Jump to content

User talk:Raul654

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Athf1234 (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 16 January 2006 (spoken templates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


For wounds suffered in the battles of Wikipedia, I hereby award you this Purple Heart. May you continue to be a valued contributor to Wikipedia for many years to come. Neutrality 05:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On changing "Featured" to "Selected"

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

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

DYK

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

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

Bizarre promotion of Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article

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

Proposal to split 9/11 conspiracy theories

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

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

Istrian dog

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

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

That "arbcom clarification request"

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

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

Edit conflict

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

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

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

Hurricane Dennis promoted with objection unaddressed

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

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

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

FAC as de facto peer review/article improvement center

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

Marsden

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


Abuse of Featured Article template

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

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

Main Page Schedule

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

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

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

TFA Spoo Request

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

Raul's Laws

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

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

Common sense brick

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

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

Imagism and FA/Main Page status

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

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

Hi Raul,

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

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

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

Delrina

Just a question on wording, since this is also is the proposed lead for when the article is used as Today's Featured Article in January. There is one sentence that says "In its wake, several of Delrina's principles founded venture capital firms that continue to have a lasting impact on the Canadian software industry." Emphasis added by me - their principles or principal investors moved on? I'm just not sure about that word usage, and the entry on principle at the online Merriam-Webster didn't shed much light on this I'm afraid. [1] Thoughts? --JohnDBuell 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding

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

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

Media

Hi Raul,

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

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

Triumph of the Will (Nomination)

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

Happy New Year

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

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

Hero of Wikipedia

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

Delrina and the evils of homonyms ;-)

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

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

moving an image?

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

Votestacking on FAC: Hollow Wilerding

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

Netoholic and templates

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

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

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

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

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

FAC page issue

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

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

Could you warn User:Benjamin Gatti for me?

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

Done. Raul654 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the comments to their proper place before you warned him. After your warning, Benjamin's response was to revert my text move, in the edit summary saying arbitrators should do the refactoring on AC pages [2] -- also his response to your warning here may be enlightening [3]. Additionally, he has declared on the Workshop page his intent to keep responding to items in other peoples' evidence sections [4]. I'm sorry to bring this to you when you already have a full plate, but I'm done mudslinging with Benjamin and am not going to revert him again. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have left him a second, less subtle note Raul654 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul can I have a word with you on AIM please. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti. (AIM: ChazzWiki)[reply]
I do not see you on AIM. Raul654 21:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats your Screenname? My e-mail is: ChazzWiki (at) aol.com --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You left rather abruptly - presumably all your questions were answered? Raul654 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is Ben's response to your 2nd warning. He's gaming the system. it's what he's been doing since day 1. Could you move his comments back to his section? He's quoting the rule that says that only the arbcom can refactor the page. So. Please move his comments back to his section. I do appreciate all of your help on this matter. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki referencing style in Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)

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

At the bottom of wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Raul654 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, the docs are at [5] and as far as I know, no English Wikipedia policy or guidelines have been built up around it yet. Some discussion has also taken place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Footnotes: ref-tag. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Featured

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

Sock puppet problem

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

Identity confusion

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

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

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

Piano

Hey, Raul, you keep track of the music, right? There are some classical piano pieces here under a not-quite free license: [6] Would this interest you if we could get the bloke to improve the licensing? - Haukur 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shall We Try Dispute Resolution?

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

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

meta-template assistance

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

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

I have speedy-removed the Zelda article

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

Kelly/Snowspinner Rfar

You do realize that this isn't about userboxes, right? It's about some people thinking they're above all reproach towards doing whatever they want, to the point where editors stand in fear of summary retribution from above.[7] The rule of law on Wikipedia has nearly collapsed, and likely the arbcom is the only force that can change that other than Jimbo or a mass revolt by rank and file editors. karmafist 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

FAC suggestion: Add revision date to nomination requirements

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

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

Return of the Son of Raul's Laws

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

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

Reasons for rejecting the "userbox" RFAR request

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

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

movie upload assistance request

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

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

酒巻和男

I used my poor understanding of japanese and this thingy: http://www.rikai.com/perl/LangMediator.En.pl?mediate_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fbackend.710302.xyz%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25E9%2585%2592%25E5%25B7%25BB%25E5%2592%258C%25E7%2594%25B7

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

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

Phelps featured article

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

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

Please assist

Raul, you could be helpful here.

Mike has now gone so far as to accuse me [8] of Blackmailing him citing WP:no threats which includes in part:

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

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

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

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

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



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

Electioneering in the "move Yom Kippur War" issue

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

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

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

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

(Belated) Happy New Year

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

Clarification?

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

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

Ultramarine

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

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

Hi Raul —

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

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

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

David L. Mills

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

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon

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

Userpage

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

Request for clarification: FA promotion of Schabir Shaik Trial

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

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

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

Article quality and vandalism

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

Today's Featured Article

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

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

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

Yom Kipur War footnote

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

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

IRC

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

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

Meet me in IRC, please

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

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

FAC Renaming

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

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

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

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

Arbcom for Dummies

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

Spoken Templates

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&oldid=35434892"