User talk:Raul654

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

• Archive 1: August 2003 - November 2003
• Archive 2: December 2003 - March 2004
• Archive 3: April 2004 - July 2004
• Archive 4: August 2004 - November 2004
• Archive 5: December 2004 - March 2005
• Archive 6: April 2005 - July 2005
• Archive 7: August 2005 - November 2005
• Archive 8: December 2005 - March 2006
• Archive 9: April 2006 - July 2006
• Archive 10: August 2006 - November 2006
• Archive 11: December 2006 - February 2007
• Archive 12: March 2007 - May 2007
• Archive 13: June 2007 - August 2007
• Archive 14: September 2007 - December 2007

GNL "Please consider"

"Please consider using ..." is not a requirement. Why are you framing it as such at MOS talk? It's not helpful. Tony 05:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Please see my comment above. Tony 05:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

King Crimson FAC

Hello Mark. What was the reason for you restarting the FAC nomination? I thought that nominations were either archived or promoted, not restarted.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For borderline cases, I'd rather restart the nomination (and it give another chance) than fail it. Raul654 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• So you think it's almost there? Thanks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the intro and the references and I didn't see any problems. Raul654 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/someFutureDate

Heyo. Will you consider unprotecting the "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/..." series of pages, and instead allowing cascading protection of the Main Page and Main Page/Tomorrow to keep vandalism off the main page? This would allow all editors to make improvements and corrections to the proposed blurb right up until 24 hours before it goes live. With so many eyeballs on the page, it is very unlikely that anything undesirable would go unnoticed before it hit the main page. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, yes, I suppose that might could work, provided I don't end up with more problems like this Raul654 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly people are going to disagree about the content of the blurb if it's protected or not; I doubt that the perennial Main Page Edit War Royale is going away anytime soon. Cascade protecting the will just make it easier for non-administrators to get their kicks in as well, at least if they do so ahead of time. ➪HiDrNick! 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind people tweaking it, as long as they don't change it in a way that I explicitly avoid. I don't include alternative names, translations, acronyms, etc unless they are essential to understanding the blurb, but in that case, people went ahead and put it in (twice). I'm in favor of not protecting the blurbs provided it doesn't exacerbate that problem. Raul654 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnivàle FAC

Hi. I am new to this whole FAC thing, and it says you're the FAC director. I expanded and copyedited Carnivàle greatly and to the best of my powers and nominated it for FAC, thinking that it would (hopefully) pass after one or two weeks maximum. Now five weeks have passed and the nom slipped down to the third to last. There were two (WP:ILIKEIT???) supports, one comment by Tony who wanted to see another copyedit, and three comments/opposes that stayed that way although I addressed them or simply couldn't reasonably address without making the article/subject a lot worse. I have asked for copyedit help in several on- and off-wiki places, without much happening in the past weeks, so I can't tell whether Tony is just too hard on the article (he may have raised the bar too high with his great writing skills (edit: this was not supposed to sound snarky, rather was a sign of admiration)), or whether there is just no outside interest in this topic. I also don't want to go on a vote-shopping spree besides of who I've already informed (a few wikipedians who helped, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television). So, since the FAC is still open, and since I don't think that much will/can happen in the next few days, I'd like to ask what you'll do with this FAC (e.g. you mentioned restarting a nom two topics above), and what you think I should do to finally get it up to FA that doesn't require months of twiddling thumbs. (BTW, the article is currently at the top of the list on WP League of Copyeditors, but I don't know when they'll copyedit it.) Greetings :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Sandy to revisit her comments there. Raul654 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology mainpage

I noticed you cleared out the FAC todays featured article request page. So I wanted to ask, How does one go about getting an article onto the mainpage? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to request it for the main page in order for it to appear there. (I should probably put this in huge, bolding, blinking letters at the top of that page) You can if you want to, but most of the articles I put on the main page are not there because of any specific request. Also, since your article is in a relatively underpopulated section, and I try to selection from a wide variety of categories, this works in your favor for getting it on the main page sooner. Raul654 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to see it on the mainpage soon so please do what you can to get it there sometime in the near future. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

Hi Raul,

I wonder if you'd consider putting Georg Cantor into the main page queue. I saw your remarks about the "main page requests" page, and I'd point out that this is the first page I have ever requested be featured on the main page. Also it's a much meatier subject matter than many of the requests, and as you said there's a dearth of appearances of mathematics on the main page (this is a mathematician bio rather than a mathematics article per se, but it's a springboard to some very interesting mathematics articles). --Trovatore 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! --Trovatore 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA Requests

That's much better! Two other things - I think you should remove this line: Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests in this section at any time. Five requests is a bit too little, I'd suggest twenty maybe? Also, maybe say that requests must be in chronological order. I also think it could be set out just a little differently, maybe like this (taken from current requests):

• Date requests
  • September 2007
    • September 17
    • September 23 - 30
    • September 27
  • October 2007
    • Early October
    • October 3

Just my opinion. As it goes, I want to add an article (CM Punk) to the list, but can't due to the five request rule!! :( Davnel03 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Five is far too few (future editors note that this is five TOTAL requests allowed on the page, not five from one editor), unless you routinely accept/reject articles. Quite frankly, I'd like to see it just be requests for those dates in the next month which are available. You can have multiple requests for the same date, but once that date has been selected, all of them are just deleted released. In addition just state that you can only nominate one on the page at a time and that will cut down a lot on duplicates. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01, what you are suggesting, in essence, is that we have a nomination procedure for every day. This is something I will not do. I refused to do it back in 2004 when Drbalaji md proposed it (and it was subsequently unanimously rejected), and I'm saying it again now.

Davnel03 says: I want to add an article to the list, but can't due to the five request rule - yes, that's pretty much the point of me limiting it to 5 requests - so that I don't end up with 160 (or more) outstanding requests, like the ones I deleted today. Right now, open slots are doled out on a first-come-first serve basis, but I'm open to changing that if someone has a better idea that doesn't involve a whole lot of maintenance.

As for 5 being too few, it is apparent to me that if I make it 5, 10, 40, or 100 - the requests can only be fulfilled at a maximum rate of one per day. So what's going to happen if I increase the number of slots is that they are going to fill up (again), and then people are going to complain that there aren't enough slots to request an article. (Wash, rinse, and repeat) Raul654 07:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. Even if there are 30 spots, you'd still end up with 160+ requests (with everyone shifting them down as their article wasn't picked.

Sooooo, why not combine the two? Have up to 30 days out available and just allow 3-5 per day. You still might have 150 on the page, BUT, you'd only be sifting through 5 each day ("Ah...Thursday...let's see what is out there...Hmmm, African baboon, Troy Aikman, Abstract art, Texas A&M University, and Plasma TVs...I'll go with Texas A&M University...) Ok, so there's a little shameless self-promotion in there :-), but my point is valid. As it currently stands, you have to be online at just the right time to catch a gap when you select/don't select one and it is removed. This way, you can have a reasonable amount of items that are regularly cleared out and are well-maintained, but that shouldn't get too excessive. In addition, have them done the same way as the FAC page in their own subpages. That should make it even easier to delete them. If you don't like any of them you can always pull from one of the others that are also on the page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I really, really dislike this idea. I do not want people nominating for every day. For that matter, I don't at all want to give people the impression that the have to nominate their articles in order for them to appear on the main page. And I certainly do not want 150 outstanding nominations. Raul654 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Regarding the fairness concerns, how about: "Articles are listed on a first-come, first-serve basis; to be fair to other editors, do not nominate more than once in any thirty day period."

One thought I've long had about the date requests: do they actually discriminate against articles that have no date attached? I edit animals, for instance, and there is never a date request that makes sense. Marskell 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit the thought never crossed my mind, but now that you mention it, yes, I suppose the requirement that they have some relevance to the article does in fact discriminate against articles (like animal articles) that have no relevant dates. Raul654 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My intent is that the current guidelines for dates (only nominate by date if it is significant to the article) would no longer apply. An article for the attacks on 9/11 and a cheetah could be next to each other on September 11th and it would be Raul's choice as to which one to pick.

As for "don't nominate more than once over a thirty-day period", my solution inherently incorporates that. As it is, it is still a problem and a matter of luck to have a chance to get your article featured.

for example: let's say there are 100 people who want an article they worked on to be a TFA, but there are only 5 spots, leaving 95 people waiting. Raul picks one for TFA at 3 AM and the one person who happens to be up submits his, but no one else gets a shot. With 95 people waiting, it is probable that 60 of those people will have little chance to get an article featured.

Raul, your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

With 95 people waiting, it is probable that 60 of those people will have little chance to get an article featured - there is a very fundamental problem with your thinking here, and this sentence illustrates it. The point is, they do not have to make a request in order for their articles to appear on the main page. Raul654 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Then let me correct my phrasing since I "misspoke". With 95 people waiting, it is probable that 60 of those people will have little chance to request an article to be featured for TFA status. Additionally, you can certainly add an explicit disclaimer at the top stating something to the effect of "The TFA director reserves the right to select any Featured Article for any day (even those not listed). This page is strictly for TFA requests." How about that? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul, at least improve it to 10 if anything! :) Davnel03 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering increase it, but I'm not going to promise anything. I'd much hear suggestions on how to change the system from first-come-first-serve to a merit-based one. Raul654 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)`

Can I suggest you do a bit of editing of the request page yourself. Today for exsample you rejected a request for September 17th, this is fine but it would be nice if the provied resoning for it on the reqest page. Also if you see a request and think "well there is no way I'm putting that on the main page on that day" delete it and give your reason in the Edit summary. This way users would have to wait as long for open slots. Buc 15:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I rejected your September 17 request because I felt that Piotrus's request for the same date was a better fit. But this is not something I want to do for every request, especially given that people want to have more slots (up to 30, one for every day for the next month). Raul654 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology FA

Hi,

I'm just really astonished at your actions- this is an attempt to work things out peaceably. You seem to be operating out of your own view of parapsychology, rather than abiding by the conventions of discourse and the decision of the other Arbitrators. They clearly said that parapsychology is a scientific discipline. Bauder changed his mind about it. There are plenty of reasons to put it under psychology- for one thing, parapsychology resides under psychology departments at the universities.

I'm also disturbed by the censorship exhibited by your reverting my flag and then protecting the page. I've never seen action like this from any other admin. In other words, this is a first for me, and it seems like an abuse of power. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He isn't abusing any powers. He is the main person responsible for maintaining that page and he's protecting it due to edit warring that was occurring. You should be a bit less hasty in labeling people as abusing powers and should assume better faith. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, he is edit warring against two other users- and all I did was change it once, then change it again and give reasons. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you also added a completely ridiculous {{totally-disputed}} template at the top of a page linked prominently from the Main Page; not only does it look tacky, but it categorizes the page with articles as well. It wasn't exactly a smooth move on your part. ➪HiDrNick! 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for putting it there were sound if it was a normal article. As I explained in the summary, there were issues of both POV and content. In a normal article, it is part of the regular escalation if a user insists on edit warring- you tag rather than revert, then you discuss more. I have no experience with non-article pages, so you may be right about it not being correct on FA. I have no idea. Reverting and protecting the article was not right either.

The tags are supposed to be ugly- they're supposed to inspire users to work things out. If this page needed special treatment, then Raul should have explained that- if he'd reverted and explained that it wasn't right on this page specially, then gone back to the talk page and discussed, I would not have reverted back or anything. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we didn't get off on the wrong foot. I don't feel as strongly about it as Martinphi, but I would like to see it properly classified. I understand that you don't want it listed alongside "Biology" and maybe it shouldn't be. It is, however, heavily related to "Psychology". It is a part of transpersonal psychology and though it may not be as straightforward as the hard sciences, it is a soft science. It's not a belief system at all, isn't religious like Creation science and Intelligent design and actually get's discussed in mainstream periodicals like Nature and Psychological Bulletin from time to time. Totally fringe science, but science nonetheless. We've had a lot of discussions about this on the talk page of parapsychology, and did spend months in aribitration trying reaching consensus. All in all it's been almost two years working these very issues out. It is definitely tied to psychology (please take the time to read through it) and if lumped in with "Religion, mysticism, and mythology", there has to be some sort of distinction drawn for it to be properly categorized. Again, don't feel as strongly about it as others might, but "belief system" is definitely a few too many shades off right. Sorry, I know you feel strongly about that, but please consider the past consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it a stellar beginning, but I agree with you - let's wipe the slate clean and try again from the start :)

I am absolutely opposed to putting parapsychology into biology and medicine; however, someone suggested on the talk page modifying the religion/mystecism header to include pseudoscience or fringe science or the like. This is something I could accept.

However, it's very late now, and I'm about to go to sleep, so I'll respond further tomorrow afternoon. Raul654 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since not all pseudoscience and fringe science is related to religion, mysticism, etc. my proposal would be to change "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" to "Religion, mysticism, mythology and paranormal". Martinphi doesn't agree, but I think that "paranormal" would create enough of a distinction that it isn't necessarily religious or mystical. It would also open the section up to future FA articles, like maybe one on UFOs, which aren't religious or mystical but are paranormal. Fringe science would be alright, but as Wikidudeman pointed out there may not be enough articles to populate the section. Pseudoscience is a pejorative and should be avoided for that reason, and that there are very few topics wholly "pseudoscientific". Pseudoscientific is a singular point of view and largely a subjective interpretation of what is and isn't science. As I pointed out on the talk page, psychiatry psychoanalysis is seen by some to be pseudoscientific. Actually all of psychology has been called pseudoscientific at one time or another. Still, you wouldn't put them under the cat "pseudoscience". It may be your point of view that it parapsychology is pseudoscience, and that's certainly a view shared by some, but it's not the view shared by all in the scientific community (as shown through the references in the parapsychology article). I think a "paranormal" category, whether it is an addition to an existing category or a new one, would be sufficient (though, again, Martinphi doesn't agree). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the talk page, psychiatry is seen by some to be pseudoscientific. Actually all of psychology has been called pseudoscientific at one time or another. Did you intend to mix up psychiatry and psychology? Psychiatry is medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Doh, I meant psychoanalysis : ) I need to refresh my coffee. Psychoanalysis is often considered pseudoscience though it fits under psychology. But yes, besides maybe behavioral psychology, all of psychology has been considered pseudoscience at some point by someone. There are even some groups of people who see only natural science as science and anything else as pseudoscience. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, But once Homeopathy reaches FA status, Where will it go? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an imminent issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be FA soon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Better get busy cleaning up those references, making sure they are the highest-quality sources available, and pruning and cleaning up the external links (and don't forget to peruse WP:DASH and WP:MOSCAPS#All caps); that's my 30-second appraisal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a "Fringe science and alternative theories" cat, though there'd be few articles to start with. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We do need a category which includes "paranormal." This is because there will be more articles, (like say Reincarnation research, which made good article at one point), which will make it here. But Parapsychology is a special case. After many months of work and a very contentious Arbitration in which Raul's viewpoint was eloquently expressed by many, including Wikidudeman, the Arbitrators wrote this:

...there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way...[1]

This is not really open to interpretation; parapsychology is serious science, and deserves to be recognized as such- at least if other aspects of the field such as psychoanalysis are also recognized.

However, I understand Raul's reluctance to put the article under hard sciences such as Biology. I think what is needed is a heading Anthropology, sociology and psychology. Parapsychology would fit under that, with the rest of the questionable sciences (and I live on the Navajo Reservation, I know that Anthropology is very questionable(-: )

But parapsychology does not fit where it is. I have no idea why biology and psychology are lumped together. My position is that parapsychology is a sub-discipline of psychology. It may be hated, in reality it may be pseudoscience- but the ArbCom said it was science, and it is definitely under psychology. So wherever psychology is put, there also goes parapsychology, though it be the Harry Potter in the Dursley's house. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nielparr, Martinphi: How about changing the section header to 'Religion, belief, and the paranormal"? (I prefer to keep the section headers to 3 words or less) Raul654 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Martinphi may not be, but since parapsychology is the study of paranormal it is an appropriate category. I would suggest dropping "belief" and replacing it with mythology. Right now it's "Religion, mysticism, and mythology". Mysticism can be dropped because it's close enough to Religion. Mythology is needed because Greek mythology is in there. Beliefs also include philosophy, which has it's own category. So my recommendation is "Religion, Mythology, and Paranormal". But like I said, as long as it has "Paranormal" in it it's appropriate for parapsychology. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You could alternatively change it to "Religion, Mythology, and Theoretical Ideas". Then it would house everything from UFOs to parapsychology to conspiracy theories to homeopathy (Wikidudeman was looking for a place for that in the future). The only qualification to meet "theoretical ideas" would be for it to be unproven. That can certainly be said of most paranormal subjects.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, heck, this discussion is going on in two places; I responded on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Talk page it is. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

toadstooly thanks

Well, that main page stint for Amanita phalloides certainly resulted in some lively editing and debate. Is that par for the course or was it particularly busy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It looked like it got about 130 edits, which is par for the course for specialty articles. I think the record holders for most edits on the day they are featured are Wii, Lord of the Rings, and Cheese (all at over 500). Raul654 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Time between FA promotion and appearing on the main page

It seems very inconsistent. Today is a good exsample. Dungeons & Dragons has been a FA for just two weeks while Wednesday's FA, Thou, had been a FA for almost 4 years.

Now I understand that articles are being promoted at a faster rate than they are apearing on the main page and that can only be a good thing. So as time goes no articles will have to wait longer. Sadly some users fail to understand this as show by the request page. So for the mosst part I have no problem with some articles going on the main page before others. FA shouldn't of coruse be placed on the main page in the order they are promoted. But the above exsample really puzzles me. So I have two questions.

Is how long an article has been a FA a factor you have ever taken into account when selecting TFA?

If not would you consider making it one in very extreme cases? For example, an artcle cannot appear on the main page until it has been a FA for X weeks and article which have been a FA for X years are given priority. Buc 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is how long an article has been a FA a factor you have ever taken into account when selecting TFA - Not at all.

As for your second question, I am absolutely opposed to the former and not keen on the latter. A mandatory minimum time for articles to appear on the main page would add an extra step for me for every article I schedule. I will not do it. As far giving older articles priority, I would consider doing it on an individual article basis, but not for all the older articles. Raul654 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanford prison experiment

The Stanford prison experiment article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Diff for today shows no changes - lots of edits, but nothing has actually changed. Raul654 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're name

You probably didn't notice this post above, but if you didn't see it,

I was reading recent changes around a hour ago, and I was wondering about you're name. Is it pronounced like Rahul, or is it Rawl? Just a curious question. And what's with the 654? You don't have to answer that part, it's just random...

Yamakiri on Firefox 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a really stupid reason, actually - I'm almost embarrassed to say. Many years ago in my introductory spanish class, we choose spanish names and I choose this one. I registered it on AOL instant messanger around the same time, and (because it was taken) I choose the totally meaningless number 654 to add to it. Since then, it's been intertia that has keep me using it. Raul654 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Muy interesante. Tengo gusto del nombre. Do you still know any spanish? --Aude (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Muy poco ;) Raul654 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks then! Mine's my grandfather's first name. Yamakiri 15:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert

[2]

“ If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message. ”

Out of curiosity, why did you rollback this edit? As I pointed out here, there are valid reasons to change the wording. Melsaran (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Mike R is correct and you are not. Your selective quoting of the manual of style not withstanding, Ass and arse are synonomous, and changing from American english to British english because you like it is prohibited. Raul654 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not changing from American to British English because "I like it" (I didn't even change it after my edit was reverted, I chose to discuss it), please don't accuse me of that. Second, you shouldn't use administrator rollback for such things, but you should explain your revert. Melsaran (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno the specfics of rollback, but is it really all that different than using Undo, or a couple of the other ways of auto-reverting I've seen? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:ROLLBACK: Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. Melsaran (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. While I agree with you that ass is the right word, I'm a little concerned about your use of the word prohibited. That's a pretty strong word. I'm also a little concerned that you may be running up against WP:3RR here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

English Language

I take it you're American, you have my sympathy.

Please assume good faith.

That is all. Chump Manbear 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi there Raul, please be aware that you've just been reported to WP:AN/3RR for breaking the three revert rule on Leck mich im Arsch. I've protected the article, in many ways to stop you getting blocked. You should know more than most people that edit warring is a bad thing, and this is the second time in recent months that it's happened. Please try and be more carefull. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA

You had mentioned above a more merit based TFA request process. I threw this together for consideration: User:Marskell/TFA considerations. Main points:

• Older featured articles. Priority is given to articles that have been waiting longest for a TFA slot where they are clearly of current standard.
• Nominators who have multiple articles pending (e.g., "I have taken six through FAC but only two have gone to TFA").
• Core topics of widespread interest. TFA attempts to balance the unusual with the well-known, but preference is given to subjects of universal interest; particularly, TFA is intended for an international and not merely English-speaking audience.
• Subject matter that has not been recently on the mainpage. If Uranus was yesterday's TFA, we will wait some months to place Neptune.

This or something like wouldn't have to be a separate page but could be incorporated into Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The critical point would be that nominators would tell you "it's twelve months, this is my first nom" etc. Marskell 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

These are good criteria. Two things though:

Just to nitpick, "priority" in the first item should not be interpreted strictly (as it would, for example, in an operating system). That is to say, they will be given extra consideration, but I am not going to guarentee that all older articles well be given priority over all newer articles.

More importantly, these are good criteria (that allow me to compare requests), but I'm not really sure how to impliment them (or if we should at all). Stayed tuned. Raul654 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"...they will be given extra consideration, but I am not going to guarentee that all older articles well be given priority over all newer articles." Nor should you! Some of them are clearly not going to be up to snuff (hence the bold). What it basically amounts to: "Have you been waiting a while? You have? We'll try to get it up there, but no promises." What would be helpful more than anything is if people started saying "it was featured on X date, it has had Y improvements, and I personally have Z FAs waiting." Marskell 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That, plus strong article-to-date connections (like yesterday's) and yes, that might be a good way to structure requests. Raul654 05:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat FA Status Peer Review

Greetings Raul, when do you get to the nomination of Yasser Arafat as a Featured Article Candidate? Its been days! Nonetheless you are the mayor here and you can obviously take your time. I'm just reminding you. Al Ameer son 16:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Scartol withdrew the nomination yesterday, with your consent. At that point, it had been on the FAC for just over two days; I don't promote articles unless they've been there at least 5 days (4 if the FAC is overflowing) Raul654 17:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you adopt me?

I think I edited that right...Yamakiri 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sure - I'd be happy to help however I can, but I'm not really sure what adoption entails. Raul654 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. I know a little bit of markup, and I've been an IP for probably 4 months, but I don't know that much. My userpage says all I know. Yamakiri 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

FAOL

Raul, I just figured out what {{FAOL}} is about, and why you remove it from FAs. I left Gimmetrow a note asking if he could automate its removal from FAs; can you weigh in here? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow left more questions there; I'm unclear on these issues. Raul, since you know the pseudoscience arbcom decisions well, when you have time, can you view my comments at autism? No hurry, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied at talk:Autism. Raul654 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that wording helps (that is, it could if there were enough WP Medicine members to combat all the quackery edits). SandyGeorgia (Talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal of FAC for Yasser Arafat

Oops! I asked on WP:IRC about how to withdraw an FAC, and was told to simply remove the template code from the main FAC page. I did this for Yasser Arafat (the nominator and I agreed we needed to do more peer reviewing) before seeing the response to my question left here. I'm very sorry if this has caused you headaches; I just wanted to keep things simple and it may have backfired. Apologies again if I've done wrong. – Scartol · Talk 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So in the future, I should leave a note here or at SG's page, rather than do it myself? – Scartol · Talk 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I *think* you can move it to the archive without causing an averse problems for Gimmetrow. Otherwise, just leave a note on the nomination page saying it's withdrawn and I'll get rid of it during my next archiving. Raul654 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, leaving a note on the nomination page was what Scartol did, following my IRC advice. Would you rather I suggested archiving next time someone asks? I thought it riskier. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

Gimmetrow is in a better position to answer that than I am. I'll leave him a note asking him to comment. Raul654 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If I see a clear and unambiguous request to withdraw from a nominator, I proceed according to 1 and 2 below, based on past discussions with Raul about how to handle nominator withdraws, and taking into account whether or not to engage GimmeBot to add it to articlehistory. It's trickier when someone else suggests withdrawing, but the nominator doesn't respond (we have one of those now); in those cases, I wait for Raul. (adding on after edit conflict: Raul, you and I had this conversation in the past with Gimmetrow, and we decided on the 1, 2 course below.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what I need to respond to. If a transclusion is 1) added to the current archive page, and 2) still unchanged when the bot runs (ie, hasn't been moved to /archiveN by a previous run), and 3) is missing either part of the close tag, then it will be incorporated into articlehistory. It will be marked as "not promoted" though. Gimmetrow 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I usually do:

1. When the article has no significant opposes or content, I move the FAC file to the next open archive and clear the redirect, leaving the FAC file ready for the next FAC submission. When I clear the redirect, I indicate it was withdrawn, so that RickBlock's scripts can detect the "withdrawn" wording. I don't archive it on the talk page, in articlehistory or in the FAC archives, since these are cases that have no significant opposes or content. Sample: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F. (first FAC is archived, second is not)
2. When a FAC is withdrawn after significant opposes, I add it to the FA archives so that GimmeBot will botify it, archive it, and add it to articlehistory. Sample: The Simpsons Movie was withdrawn after significant opposes: I move it to archives for full botificationn to articlehistory.

The first case (no meaningful content) doesn't trigger or involve GimmeBot, but I archive it with a withdrawn for RickBlock. The second case engages GimmeBot, by moving it to the FA archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

Would it be too cheeky to have Encyclopædia Britannica on the front page on Wikipedia day? If so I'll post a generic request. -Ravedave 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also it appears Cyclops64 is out of date.-Ravedave 05:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests go here. EB has already been on the main page.

I'll have to update the C64 page. I'm told that it'll be going to fab this friday, and my group should theoretically receive a functioning C64 node (probably 3x3x3) in December (realistically, January). Raul654 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks. I removed that it would be ready in early 2007. -Ravedave 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

FA on Main Page Request

I would request you to put Kaziranga National Park on the Main Page. This is first national park article outside The Americas to feature. The first from Asia, India. The last one relateed to national park to be shown on the main page was in January 2007. More over this park is a World Heritage Site, and two-thirds of the world's Great One-horned Rhinoceroses live in the park. I will like it to be featured anytime before November. I am having exam and will not be active in Wikipedia till April. Hope u will keep my humble request. One good date may be 2nd October as this is the bithday of Mahatma Gandhi, who is the fater of the nation of India. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests go here Raul654 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F.

Hi Raul654! Please watch Real Madrid C.F. article. I've put it to FAC and I'm preety sure it'll succeed. MERCY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadrianos1990 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Music and Eva

So I'm pleasantly surprised that your new music you were talking has turned out to be useful for any articles I care about[3], and I took the opportunity to download and listen to them; but Image:Air (Bach).ogg is awfully scratchy. Any chance of getting another one? --Gwern (contribs) 20:38 16 September 2007 (GMT)

That's the nature of 1920s-era recordings

I'll check the usual places and see if something better pops up. Raul654 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't really ask for more than that. Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 21:04 16 September 2007 (GMT)

Adoption

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User is a mentoring program, where new users can ask older ones questions about Wikipedia, and learn what they can do to benifit the project. I know a little bit of markup, and I've been an IP for probably 4 months, but I don't know that much. My userpage says all I know. Yamakiri 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Wikihermit → CO

Rename user:Wikihermit to user:CO Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 22:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

2,000,000

I just noticed your comment about Ramat Gan bus 20 bombing - very cute. A smile graced my lips for a few seconds, honest :-) Tewfik^Talk 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment? Raul654 12:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Credentials

It is all but in the bag my friend. All supports and one neutral. I went and photographed the Brooklyn Book Festival yesterday - about 45 new portrait shots. I haven't finished uploading them all yet. --David Shankbone 12:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Great gatsby.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Great gatsby.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/110th United States Congress

Can you tell me the difference between a FLC and an FAC? You can answer at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/110th United States Congress. Thanks!!!!—Markles 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the featured list process, but with only 3 paragraphs of prose, it's clearly not eligible to be a featured article. Raul654 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Validating email addresses in web forms

You've commented at "Ninja Assassination Squad: Is wikipedia run by neo-fascist, rule-book geek zealots?". Retrieved 2007-09-18. offering to help with problems User:Badcop666 ran into with an article on "Best practice in validating email addresses in web forms" regarding arguments about it being advertising. It has been moved to User:BenB4/Email sandbox. I've no idea how much of it is useful, but I've raised the point at Talk:E-mail#Validating email addresses in web forms and left a note at User talk:Badcop666. Guess I'd better add a comment to the neo-fascist page ;) . .. dave souza, talk 09:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly me forgot to check AN, BenB4 has now sorted out HTML form e-mail address validation, essentially the same article with a bit of wikifying. Others have given sound advice, and all should be happy now. ... dave souza, talk 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi Raul, I'm writing in the hope you might be a sympathetic ear. I'm off to edit citizendium - I may be back here, maybe not - in tying up loose ends I've been trying to get an overly long and verbose article of mine deleted, to no avail. [4][5][6][7] Do you have any advice? I thought Criteria 7 seemed quite clear cut and explicit - one of the admins even said the request did technically comply with the criteria, but just couldn't bring himself to do it. The article's rubbish as it stands and needs a lot of work, it needs all the prose pruning, facts paring back to the essentials, the current site plan revising, several other diagrams completing and then a load of additions - I'm quite happy to have it userfied, but I'm loath to leave it in mainspace in that condition. Cheers, --Joopercoopers 09:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Query

I'm sure you're aware of the present debates regarding featured articles and adherence to the manual of style. Several people have expressed the concern that FAs focus primarily on style, and don't focus enough on content. Looking over the FAC and FARC pages, I do see that more than half of the nominations are judged on "MOS breaches" - but I note there's only three editors who make these comments. A side effect appears to be that this is generating an air of hostility that appears to be driving people away from the FAC process.

I believe, as you suggested on the admin board, that splitting the process into a section on content and a section on MOS may be the most useful approach. Alternatively, the people who object to "MOS breaches" could be encouraged to fix them (generally a simple matter) rather than to request de-featuring. At any rate I would appreciate your opinion on this. >Radiant< 12:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, when you refer at the start of para 2 to "the process", do you mean FAC, FARC or both? btw I like the idea a lot, although I think it makes sense to "do" the content issues first, or new MOS breaches could be introduced during the content fixes. --Dweller 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Both. Since we don't protect articles in their featured form, it is easy to fix punctuation and so forth even while they're featured - at least significantly easier than make substantial changes to the content. >Radiant< 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller 13:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From the point of view of an occasional reviewer, I'd rather not split my comments into form and content. I agree with whoever said on another thread that both have to be right for an article to be featured. I agree that it's a shame for an article to fail for purely MoS considerations, but before we fix that problem I'd like to know that that happens, or seems likely to be a big enough issue that we need to enhance FA process to deal with it.

If it does need to be dealt with, then one approach might be for Raul to tag the FAC nomination page for that article with a tag that means "This article will be promoted to FA if the MoS issues are dealt with". That would clarify to the nominator that the MoS issues do need to be addressed, and give them a fair chance to deal with it. It would also, no doubt, lead to some debates on those noms, adding to Raul's workload. Perhaps Raul could delegate any subsequent authority on that FAC to someone he trusts to deal with MoS issues. Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FACs needing input

There may be other editors like me who're happy to weigh in with an FAC opinion on any article needing one. If you find any stagnant FACs, or ones needing review after improvements etc, feel free to drop me a line. --Dweller 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough FAC

This nomination is not getting much interest. I would appreciate any advice you might have..? Cheers, Chrisieboy 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I realise you must be very busy, but can you please have a quick look at this. Yesterday's objection is strongly worded, but based on wholly unfounded comments. However, although additional refs. have now been added and the points raised answered, I do not think that this particular editor will revisit his decision. So far, although a lot of work has gone into it, there has been a distinct lack of interest in the nomination, with me (strongly) and a (single edit) IP supporting and two other editors now opposing. Cheers, Chrisieboy 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image

Hello, Raul. I don't know if you've been told (I haven't checked), but I nominated Image:Hydrangea macrophylla - Hortensia hydrangea.jpg, which you uploaded, to Quality image status at the Commons, and it got promoted. Congrats! --Agüeybaná 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I answered your question here. --Agüeybaná 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email. I sent you something. :) -- Cat ^chi? 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyclops64 COI

Raul, you created and extensively edited the Cyclops64 article. How is that any less of a COI than THF's editing ? ATren 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because my funding does not come from the Cyclops64 grant - I do not have an finincial incentive to make it look good; because there isn't anything in that article that is less than objectively true, and because the article is sourced to a published, peer-reviewed journal article (actually, now that I look at it, I realize it should also cite Yingping's memo and/or master's thesis for the cross-bar information). On the other hand, THF did have a finincial incentive, did make a number of states that were debatable (if not outright false), and did not cite even a single peer-reviewed source. Raul654 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"CAPSL, my research group, was subcontrated by IBM to do systems software development and hardware verification for the Cyclops64 architecture". So according to this, your research group was funded by IBM, and that funding was specifically tied to Cyclops64. This seems to be a clear financial COI according to the standard you seem to be setting for THF. You also claim that the research was peer reviewed, but I see one single source on that article - pointing back to your own research page. Further, you imply that THF's sources were not reliable, but I have not seen significant evidence of that. Indeed, one of THF's so-called offensive edits was sourced to a WSJ article, and most of THF's edits were better sourced than the Cyclops64 article is today.

I want to be completely clear here: I'm not claiming Cyclops64 is a COI violation - my point is that THF has not violated COI any more than you have. If you find THF guilty of COI, you set a dangerous precedent where even good faith editors will be subject to undue COI scrutiny. ATren 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

CAPSL was a reciepit of such a grant (specifically, our hardware group - Daniel, Matt, Fei, and a few others). I do not believe I have. My funding comes from an unrelated NSF grant. (Note: it is possible it did for several months in late 2005-early 2006; I'm not sure on this point) My work with C64 is purely academic and research oriented - it's one of the target platforms for my masters. But to reiterate - I have no finincial ties to it.

As far as the sourcing, it comes from CAPSL technical memo 55 linked from the bottom of the article ("Technical description of the Cyclops64 architecture and system software"). If you check the CAPSL publications page, you'll see that memo was published (in arbidged form) in High Performance Computing Systems and Applications (HPCS) in 2006. See here

As for the contents of the article, I stand by evertthing in it - every statement in there is totally unassailable. Unlike THF, I also included criticism when describing the concrete programming paradigm IBM has adopoted with regard to C64 and its other multi-core chips: One negative consequence is that efficiently programming Cyclops64 is difficult. Raul654 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting

We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Shankbone/THF arbcom case

Per [8] there's some question being posed whether you have prejudged the case and were involved in the dispute.

The edits posted concern me, on first review. Can you discuss there? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

The article A Streetcar Named Marge was just passed and I would love to see it on the main page on October 1, the 15th anniversary of its airdate. However, since it was just promoted, would it be worth adding it to the request page, or would it just be a waste of time? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel FAC

This is becoming torture. If you don't mind, I'd like to have your honest assessment of the proceedings of this FAC so far and whether I should (a) withdraw it (if possible) out of improbability of it being successful or (b) keep persevering as there is still light at the end of the tunnel. I know there has been some discussion recently surrounding the role of the Manual of Style in featured processes (particularly with the creation of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions), and I'm a bit curious where the line is supposed to be drawn here. -- tariqabjotu 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's late now and I'm about to hit the hay - I'll take a look at it tomorrow and let you know what I think. Raul654 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you get to it. -- tariqabjotu 05:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Yom Kippur War?

Is it still nessecary for Yom Kippur War to be protected? It has been for a week now, and I would like to make some edits.

Thank you for your time. --RucasHost 07:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[9] Was it really a good idea to repeatedly use rollback in a content dispute and then protect the page after you approach 3RR? Melsaran (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the consensus reached on the talk page months prior, rather than opening up the introduction to the endless bickering that articles in that area are subject to. Protecting the article was a superior option to blocking him - so yes, it was a perfectly good idea. Raul654 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page queue

Just a friendly note to mention the queue is a bit... erm... short. And, if you're after some inspiration (!), 6th October is the anniversary of the death of the Tiger --Dweller 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know the queue is getting low. I'll be fixing that soon. Raul654 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. --Dweller 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Military brat

Someone needs to straighten out the mess just made by an admin move of Military brat (US subculture) to Military brat (without the talk page and without the articlehistory or FACs, leaving the featured article history in a stub). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I started by fixing some of the double redirects, before realizing that this might not be what you had in mind. Am I correct that you want the move undone? Raul654 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering 1) there was no discussion of the move, and 2) the article title was hotly discussed on all of its FACs, it seems like we do need to get back to the original title, unless you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't disambiguate unless we have to. Is military brat commonly used outside the US? If yes - disambiguate (revert the move); if no - then don't disambiguate (keep the move). Raul654 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but there was a big brouhaha on the FACs about the article only applying to the US, hence the addition of (US subculture); I thought it was much ado about nothing, but quite the fuss it was. The solution may have been to redirect the disambiguation page, but leave the article where it was. I dunno; when the main editors surface, I suspect they're gonna start screaming, because that title was such a big issue. (I left you a question on Mozart as I'm trying to figure out where to park the TS info, btw.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons users by upload size

mysql> SELECT img_user_text AS user, SUM(img_size) AS total_upload_size FROM image GROUP BY user ORDER BY total_upload_size DESC LIMIT 15;
+-----------------+-------------------+
| user            | total_upload_size |
+-----------------+-------------------+
| GerWsUpload     |       45728473908 |
| Infrogmation    |       17630099277 |
| MarcBot         |       11654894160 |
| G.dallorto      |        9792359453 |
| Red Rooster     |        8735780555 |
| Jastrow         |        7452304928 |
| Sailko          |        7285896135 |
| AndreasPraefcke |        7093517481 |
| 663highland     |        6947084813 |
| FlickrLickr     |        6728044411 |
| Joergens.mi     |        6721916117 |
| Rama            |        6562794526 |
| FlickreviewR    |        6528027695 |
| Ebyabe          |        6365758498 |
| Mbdortmund      |        5852205739 |
+-----------------+-------------------+
15 rows in set (30 min 29.84 sec)

Sizes are in bytes. I'm busy generating a top 100, but that may take some more time. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What are those measurements in? Bytes? Raul654 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, bytes. I have also generated a top 1000. This one also includes old uploads. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it signify that I'm 45th on the list? Anything good or bad? --David Shankbone 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked Bryan to find out who has uploaded the most data to commons by data size (in megabytes). So yes, it's a good thing. Raul654 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more info: the total size of Commons is 948762093396 bytes. That is almost one terabyte :) -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you combine me with Raulbot, my bot account (I created it to use a custom upload script I wrote before commonist was created), I shoot up to 49th :) Raul654 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, you're right - 883 gigabytes. That's pretty sweet. Raul654 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How the hell has Infrogmation uploaded 16 gigabytess? That's 15 one-megabyte pictures per day, every day, since Commons started. Raul654 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only been on Commons since January 2007 - :-) --David Shankbone 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yow, I'm surprised by the numbers too. I image much of that is from my clicking away in the post-Katrina ruins and uploading them since. Yow, I hate to think how much I would have uploaded if I'd had regular access to high-speed internet in the year after the disaster.... and if I'd gotten a decent digital camera a couple years earlier... Your byteheavy cyber-pal, -- Infrogmation 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:BYTE. --Dweller 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I refer to you Wp:delicious :) Raul654 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Were you refering to a deliberately empty and mysterious link, or was something supposed to be there? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke on WP:BITE (as Raul detected) --Dweller 06:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

lol. I took it as an allusion to the idea that there were no byte limits on uploads of users. Learn something new... — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA

You'll notice a new criterion regarding wikiprojects. (A dozen edits later.) It's not my preferred but I'm above three changes if not three reverts. I dunno—I should be working on the next FA but I'm caught in numerous brush fires. My first thought is you should just scrap it, because the projects are a can of worms. My second thought is that people like Kirill at Milhist have earned a spot on WIAFA. How best to do it? Marskell 23:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! Somehow that page went off my watchlist. I just checked, and see all these changes, and I'm not happy with some them. I'll be changing some thing now. Raul654 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK! I hope you don't oppose the footnotes/Harvard thing. I think it does work in shutting up concerns. Marskell 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I think this criteria is just too vague. Individuals within a wikiproject are free to support or oppose it individually. As previously written, 'Object - war articles are supposed to do X and this article does Y' was a valid objection (and it should be); under the new rules, the criteria is so vague that it could cover almost anything. I cannot recall even a single problem relating to this criteria, so I don't see any problem sticking with the old wording or scrapping it entirely. Raul654 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your edit to the featured article criteria that replaced the requirement for a table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming. Would you mind commenting on the talk page? Mahalo, Raul. --Ali'i 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag my username

Is there any way that you can flag my username as a bot account only so that my AWB edits don't flood the New pages log? Is this possible? I don't know how to use "bots" however Is it possible that my name be flagged so that my edits don't show up on the new page log and flood it? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ping!

You appear to be online. Please check the {{editprotected}} request for TFA. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delaware State

Oh my gosh! I just heard about the shooting on campus. Crap. ... Kenosis 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not my University (in case you were confused). Delstate is in Dover; my University is in Newark (main campus, at least). Raul654 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough FAC

Not sure if/when you're planning to do another round of FAC promoting/archiving etc, but (I hope) we're close to resolving all issues, so please hang off on this for a few more days, unless of course a load of other ppl weigh in with a mass of objects. (I find that unlikely!) Ta. --Dweller 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The broken

Hi, can you delete the page "Thebroken"(it's a redirect) and after MOVE the page "the broken" on "thebroken" (without spaces)?. Because the correct name is "thebroken" without spaces, so the main page should be placed there. I've already fix all links from "What links here". Ok, tnx bye!--DrugoNOT 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ehm, will you help me? yes or no? O__O cya--DrugoNOT 19:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! bye!:)--DrugoNOT 22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quneitra FAC nom

Thanks Raul. I must admit I hadn't checked in on the FAC nom for a while - I assumed it'd failed for lack of response. I see there've been a few more comments recently, so I'll have a crack at sorting out the issues they raised. -- ChrisO 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Librarians are hiding something

Might I ask why you protected a redirect from Librarians are hiding something to Stephen Colbert? It seems an inappropriate redirect and an inside joke, whch WP doesn't usually allow. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He mentioned it on his March 27 show as his new catch phrase, which is why it was necessary to immediately redirect it and protect the redirect. Raul654 19:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See here Raul654 19:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sylar

No problem about the revert - I've tweaked the text to address both of our concerns. However, i was looking at my edit summary and realized it could be seen as being a bit abrupt. ("Please make sure you keep the proper formatting if you revert.") Please don't take it as such - apologies in advance. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FA image for September 27

Regarding [10] How about this image of the actor who plays Lex Luthor?--Chaser - T 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Better, still not great though. Raul654 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cropped that image to see what it looks like [11] - what do you think? WjBscribe 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias as sources

I brought up this issue at the Israel FAC as you can see. Frankly I need to know this. Once I got reverted for using Britannica and now I think maybe the one who did it was right. Britannica is perhaps the best way for finding info on something but is it acceptable as a reference? I mean what if we multiply mistakes in Britannica? Is it good for us in the long term if we can't trace all information to its roots? Squash Racket 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you may use Britannicia and other tertiary sources. I mean what if we multiply mistakes in Britannica - the same could be said of any source of information. Raul654 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Use them only as last resort, of course—secondary sources are still the preferred. Marskell 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

David Shear

You recently added David Shear (talk · contribs) to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. I have removed this listing for the moment. The only reference we have for this right now is this edit by Buzzardcheater (talk · contribs). I have left the user a message, asking for an outside source. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You could always try asking his son or wife Raul654 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)