block him. Raul654 22:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You are using the 1908 Convention photo for the featured article summary. As the main contributor who nominated and worked to featured article status, I don't like this picture because it's very difficult to see. I would prefer in the order displayed

Thanks for featuring the article and for your continued watch. Ccson 14:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the current photo - for main page purposes, we prefer public domain images to fair use ones. If you can suggest an alterative (non-fair-use) image, I'd be happy to hear you out. Raul654 06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the intro paragraph in the artilce, so it doesn't match the intro for the Featured Article page. Can you review and see if you want to change the article's intro or the one you created for the July 25, main page? Also, removing images from your pageCcson 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in[edit]

This [74] edit, I'm not sure about you, but it looks like a personal attack to me.--Crossmr 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give DyslexicEditor the benefit of the doubt. Raul654 23:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Lee Atwater:[edit]

You recently protected[75] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 07:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FA stars no longer in classic skin?[edit]

Hi - Do you have any idea why the FA star no longer shows up in classic skin (it used to, maybe a week ago). I can't find what's changed (not template:Featured article, nothing I can find in common.css). Any ideas? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What's Rick doing, bear baiting? ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hell no. I just thought Mark would be likely to know about this. I'll ask at template talk:featured article. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alison Krauss[edit]

First off, thank you again for restarting the stagnated FAC, it really helped the article out a great deal. Also, I've listed Krauss at TFA/requests, and I was wondering if she might sneak in for July 23rd? I'm asking on your talk page (in addition to TFA/requests) because you've already scheduled Read my lips: no new taxes (a great article) in that day's slot. As far as I can see, Read my lips has no connection to the date (and actually a large connection to the upcoming date, August 18, when the speech was given) and the 23rd is Krauss' birthday (a nice connection). Thanks no matter what decision you make (I've listed a couple of August dates as well, from album releases). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to politely reject your request - it's a huge pain in the ass to move articles once scheduled, so I generally avoid doing so unless there's a really pressing reason to do it. Raul654 06:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with TFA[edit]

Hi Raul,

First, thanks for scheduling Battle of Smolensk (1943) for TFA! However, there is a slight problem with the text at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 29, 2006 because the "More..." text does not point to Battle of Smolensk (1943) but to Battle of Smolensk which is a disambig page. Can you please change the link (I can't since it is protected and I'm not an admin)?

Thanks in advance, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Staxringold got it [76] Raul654 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, how's it going. The Armenian Wikipieda (hy.) now has over 1,000 articles, so an update on the en main page is in order. Thanks. --DanielNuyu 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated - in the future, however, there are more appropriate places to request this than my talk page ;) Raul654 07:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FA History[edit]

As director of Featured Articles, I thought you would know which article was the first featured article, and secondly, where the idea of having featured articles came from. Perhaps that would be something informative to add to the FA page itself. --Jay(Reply) 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lee Atwater issue[edit]

Hi Raul,

I think I was the reason you placed the Lee Atwater page under protection: I had deleted a quote from the article. I have given my reason in the discussion page under "Career".

FAR changes[edit]

Hi Raul

I've proposed a new lead for the FAR page that involves the merging of minor and major reviews, to be called simply FAR. Thus, it would be a binary rather than a ternary system. The main contributors/reviewers to the room have agreed to the revised version (after I made a few changes to satisfy objections).

I intend to paste in the new text in a few days' time if there are no fresh criticisms. Please let me know if you have qualms about the proposal.

Tony 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrongly placed featured article stars[edit]

I recently ran across an instance of template:featured article which had been misplaced in Prince (musician) by an anon here. Admittedly, it was only there for about a day, but it still seems problematic that there is no centralized method of determining if the featured article stars are wrongly placed. As the featured article director, I was hoping you would know something about this. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles is to be considered the (only) authorotative source for which articles are or are not featured. If an article is not listed there, it is NOT a featured article and any such stars are to be removed. Raul654 02:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there some way to automate comparison of Wikipedia:Featured articles with the articles that have template:featured article on them? Could this be run by a bot on a regular basis?—WAvegetarian(talk) 00:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Aeon from the Mediation Cabal[edit]

Hello Raul654, I'm Aeon from the Mediation Cabal. Wing Nut has requested Mediation in order to settle disputes over Fossil record. Please respond back to me if you are willing to talk this out in Mediation. The Mediation Cabal is informal so there is nothing to lose. Aeon Insane Ward 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article[edit]

Can we put a World Jump Day article for the tommorow's featured article instead of Enceladus? --Emx 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

World Jump day is not a featured article. I have fixed the nomination you made (by listing it on wikipedia:featured article candidates) Raul654 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


Hello Raul, please help with a case about alleged adminship abuse by JzG, which had been rejected by three arbitrators before an administrator warned the accused one and undid part of his actions. The conflict is going on and I do not know how to find a solution. The only arbitrator who has sinced voted on the case is one who in my eyes is in a conflict of interest as he did a very similar block on me in the past that I think was abusive and that was undone by Theresa as it lacked any evidence of wrongdoing by me. I had suggested a change to the blocking policy but the discussion about it has up to now been inconclusive due to a lack of participants. Socafan 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


the sentence on Ann Coulter wasn't that bad, I was just trying to find a compromise between the two! :) --kizzle 05:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re My request[edit]

Thank you, Raul. I await the final outcome, then. Redux 23:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I just wanted to thank you for your work during my request for Oversight status -- although I feel I really should be apologizing for getting you more work ;). I really appreciate it. Redux 02:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Article of the day newletter[edit]

Hello, could you take a look at Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia e-mail newsletter hyperlinks include ending ")"? It's quite a serious problem and I was infomed you are the one I should inform. Thanks, --Timichal

Greetings from Featured Lists[edit]

Hi Raul654. I want to ask you how would you feel about having lists featured on the Main Page a couple days per week. There remains the question of where on the Main Page to put it, but I just wanted to know if you agreed in principle. Thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea, no. Setting aside for a moment the serious practical issue of there simply not being any more space on the main page (which is already rather crowded), I do not believe that a list is something that readers will find engaging. Raul654 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian chant[edit]

I noticed you closed the Gregorian chant as an Failed FAC even though it only had one objection, from User:Tony1 which was met and he crossed out the vote and I don't see any more opposes. Can you relist it or promote. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok thank you Jaranda wat's sup 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mandy Moore[edit]

Question... User:Jaranda closed down the Mandy Moore FAC. However, it got a single vote, which was an object - the objecter said they were objecting because Wikipedia has too many entertainment FAs. So obviously, that vote doesn't count. I didn't get any other votes at all either way. So - it neither failed nor succeeded and I am unsure of what to do with it. Mad Jack 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restarted the nom afresh. Raul654 06:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Appreciated Mad Jack 06:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi Raul, I was wondering why Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_York_City failed after about four and a half days on the FAC page? I was under the impression that articles were generally given five days, and where an effort was being made to address objections articles were given more time. I had certainly been making a major effort to resolve problems with the article, as you can see from my comments on the page and the edit history of New York City. Thanks. –Joke 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that the article is a work in progress. However with the FAC as unusually busy as it is, I decided to process some of the older noms a bit early. Keep working on the objections, and feel free to renominate it in a couple weeks. Raul654 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I noticed it looked pretty busy. –Joke 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya FAC[edit]

Hi! Are you sure about this? I realise the article is quite good and some big problems have been addressed, but it is still being fixed (I hope) and not yet stable, with an ongoing copyediting effort. Although the article has already spent almost a week in WP:FAC, I think the process should be given some more time, especially since the article did not previously undergo peer review. —xyzzyn 23:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

P. K. van der Byl FAC[edit]

Mark. This one has been open for debate for near 3 weeks now. Perhaps that is enough?. Most of the concerns raised have been addressed and the current score is 1 "weak 0bject" (where the voter had promised to reverse his vote, but has overlooked doing so), 1 Object and 3 Supports. That is not many votes, but they are all appear to be from credible contributors. Any chance of closing the debate and promoting the article?. Bob BScar23625 04:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to get some input on it, which is why I elected to leave it there a bit longer. Raul654 22:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. Bob BScar23625 05:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 05:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I wish to contact you about FAC...[edit]

A little boost

I've never seen so many FACs! It's been over 40 for weeks now. I hope it's not too stressful. Here, have this cookie to give you energy to deal with the FAC horde. I would be lying to say I don;t feel a bit sorry for you, usually July is a calmer season on Wikipedia. Good luck, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


This article you have in the FA listings was renamed Dayuan. I thought you'd want to update the FA list. It was changed some time ago. Rlevse 21:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 22:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Phone call[edit]

See your email and call me. Danny 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot - your email did not include an area code. Should I call the cell phone number I already have for you, the one listed on the press room, or something else? Raul654 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you yet again[edit]

Hi Mark. I really want to thank you for the follow up on the request on Meta. I really appreciate you taking time from your own editing to make sure the request got carried out. It looks like the Stewards went a couple of days without visiting RfP.. Thank you so much, again. Cheers, Redux 01:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The list[edit]

here's the list of accounts:

  • User:Mikenish
  • User:LooperM
  • User:Plarr9

- Amgine 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Jim Inhofe:[edit]

You recently protected[77] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 05:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Wikipedia:Press:[edit]

You recently protected[78] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 05:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot notices[edit]

If you protect a page with InUse as the reason please put that in the protection summary (as opposed to just the article). The Bot can, but does not list such protections on WP:PP, because when I unprotected pages that were protected for too long (like 30-60), I need to know the reason why, as some pages have a good reason for long term protection. Also, since the protecion sumamry not only appears in the protect log, but as an edit in the page history, its useful for editors to be able to see why it was protected. I'd whitelist you from the bot but no other admin seems to have this problem that I know of.Voice-of-All 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

regarding protection of Ann Coulter page[edit]

I cannot seem to see why you've protected this page. I am guessing it's in response to two incidences of vandalism by an IP user beginning with 84.*. Though I think protection of the page is going a bit too far after only two incidences of vandalism here. Anyway, in reverting and protecting, you've also reverted a series of edits that I made that I consider productive and non-vandalism, and you left no explanation for why you reverted that? I wasn't even edit-warring with the 84.* user in the first place. Kizzle reverted him/her first, and you reverted the second one. My edits seem to have been caught in the crossfire somewhere,... Dr. Cash 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad - I have unprotected and reverted to the last pre-84* version. Raul654 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAC#Macedonia (terminology)[edit]

Hey Raul. Great job, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes! We still have unstricken oppositions by Tony and Joelito regarding 'lists'. 10 others (last was Sean WI) have reconsidered and now 6 support and 4 went neutral. There have been three attempts to rectify that, all unsuccessful. The main reason is that all editors (me included) like the current format:

[[Macedonia/n/s (foo)|Macedonia/n/s]] (as a foo) refers...

All Macedonians 'mouse-over' in their brains when they use those terms! I managed to add some more text after these oppositions, but have no answer yet (maybe I was too hard in ...opposing the opposers). I've posted a rationale regarding why I think these oppositions are unsubstantiated and haven't received responses to that either. I've included similar precedents I found and read all requirements, but I thought I should ask what you think with your experience in this field. So here goes: Is this a list? :NikoSilver: 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In re: RFCU talk[edit]

I believe the point, or WP:POINT as our accusers will no doubt cry, is that we aren't into masochism; we're not encouraged to keep working by being abused. If the community is particularly interested in having the service we provide, they will quickly file the matter in /dev/null. Until they do, we've redirected RFCU there. Essjay (Talk) 13:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the brick[edit]

I think.  :) I wasn't trying to be biting, per se, just bored with the repeated drama. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pet Skunk "globalize" template[edit]

Hi Raul,

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pet skunk. I strongly feel that this article needs to reflect a global view, or otherwise be de-listed as a featured article. It just won't do to have a FA which reflects the situation primarily in one country (when that article is not about that country). I have not replaced the tag (after re-reading that section I see I was perhaps a little hasty), but I still think that the article needs to be globalised. Mere brief mentions are made of skunk ownership in countries outside the USA, while a great deal of text deals with skunk acquisition and legality in the USA. In other places, the USA is assumed to be "the nation of default, if no nation is named", for example: "Nationwide Domestic Skunk Petition" (National? Of which country? Hmm, let me guess...). Under the "Organizations" section, only two "other" countries are merely mentioned by name at the end of the section, after several paragraphs giving a lot of information about organisations in ONE country. I'm not on an anti-American crusade or anything: I have as much respect for that country and its people as I do for any other. I do believe, though, that the English language Wikipedia needs to be held in strong check to counter the systematic bias towards the USA. It's fine to have lots of featured articles about American things. It's not fine, however, if featured articles which are supposed to be about subjects not exclusively associated with one particular nation, show a viewpoint which 99% reflects the situation in one country only, with mere brief mentions of other countries. Any thoughts? EuroSong talk 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


With the amount of vandalism, I think a sprotect is needed. Since you unprotected the page before, yould you have a look? Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We do not protect FAs as a matter of policy - see user:Raul654/protection Raul654 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
However, I'll be happy to checkuser the guy and block him for a good long time. Raul654 06:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Note - he was using AOL. IMHO, we should just get it over with and block account creation and anonomyous editing from AOL with the message: "Due to AOL's badly designed infrastructure and refusal to impliment technical solutions that would aid Wikipedia in serving AOL users, Wikipedia has decided to terminate editing rights for AOL users who do not already have accounts" Raul654 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd support that — it's the best alternative. It would sacrifice a slight bit of inconvienence from a few editors in exchange for a better overall reputation (and less work for us). — Deckiller 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it would help to 'motivate' AOL into supporting XFF. Raul654 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case, though, the vandal found an unprotected template (Template:Pokenum) that was embedded in the FA summary (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2006) and vandalised that. The result was that his genitalia appeared on the Main Page. See Talk:Main Page for commentary on this. Can't we have some procedure or automatic check that prevents unprotected templates from appearing on the Main Page? Or, better still, something that refuses to allow any templates to be embedded in the Main Page components? --Heron 20:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a report (I'm thinking from Angela, but I could be wrong) that AOL *was* supporting XFF; did this not pan out? Essjay (Talk) 00:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the report was that they are "planning" to support XFF. They don't actually support XFF yet. And, in fact, the timing of the announcement was rather questionable. Within hours of Tim's modifications to the blocking mechanism going live (finally giving us the ability to block all of AOL except for already-registered users), the announcement that AOL was finally in the process of adding XFF was made. I do not find the close timing of these announcements to be a coincidence. Raul654 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so it's just a stalling tatic. Damn them and their tricky ways! Essjay (Talk) 00:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there some page to voice support for an AOL block? If there isn't, can you think of an appropriate place to raise this as a proposed blocking policy?—WAvegetarian(talk) 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:CENT? Not sure. Highway Return to Oz... 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Stable articles[edit]

Just letting you know that I agree with the stable article outline you posted on slashdot. Never having looked at the mediawiki code, I'm not sure whether this is really a consensus or a "who's going to put in the effort to code it" problem, but I hope some progress can be made. On a side note, do you happen to know whether anyone has thought of implementing a Harvard option to Cite.php? The code needed to parse "Harold, P., Maricar, M., Stubbins, P.J. and Groper, P.E.R.V. 2002. etc." and output "Harold et al. 2002" is trivial. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 10:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(1) Danny told me during a phone call that the developers will be putting no effort into changing the Mediawiki code so as to support stable versions. How accurate this claim is, I cannot say. (Danny was using this to argue in favor of the current stable-versions-now proposal. My reply to him was that if the developers do not want to invest the time to impliment, thus requring us to use the kludges in the the current stable-versions-now proposal, then the need for stable versions must not be as pressing as he claims it is). (2) Rob Church is the one who wrote cite.php; he would be the one to talk to about that. However, I doubt there is much inclination to support harvard referencing, because the system we have now is quite good already and there are more pressing tasks for the developers. Raul654 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. On number 2, I think we have a lot of "legacy" users (those dusty academics) who'd be contributing more if they could use the familiar Harvard system. I'll think on it, don't really have the time myself at the moment. I'll check Rob Church. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration work[edit]

Hi Mark, since returning to active status on the Arbitration Committee, on July 7th, you haven't participated in any cases beyond the main RFAr page except to vote on one injunction. Having inactive arbitrators marked as active greatly slow down the process, becaue it means the other voters have to overcome that with a higher proportion than should be necessary voting. Could you eithr move yourself to inactive status so that we can mark that on all current cases, or get more involved in current cases? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ping. In fact, it doesn't look like you have voted on a case since Guanaco, MarkSweep, etc. in April. And your userpage says you are out of town at the moment. If we had one less arbitrator active, for example, the Saladin1970 appeal could be closed right now. Instead we have to wait for another voter, which will probably not be you. Dmcdevit·t 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Before posting main page articles[edit]

Something to add to your checklist: Check for and protect or substitute templates used in the first paragraph, as this was one of the recent ways to add wild and crazy images, etc. to the main page, and it is not as easy to fix as vandalism right on the main article. —Centrxtalk • 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes - I should have realized that before hand. Raul654 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)