User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:15, 3 December 2007

For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

Arbcom still valid?

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term_edit_warring_at_Winter_Soldier_Investigation is a case which you were involved in.

Is the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement still valid? The one year revert ban has expired, but the Ban violations and Parole violations have not expired. Is this correct?

Thanks in advance. I will watch your page for the response. Travb (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting Webley Revolver on the front page!

Just a quick note to say thank you very much for arranging to have Webley Revolver featured on November 8th- I really appreciate your time and assistance with making it possible! --Commander Zulu 11:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And hey, thanks for adding Cillian Murphy too. Much appreciated!! --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee! Thanks for the little note & pic. You're fab. --Melty girl (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Arthur

Hi Raul654. You posted an April 21, 2007 Checkuser tree, but left it unfinished. In that tree, the only name you posted "(Legit user?)" next to was Thin Arthur. See this post. Thin Arthur now is included in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbromage (which I am working on) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. I'm not sure what you meant by "(Legit user?)". Also, I am not sure how to read that checkuser tree. If you have more information on Thin Arthur or if that checkuser tree reveals information that would help out at SSP, please post it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbromage. F.Y.I., there is an open checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dbromage. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(Legit user?)" means that I was not sure when I was doing the checkuser if that user was a legit user or not.

The structure of the tree is (conceptually) easy to understand: all IPs under a username are IPs that user has been known to have used; usernames under an IP are usernames that trace to that IP. Repeats are omitted as they are found. Raul654 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		An Invisible Barnstar
		To Raul654, for Wikipedia:Today's featured article, the "Rings of Jupiter". Jupiter has been here but I have never been there—thank you and if it is all right to say so, Jodi Foster and Co. and a cast of thousands for Contact. Wow. Best wishes. Susanlesch 19:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Balzac

I notice Balzac is slated for Today's Featured Article on Nov. 17 – cheers for that. I notice also that you've removed the semi-protected status for that page. Alas, I worry that when he is put up on the front page, clever 12-year-olds around the world will go nuts with the vandalism. Maybe we should re-protect it on the 16th or so? – Scartol · Talk 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the semi-protection expired before I got there (07:46, 26 October 2007 Riana (Talk | contribs | block) protected Honoré de Balzac ‎ (vandalism of an unsavoury nature [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] (expires 07:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC))) (Change)) I just removed the semi-protection template (which was on an unprotected page). Raul654 02:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Is it possible to apply for semi-protection before it appears on the front page, on the presumption that it will be vandalized unless it is protected? – Scartol · Talk 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Inconvenient Truth

Why have you reverted my edits? Please discuss this on the AIT talk page.

Because you are sytematically introducing POV into that article by adding claims made by the TGGWS pseudo-documentary propaganda film, removing subsequent paragraphs describing the film as such, removing criticismo of the NSTA's actions. Raul654 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would participate in the discussion page rather than here. All of my actions are adequately discussed in the discussion page, none of yours are.

As for adding the TGGWS section, I did not. It has been a long standing section which was introduced by someone other than myself. I simply reverted a deletion by another editor who provided no satisfactory reason for the deletion. It is POV pushing that I am seeking to avoid here, not introduce it.

The information removed was redundant and available elsewhere (which I attempted to clarify on the page when you conducted a second revert).

The criticism of NSTA's action were made by a group with no direct knowledge of the events and it was redundant to boot making it WP:UNDUE. --GoRight 04:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Iowa

Here you go.. since you're all about policing template colors and such... {{WikiProject Iowa}}

Enjoy. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Raul654 03:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested sound files

Is there a category and template analogous to {{reqphoto}} for articles needing a sound file? I am planning on doing some recordings of medieval and baroque music, and it would be nice to identify articles looking for specific pieces. If there is no category or template, I'd happily create one. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found it! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article/requests

Are we allowed to make non-date requests on this page? Buc 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by a "non-date specific request", you mean a request that doesn't specify a date -- no, you have to pick some date. However, with that said, the date you pick doesn't have to have a relationship with the article being requested. Raul654 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nag

Sorry if I'm disturbing you....FACs.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Music of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Wikipedia:Facebook

It was put up for MFD. I have speedy closed this as keep. Honestly! However, due to privacy concerns and because of confusion with Facebook, I have moved it to a more appropriate title. I've also permanently semi-protected the page to stop anons from abusing it. I'll also keep a permanent watch on the page - those who add images of others without their permissions will get reverted. Could you also add it to your watchlist? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:Facebook was moved to Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians. Right now its on MfD again: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). As page creator you might wish to comment. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say goodbye to this extremely useful page Raul. Looks like the MFD deleters are at it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle

Hi there, We of WikiProject Seattle have been working diligently to correct all the issues brought up during its Featured Article review, and do believe we've brought it back up to snuff. The original nominator hasn't been seen in the discussion for a while and we were wondering when and how the review can be closed. Thanks! --Lukobe 08:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

main page queue

Hi Raul, noticed it's a bit short and wondered if you'd consider including Chess, or do you have a policy of not featuring an article for a second time? That'd be logical given so many have never appeared, but... :-) Also, fyi, 20/12/07 would have been the 102nd birthday of Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) if he hadn't already gone to the great cricket pitch in the sky... --Dweller 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Global warming

Hi Raul, I'm a little concerned about your recent edits on Global warming. There seems to be a consensus that the lead sentences are to be subjected to a 1RR. From a report at WP:AN/3RR, I see you've reverted twice already[1][2]. Two reverts would not normally be a problem, but you've already been blocked for edit warring on this article. Please think about this and discuss your future edits to the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second of those reverts was to vandalism (changing it to increasing - which is flatly objectively false, and using a misleading edit summary to boot). Vandalism reverts are not normally counted against 3rr and whatnot. Raul654 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can reasonably state that the second revert was vandalism. You may believe that it is completely false, but the other user doesn't think so - It's a bog standard edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's vandalism for the same reason that if I go to the Earth article and edit it to say that the earth is flat, that's vandalism too. Both statements are flatly, objectively not true. Raul654 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truthfulness of a statement is not considered in vandalism. I may very well say Metallica is considered a good band by [most] Americans, which is not true, but it wouldn't be vandalism. It's a content dispute, and as such fall under tendentious editing and edit warring. Additionally, you have no absolutely no ground to say whether dissenting scientists are increasing or decreasing in number, especially since I suspect nobody knows. This is obviously a content dispute, and your edit warring helps none. (Note, boldface text was edited after original post, to convey original meaning.) ~ UBeR (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your your pontifications on what is and is not vandalism, however, policy disagrees with you (Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.) Deliberately adding false information into an article is vandalism.

Moreover, your analogy is transparently false, as is the logic behind it. Statements like "this band sucks" or "this band is awesome" are obviously subjective. The number of critics of global warming is not subjective. The number of critics has been steadily decreasing for 20+ years (down to a quantifiable few; indisputably fewer than 5 or 10 years ago) and continues to decrease as the evidence piles up. Obedium's edits are, then, flatly false. And I find it very convenient that you choose to ignore his obviously misleading edit summary ("Improved phrasing"). Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective, so it's not worth mentioning, especially in this case. Also, I believe you are incorrect on policy. WP:VANDALISM quite clearly states, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated" Your lack of good faith in editors is apparent across the board. Simply because you lack good faith in many of our contributing editors does not warrant edit warring. The policy continues, rather clearly, "NPOV violations ... Making bold edits ... Unintentional misinformation ... Unintentional nonsense ... Stubbornness" are not vandalism, and you cannot treat them as such. Own your mistakes and apologize for them, or you your should very well be blocked. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective" - I don't know what weird, truthiness filled-world you come from that with a straight face you say something like that. In the real world, the one that I live in, there is an objective reality. There are things that are true, and things are not. The world is not flat. The earth circles around the sun. It's 2006 AD. And the number of global warming skeptics is decreasing. And in this real world, we create encyclopedias like Wikipedia to document these facts. Someone who edits the earth article to say the world is flat is vandalizing the article. It's not subjective, it's not a judgment call - it's flat out wrong. And if you are unable to grasp this not-too-difficult concept, then you have no business trying to lecture anyone about our policies. Raul654 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR provision exists only through the consensus of involved editors. If we allow editors with a history of POV-pushing and sockpuppetry to game the 1RR provision in order to insert outright lies, then that consensus will (and should) dissolve. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Dr. Arritt, "1RR is a delicate thing and abuse must not be allowed." Just as 3RR should not ever be violated simply because you disagree with the content, 1RR should not be abused if there is a consensus to have it in place as you say. And I think our policy on edit warring explains why rather well. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a change from "A few" to "An increasing number" is demonstrably false (and while I'm not sure that you can indeed demonstrate that, I agree it is against the orthodox view and can be perceived as an attempt to mislead) I do not believe an indefinite block is called for, barring a long history of similar and intentional disruption. Thatcher131 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, it was a week. Still, that seems rather heavy. Do you realize how much easier Arbitration enforcement would be if I could drop a week on anyone without warning for single edits? Unless there is a long history with this user making delibreately misleading edits to GW topics, I think a week is pretty long. Thatcher131 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please unprotect Obedium's talk page. Tak page protection is generally reserved for users who abuse the unblock template, thereby wasting other admins' time. There is a broad consensus that users can remove warnings; it is still there in the history and your edit summary is easily visible as well. Thatcher131 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Raymond says, this is most certainly not out of the blue for this editor, seeing as how he's been warned for doing this several times before: [3][4][5]. (which is why letting people scrub these warnings is not a good idea). Beacuse you asked, I've gone ahead and unprotected his talk page - I expect he'll get rid of the current block message too. Raul654 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is a long history of this user making deliberately misleading edits to GW topics (see also his User:Scibaby sockpuppet). So, it's not as if it were a week's block applied out of the blue to an otherwise-constructive editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I also mention that Obedium edits his talk page back and forth repeatedly. The net change is to add "Test embedded..." AGF on this one is out of the question for a paranoid fella like myself, I think Obedium is trying to make the warnings become archaeological relics in the history of his talk page by artificially pushing time forward. He cannot escape by doing so sice everything is recorded, but it is annoying when trying to figure out how many warnings Obedium has. Brusegadi (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Raul654)

Hello, Raul654. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raul654Template:Highrfc-loop]], where you may want to participate.

~ UBeR (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note - the above RFC had no merit, was rejected by almost every person who commented on it, and was shortly thereafter deleted because it was not properly certified.) Raul654 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Newcomers are_delicious,_so_go_ahead_and_bite_them

Wikipedia:Newcomers are_delicious,_so_go_ahead_and_bite_them, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Newcomers are_delicious,_so_go_ahead_and_bite_them and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Newcomers are_delicious,_so_go_ahead_and_bite_them during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercury 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raspor sock?

User:Patonq? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just caught another half-dozen of his socks. Raul654 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna_of_Australia (Can u feature this tomorrow?)

Hi Raul, How about, this article for tomorrow? It came on the main page 2 yrs before... Mugunth ^{(ping me!!!, contribs)} 03:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating the inevitable "Is this article featured" questions

I had every intention of writing an FAQ to be added to {{FAC}}, but haven't gotten to it yet. Anticipating the rush of people asking if articles are featured after today's promotion:

If the article is listed here, it has been promoted by Raul654. Yes you can add the star, by adding {{featured article}} to the bottom of the article. Please wait for the bot to do the rest of the updating to articlehistory and the article talk page. If you do that yourself, it creates extra work and stalls the bot.
If the article is listed here, it was not promoted. Please wait for the bot to close the FAC and update the articlehistory. If you do that yourself, it creates extra work and stalls the bot.
If you're coming here to ask, why did a bot promote or fail my nomination, the bot didn't; Raul did (see the diffs above). The bot only updates the articlehistory.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have worked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I'm going to run this sample page by Gimmetrow and Tony1. Please edit as you see fit, and we can use the associated talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 and Gimmetrow looked at the sandbox version, so I moved it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/archiving and linked it to the {{FAC}} template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage Test2 updating

I was wondering whether User:Raul654/test2 was going to receive further updates. I like it as resource and I am volunteering to help.--Keerllston 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia:Featured article statistics? Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted FACs

I don't think restarting the FAC for Golden Film was really helpful, since it was archived without waiting for any new comments. Maybe the relevant projects should have been notified. Previously I asked you about the renomination policy, do you think notifying projects should be part of it? – Ilse @ 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immune collapse

I noticed your request for immune collapse.[6] I can only see the term in the context of AIDS-related literature. Is this what you're referring to? JFW | T@lk 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it after it came up in my computational immunology class (in reference to AIDS). I also assumed it could refer to other situations like septicaemia Raul654 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge it is immune hyperactivity that makes septiciaemia such a nasty problem. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct. If that's the case (that it has no meaning outside of an AIDS context), what do you suggest? Raul654 (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Determining what is and is not a featured article

Hello,

I'm wondering what your standard is for determining whether an article should be promoted to featured status or not. I ask this because I'm trying to get Opera (Internet suite) up to featured article status, and so I filed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opera (Internet suite), but you recently declined to promote it. Did you find a problem with the article, or were there simply not enough "votes"? If there were not enough votes, then about how many votes does an article need to be promoted? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our debate on your questions page

Raul, we disagree strongly, but your questions page was probably not the best place to air that contentious debate. So feel free to refactor/move/remove our back-and-forth debate from that page. I stand by everything I wrote, and I have no problem with it staying exactly the way it is, but I would also not object to you refactoring it. Regardless of our respective positions on that case, the questions page was probably not the best place to get into an extended debate. ATren (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith ^T/C 05:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions about your job as the FA director

1. If you are on holiday, busy or sick, who closes FACs?

2. How do you check whether all the problems are fixed? For example, I oppose an FAC for a few reasons, including not enough references and spelling mistakes. The nominator says he fixed everything, but he did not fix the spelling mistakes. Do you read the article to check whether all the spelling mistakes are fixed?

3. What is an "actionable" oppose and what is not?

--Kaypoh (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Nobody.

(2) At any given time, there are probably well over 1,000 comments and replies on the FAC. No single person could possibly keep track of them all. The onus is on the reviewer to keep up with replies to his comments. In borderline cases, I usually check the article myself, but only a cursory review - I don't read the whole thing.

(3) An actionable objection is one that can be fixed. Determining what is and is not action is up to the FA director. Raul654 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. :) If the nominator did not fix the spelling mistakes and you promote the article to FA, is there a way to ask you to unpromote the article? --Kaypoh (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kaypoh - rather than unpromote an article, why not simply fix the spelling mistakes yourself? I generally do these days as it is often simpler than actually writing about them on the FAC page. Remember the aim is to make FAs, not to pass or fail others as such. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an example. If the problems are bigger than spelling mistakes, and the nominator says he fixed them but he did not, and the article is promoted wrongly? --Kaypoh (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a distinctly unpleasant line of questioning, bordering on assuming all kinds of bad faith. If there's a FA that shouldn't be one, see WP:FAR. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please note the instructions there regarding the minimum time between promotion and review; in that time, often issues can be addressed without review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not bad faith. I opposed one FAC (I forgot which one) because about 10 paragraphs had no references. The nominator added references to only 3 or 4 paragraphs and the other paragraphs still had no references. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom tomfoolery

Just a quick note to wish you good luck in the forthcoming silly season. How does it feel not to be the most controversial candidate? Lol. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong arbitration request

Hi Raul. Videmus Omnia filed a request for arbitration regarding Ryulong here, and in his statement he requested you recuse yourself from the case due to your having promoted him to adminship. Just in case you hadn't noticed. Picaroon (t) 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in Blender Article

Hi there!

The image you added to the Blender article seems to be of a mixer, not a blender. Perhaps a different, more appropriate image could be used instead? --Lightforce (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct! I mixed up my terminology ;) Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

I was wondering if you thought that it was too soon to put it on the main page, since Homer's Phobia was the TFA on July 27. If you think it's too soon, then please let me know and I'll withdraw the request so that someone else can have the slot. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preuss School FAC

Hi. I'm not really sure if it is the norm to approach you on your decisions on promotion of FAC but I guess I will just be bold and go ahead and do so. You recently achieved the FAC for The Preuss School UCSD after it had been there for less than week. While it had two opposes, one of them had been addressed and the other had only been there for a few hours. As such, I do not really feel as though this meets "If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination." I realize it is up to your discretion, but was wondering if I could have some kind of rationale for your decision. At any rate, thanks for the time. SorryGuy 07:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what - go ahead, fix Tony's objection, and then go ahead and renominate it. We normally tell people to wait a bit, but you're right that I might have been rather hasty. Raul654 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Twin article.

I noticed on your user page that you have some background in the field of biomedical engineering. So i decided to forward a question I found on the twin articles talk page. The question is here Thanks for your help if you have time to give it. And thanks anyway if you don't. Good luck with the upcoming election. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Is back at FAC again; DrKiernan has done some work on it, so I left him a note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]

Re: Sysop action.

Hey Raul. Could you explain why you chose to block User:Obedium indefinately, and is there evidence that he/she/what-ever group is behind the account is the same people that were behind another indef blocked editor? Just curious. Regards, Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obedium's user page led me to Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Obedium, which in turn led me to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Scibaby. I ran the checkuser, and confirmed that he's the same person. Raul654 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off by one error

I noticed in a recent edit that 8 articles were added to the list at Wikipedia:Featured_articles even though the edit summary showed 9 articles had been promoted. From this update to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2007 it appears that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant was the FAC not to be added. Based on the number of people who watch WP:FA for inappropriate changes it is probably best if you make the appropraite correction. --Allen3 ^talk 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I noticed you held off for a good long while there in deciding what to do with the Pageant article. I just wanted to say thanks for letting it wait for that long actually, because with the help of other contributors we were able to make some good quality improvements to the article. Your judgment and the work you do is appreciated around here, thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Knights of the Nine Featured Article Candidacy

Raul, I'm not sure what to do with this article. I believe it complies with the Featured Article criteria, but if I renominate it I think I'm going to come across the same impossible objections. Do you have any recommendations? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for noticing the LtWinters sock. How did you catch that? I'm surprised he'd vandalize my user and talk pages but then revert back and warn himself. Seems pointless. --Strothra (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found them using checkuser. He warned himself, I suspect, so that the account would look like a legit user if someone saw it later. Raul654 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No source for Image:Sharp_Hall_Dorm_Room.jpg

The table for Image:Sharp_Hall_Dorm_Room.jpg states that there is no source. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self made. Raul654 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honored by the Puerto Rican Senate

DearRaul,

I would like to share with you that today, November 28, 2007, I was honored by the Senate of Puerto Rico with the "Resolution of the Senate Number 3603" in appreciation for my work in Wikipedia regarding Puerto Rican military related articles. I was given the resolution on behalf of the Senate by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the honorable Kenneth McClintock. It was a total surprise which I did not expect and that is why I want to share this news with you. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news! Congratulations! I'll let the signpost know. Raul654 (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate the comments you made at the proposed decision on the Durova ArbCom. Sometimes it feels like, in their anger at a particular contributor, ArbCom's decisions become difficult to grasp in the context of what actually makes the project better. Seeing your reasoning, and your justifiable critique of the contributor in the process, is illuminating, and much-appreciated. Mr Which ^??? 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman film series

Hey Raul,

Listen, I was just wondering, Superman film series is an FA (YAY!!!) but it dosen't have a a small bronze star on its page like other FA articles do. Why? Limetolime (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:FAC#FA_Stars. Gimmetrow 01:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a shortcut, WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:FAC/FAQ ? Gimmetrow —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A FAC/FAQ could result in instruction creep; I had in mind sticking to botification/archiving issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to User talk:SandyGeorgia#FAC/FAQ. Gimmetrow 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I'd like to create a userbox similar to the one I did for NYB (It's on my talk page). But to do so, I'd like a.) to know if you're opposed to it; and b.) your suggestion of an appropriate image.

(Note for anyone else reading this, there are only two bureaucrats running, and I think both are at least decent choices (smile), so I'm asking them both.)

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fine with that. For an iconic picture, it's too bad the ceiling cat picture got deleted - that would have been perfect. I guess this is the next best thing. Raul654 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great picture : )

Not because I intend to bypass anything, but just out of curiosity, do you have a link to the deleted one? - jc37 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling Cat is an internet meme - one which I happen to find particularly funny -- http://www.ceilingcat.com/ Raul654 (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some weren't that good (and not a fan of any of the captions), but the basic picture is cute : )

This was cute too.

The deletions, not-so-much...

Maybe it's been enough time to try again on the article? (or as a part of a list...)

Anyway, thanks for the links : ) - jc37 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget user:Ceiling Cat and the ceiling-cat related humor links from his user page. Raul654 (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL : )

How about that picture? - jc37 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine too :) Raul654 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jc37/Userboxes/Raul6544Arbcom - Though, as I mentioned to others when working on NYB's - I'm on the lookout for alternate "bottom-line" comments. (It's configurable for that and for floating left/right.) - jc37 04:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to FAC-template

Hi Mark—Please see my edits, prompted initially by Sandy's request to review a sentence she added. I've left a note with Bishonen asking her to review the template as well. I don't think it's premature to add a statement saying that "director" includes your delegate. That last item could be pluralised if/when you appoint another delegate. You might consider naming the delegate—unsure. The C in FAC is ambiguous (criteria/candidate), so I've spelt it out where possible. I've abbreviated featured article, since it's widely used elsewhere and makes the template easier to read.

Here it is. Tony (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ce and cleanup, but I only wanted a review of that one sentence about opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief Note

Just wanted to let you know, I appreciate the hard work you're putting into this. I may be raisin' hell at the Arbcom right now (and hell needs to be raised, in my view), but it appears that you're taking a relatively clear-eyed look at the facts at hand, and for that, I'm appreciative. For all his faults (and they're not few), Giano is an overwhelming net asset to this project. He loves the 'pedia, and any "remedy" that keeps him from contributing hurts the project. Mr Which ^??? 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

How many Supports does an FAC need for you to pass it? This one (which I'm working on) has 2 supports and 1 oppose, so would it currently if it stayed like that not be promoted?
If the person that Opposes it does not come back and Supports the article, despite that I've commented on their points, would their oppose be counted when you close the FAC?
How long are FAC's open for at a maximum?

Thanks, Dav nel 03 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw request

Could you please fail 1080° Snowboarding for me? I'd like to withdraw the nomination.--CM (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CM, I'll move that to archive for you, and GimmeBot will be by soon to tag it closed; please let the bot update the talk page per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the drill, thanks for the hand.--CM (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a request

Can u put Kaziranga National Park on the front page on any date in December. This is the first and only Protected area releated article outside USA to feature. Moreover the last article of this type to show in the main page was probably in January 2007. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano and Durova

I'm reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Proposed_decision and I'm struck by the proposed restriction on Giano. I'm not familiar with the case or his conduct, so perhaps I'm missing vital information, but I can't see how restricting someone's ability to edit pages in the Wikipedia space fosters any kind of respect for the collaborativeness of the project mentioned in the point directly after it. Discussion is vital for anyone who wishes to work in collaboration. Can you clarify? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the featured content portals to the portal namespace

Could you, as featured article director, comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace. Cheers, —Ruud 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel strongly about that one way or the other. Raul654 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Ready as I'll ever be; do you want me to start?

I'm trying to find someone to do an archival bot at Wikipedia:Goings on, but for now I understand how to do the archiving manually.
- Sure - anytime you feel ready to start, jump right in. Raul654 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once I start, how do we keep from getting crossed up? That is, how do we avoid promoting/archiving at the same time? I would plan to set a very conservative threshold initially for my own archives/promotes, leaving anything that's not pretty clear for you, so a "sweep" by you sometime after I go through would always be helpful.
- Let's ignore the need for a mutex for the time being and see what happens. Raul654 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several FACs in the current pipeline that I've been very involved with in the past, so I'll also leave them to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Raul654 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I'll leave for you those I've taken strong-ish stands on or that I was involved with before you delegated me; generally, I'll aim to be conservative while I'm coming up to speed, and leave it to you to sweep up what I leave. But, I need one more piece of guidance; as a sample, please review my comments at Ann Bannon. It's been up for a month, has 3 supports and no Opposes, but I saw some minor MOS issues that needed to be dealt with before archiving/promoting, so I added that commentary and the nominator complied. I feel comfortable asking for final minor tweaks at that stage; does that seem an appropriate way to handle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoysala architecture

Thank you for featuring this F-article on main page, yesterday.Dineshkannambadi 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're most certainly welcome. Thank you for writing it ;) Raul654 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, Raul654. Quick question. I see SandyGeorgia has been given some new delegation in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates process. I believe she or he is a very hard worker but is new to Wikipedia. May I ask please 1) what role SandyGeorgia will be assuming? and 2) If you know him or her in "real life"? (This can make a difference sometimes I realize). Just a question from another newbie (about 1.5 years here). Thank you. I understand you are appointed by Jimmy Wales to select featured articles and to select placement on the Wikipedia home page. I guess I owe you a barnstar for your roles (only gave you one). -Susanlesch 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Sandy's been here almost two years now. I don't think she can reasonably be called "new". I have described the role she will fulfill here. In short - she'll do on FAC exactly what I do. (2) No, I do not know her in real life - in fact, I know very little about her at all beyond what does on here. (3) I was not appointed my Jimbo. I started doing the job back in early 2004 when it was clear that it needed to be done by someone, and some months later the community affirmed my role by giving the job a name. Jimbo has never had anything to do with it. Raul654 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Best of luck! The committee wouldn't be the same without you. :)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 412: / Line 412: @@
 Hi, Raul654. Quick question. I see SandyGeorgia has been given some new delegation in the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]] process. I believe she or he is a very hard worker but is new to Wikipedia. May I ask please 1) what role SandyGeorgia will be assuming? and 2) If you know him or her in "real life"? (This can make a difference sometimes  I realize). Just a question from another newbie (about 1.5 years here). Thank you. I understand you are appointed by [[Jimmy Wales]] to select featured articles and to select placement on the Wikipedia home page. I guess I owe you a barnstar for your roles (only gave you one). -[[User:Susanlesch|Susanlesch]] 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 :(1) Sandy's been here almost two years now. I don't think she can reasonably be called "new". I have described the role she will fulfill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Delegation here]. In short - she'll do on FAC exactly what I do. (2) No, I do not know her in real life - in fact, I know very little about her at all beyond what does on here. (3) I was not appointed my Jimbo. I started doing the job back in early 2004 when it was clear that it needed to be done by someone, and some months later the community affirmed my role by giving the job a name. Jimbo has never had anything to do with it. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
+== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Raul654|Arbcom]] ==
+Best of luck! The committee wouldn't be the same without you. :)--[[User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.]] 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)