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 - July 2004
• Archive 2: August 2004 - July 2005
• Archive 3: August 2005 -

ArbCom Clerks, tiny suggestion

Hi,

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 My concern is especially that newer editors might find the outdated text confusing.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

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

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

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

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

Microsoft as a front-page FA?

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

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

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

Arty Spotting

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

Article request - Artillery spotting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SimonATL"

First, I think you might have me confused with Looper5920 - he's a totally different user ;) The reason I mentioned him in my message was your comment, where said to him that you were an artilleryman, is why I thought my request would be up your alley.

I'll defer to however you want to write the article - you're the expert so it's only proper that way. As I said on the featured article candidates page, I know vanishingly little about the subject, so I will not be of much help in writing it. I wasn't even aware the term itself was dated, but your idea of making artillery spotting a redirect to the more modern concept of Fire support coordination strikes me as a good one. If you think structuring the article chronologically would be the best way of doing it, that's the way it should be done. However, scope should definitely be a consideration - you don't want to replicate the contents of, for example, the artillery article. Now if you want illustrations and diagrams, you *cannot* go wrong with Inkscape - it's free, powerful, and fairly easy to use (especially if you spend 15 or 20 minutes doing the interactive tutorials). I'd be willing to try my hand at doing the illustrations for such an article, if you provide me with descriptions of what the illustrations you want.

To answer your other questions - I'm not a historian, but american and (modern) military history is a hobby (Besides CNN/MSNBC, the history channel is probably the one I watch most). And yes, I've been to Wiki-meetups. With one exception ("Wikimania" - the world-wide Wikipedia meetup organized by the Foundation) they tend to be small affairs of about 5 to 15 people, usually done at a restraurant over lunch or dinner. You can see a list of previous ones at wikipedia:meetup. Nobody dresses up, unless wearing my Wikipedia hoodie counts.

As far as the culture, Wikipedia has evolved as a true meritocracy - someone who shows himself to be capable of doing a job well tends to be left in charge of that job (And, as David Gerard noted - "On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs.") In my case, for example, when we switched over to the current main-page layout in early 2004, the featured articles suddenly went from being a rather obscure backwater area of wikipedia to being very prominent. There were the obvious short-term needs (like some way of saying which article was going to be on the main page for each new day) and then there were the less-forseeable long term needs (for one person who could offer an authoritative opinion on featured-article related issues). I sort of "fell into" that role - I started doing it, no one complained, so I kept doing it. Wikipedia's culture has been influenceed by a multitude of other factors too, some philisophical, but many stemming from the specific experiences of the project (case and point - the arbitration committee). I'd be happy to go on about the subject in private.

When I put it on the main page, I did notice the TR article was quite good, although I didn't check to see who was responsible. Excellent work - I'm glad to hear they like it too. Raul654 08:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

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

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

No, we avoid protecting the main page featured articles (unless it is absolutely, positive necessary). See user:Raul654/protection for the explination. Raul654 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it may be necessary for the upcoming Joan of Arc article, which receives a fair amount of vandalism, insertion of strange ideas, etc, even under regular circumstances.

Well, that's par for the course. Absolutely, positively necessary means something along the lines of 5 or 10 vandalisms per minute using the log-in-log-out vandalism technique, sustained for the better part of an hour. (And if that sentence doesn't make sense, trust me, it's not a common situation) Raul654 13:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Would have to agree about the definite increase in vandalism. The minute the article on Theodore Roovevelt was featured, ka-blam, a zillion vandalizations. Equally interesting, on the next day, the vandalism was greatly reduced. I think its some juvenile, "look what I can do!" thing. SimonATL 01:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel actual physical nausea every time this comes up again, Mark, or is it just me? ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Probably just you BoG. You're not feeling nauseous are you Marcus Pelargonium (as we don't say in the old homeland). Anyhow, you know my views on the subject - I just shudder with horror when I envisage what will happen to BP on the 21st, is it fair to an old lady like HM? - ("God Save Her" indeed - she will need all the help she can get) which brings me neatly to Sanssouci can we have it soon - it's a real Wiki collaboration of minds and strangers. All that Wiki should be! Per favore. Li elemosino (as we do say in the old homeland) ;>D Giano | talk 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

BoG - repeatedly typing "No, see user:Raul654/protection" has caused me one type of physical pain ;) Raul654 00:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Fpopages

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

Please come up with some award like the Purple Heart

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

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

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

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

Guqin Recordings II

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CharlieHuang"

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

Learning to use Vandalproof

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

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Torchic FAC 1

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

Sorry about the the lack of an edit summary - I occasionally forget to leave one when promoting or removing nominations from the FAC. Also, about notification - I usually leave facfailed tagging to others.

Beyond that, the discussion was on the FAC for 5 or more days, which is the standard length of time an article stays on the FAC before being removed. I also must disagree with your assertion that it was reachign a consensus - there were numerous objections, and I didn't single a single support. Consequently, I do not think putting it on the FAC would be productive. I suggest you resolve the objections that have already been made (to the various objectors' satisfactions) and then renominate it at a later date. Raul654 11:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually see how many of the objections were "this isn't notable"? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 11:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I did see those, and I didn't take those into account. There were, however, numerous legitimate criticims made. Raul654 11:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The remaining objects were by Titoxd, who is on wikibreak, and the others were all being discussed. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 11:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those problems might be under discussion, but suffice it to say, there are a lot of them and the article is apparently in need of a fair bit of editing. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Torchic is already one of the longes,t most drawn outpages I can ever remember seeing on the FAC. FAC is not the place for doing significant overhauls of articles. So, as I said, please address teh problems that have been cited, and then renominate it again later. Raul654 11:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All the problems had been fixed. Fine, I don't care, apparently Pokémon FACs only pass on the third attempt. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Featured List canidate

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

Re: Rudeness and WBT

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

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

Candidate for spam blacklist

Raul, several anon IP's are persistently attempting to replace the official link for the Russian G8 summit with a link to a domain squatter [1]; can http://www.g8stpetersburg.com/ be added to the spam blacklist? For now I have the article semiprotected but would rather not have to do that for long. For more details see WP:RFP and the G8 article. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

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

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

Picture to Commons?

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

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

Request

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

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

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends very much on the point you are trying to make. I always start out with an introduction of what Wikipedia is and a general overview of how it works. Important points to make are:

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

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

I want to prepare a powerpoint presentation. I was wondering if you had some I can disect. I'd love to have varisous statistics and graphs. --Cat out 11:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not, but there's a page on meta where others have put theirs. I cannot remember where it is off the top of my head. Raul654 13:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Presentations and m:Presentations. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent :) Raul654 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC

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

Featured content

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

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

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

You're right - I made a mistake. Raul654 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So how long will it stay listed? It seems like the conversation has died down. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it again soon - I'm not going to let it hang there forever. Raul654 20:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Singapore

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

Hrm, I don't see it in the archive - I'll take a look into it. Raul654 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I had meant to restart the nomination (I wasn't happy with how it was proceeding). Raul654 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

FA Policies

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

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

delete

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

Image:Raul654.jpg

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

Chicken in the pot believed compromised

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

Ambitious work on {{Template:Communism2}}

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

Thanks for the note re Brad Patrick

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

Unblocking O^O

It wasn't just his attempted DOS. Read his contributions. See also, [2]. --Gmaxwell 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He's wrong about Danny, but people aren't blocked for being wrong. I don't appreciate his edits wherein he implicitely called me a liar, but I'm being forgiving here and I hope he'll stop.

As far as the blacklist workaround, I've already reported it on bugzilla. He changed the links on that talk page so the page was editable (it was triggering the blacklist). I was going to remove (or otherwise break) the links myself, but he beat me to it, so I don't see any harm in what he did. (Frankly, I wish he had let me know this weeks ago so I could have gotten it fixed the first time around.) Raul654 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(conflict) Oh, I see how you missed this before ... he removed the prior warning [3]. OH. Did you read the link? he restored the links back to the article several times after he was instructed to discontinue. --Gmaxwell 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The timeline, as far as I can tell, is that I added wikitruth to the blacklist (16:22, 26 April 2006 UTC), he edited the wikitruth talk page so that it wouldn't trigger the blacklist (thus allowing people to edit it again), and you warned him a few minutes later. Avoiding the blacklist is bad, but I don't see any repeat offenses, and I don't think doing it so as to allow people to edit the page is bad (I was trying to do the same thing myself, although I would simply have broken or removed the links). Raul654 22:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure he did, [4]. --Gmaxwell 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm... that's problematic, but (IMO) I don't think it warrants a permanent block. Protecting wikitruth (which someone did) was a good call, and perhaps it might have been a good idea to give O^O a short cool-down block. Permanently blocking him is (again, IMO) not a good idea - it seems like an overreaction against someone who was espousing an unpopular (and wrong-headed) opinion. As I said below, I'm trying to calm the situation down, and this isn't the way to do it. Raul654 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed Wikitruth from the blacklist

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

Had you actually been interested in ending the editwar, as opposed to pushing your position, your actions should have been to simply do nothing because the page had been protected. Instead you unprotected the page to restart the conflict and sabotage the efforts to get a discussion going, then used that as an excuse to revert an edit made with the support of our attorney. In any case, it doesn't much matter because you're not going to be allowed to pull a stunt like that. --Gmaxwell 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy, Gregg. Amgine has reverted the blacklist on meta. I'm ducking out there and probably from the wikitruth talk page too - apparently my actions have inadvertantly started a forest fire, and I'd prefer it if everyone calmed down. RN - ditto - while well-intentioned, I think your actions are only going to inflame the situation. Raul654 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I wish this thing would end - it is very distressing. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for distressing you, but I believe your actions were really out of line. It did not appear to me that you had any intention of discontinuing, but now that you've made it clear that you will I apologize for being so blunt. --Gmaxwell 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Now if only the rest of this situation could be thusly defused... Raul654 22:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gmaxwell. Also, Raul if you think I was really out of line and it would help the situation I can submit myself for deadminship, as I don't use the extra abilities much anymore anyway (although I guess that would remove my meta adminship too....). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I don't expect admins to be perfect; merely be able to recognize that they might have made a mistake. That's exactly what happened in this case. Raul654 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot bot flag

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

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

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

Stability

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

I do not see what is wrong with the current "Doesn't change much from day to day" defintion. It is most certainly not self-referential. Raul654 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you're not making any exceptions for what you've said in talk page discusions on what would be acceptable. For example, at a plain reading, the section does bar current event articles even if they are updated in a reasionable manner. --Barberio 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If a current events article is being in a "reasonable manner" (by which I presume you mean far, far fewer edits per day than, for example, this article) then I see no way that that requirement could bar them. However, the other requirements also specify that it doesn't omit any significant facts/details, which are often lacking from breaking events. Raul654 20:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If it fails on the other requirments, then it fails on the other requirments. But it shouldn't fail due to a vauge application of the 'Stability' requirement. --Barberio 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the only person who appears to think it's vague. In point of fact, stability issues do not come up often, and when they are valid, it's usually abundantly clear that an article is not stable. Raul654 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC and FAR

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

I saw the discussion, but I haven't been reading it closely. I am hesitant about the proposal - it seems like it might be a case of burning down the house to roast the pig. Raul654 08:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you do it up with pineapple and veggies...

The verbiage attending may seem to make it more complicated than it would be in practice. The quick notes in favour: solves the review period on talk page issue; should be less antagnostic; the weird act of nominating for removal something that you don't actually want removed would be avoided. Nothing actually gets nom'ed for removal. It gets brought up for review, with removal being one possible outcome. Marskell 14:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a summary User:Marskell/Featured Article Review. When I first wrote it it was longer and really didactic but I've edited so that it's not straightjacket (I hope); obviously any detail can be changed, but the basic idea is to bring the review period into the process. For example, Worldtraveller's comment that he didn't want to wait longer to actually starting getting feedback wouldn't be an issue. Note, there are two alternatives for the last section. Marskell 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that makes it much clearer... I'm starting to warm to the proposal. Raul654 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have to say this seems incredibly obvious in hindsight. FARC isn't working as few are following the guideline of working things out on the talk page first. In a single page we can handle improvement and removal with the minimum of process and the least hostility. There are minor details to work out, but it seems a step ahead. - Taxman ^Talk 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And glad you found the Userpage more enlightening. I think I may have come out of nowhere and been over-eager, making it seem radical. At essence it's simple: as Tax says, improvement and removal in a single page. Marskell 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Arb Case Mistake

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Failure_to_cite_sources_and_original_research

Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

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

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [5].

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

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

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

Request for information.

Hello,

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

Requests for clarification is a section on the main RFAr page - see here Raul654 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this considered the new notice board? Folajimi 16:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the question. The arbcom noticeboard was shortlived, and was used exclusively to do what hte current requests for clarification section does - allow people to request clarification of our rulings. Raul654 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You did an excellent job answering a question you did not understand! :) My intent to include it in the list of noticeboards used for the project is pointless since its raison d'être has been Overcome by events. At any rate, thanks a lot for your responses; it is greatly appreciated. Cheers. Folajimi 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob McEwen

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

Ironically, I was considering asking you about this. (Was it this edit that dropped the hint?) I was going to schedule for May 8 (and even did the write up, which is sitting here on my desktop ask I type this), but I saw that there's a primary on the 2nd so I didn't feel comfortable scheduling it until the article is updated. Raul654 16:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion warning

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion on its entry. Template:Idw/lang

Heinlein Template

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

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

Sounds good to me...thanks, Chuck 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article question

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

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

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

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

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

The policy we have adopted, vis a vis featured articles, is that any article that can survive AFD can theoretically become a featured article. It seems absurd then, to use an article's featured status as a defense against being deleted - it turns that policy around 180 degrees. Raul654 00:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I don't agree that it turns around the featured article concept, but rather honors it. Even though you don't expect to have FA act as a screen for an article being encyclopedic (i.e. not AfD), there is still peer review and consensus of those who participate that the article is a good article, in fact , as described in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, "our very best work." It would be unseemly for an article that was given FA status to then be deemed worthy of deletion — would make that bronze star meaningless. If an article is one of the "best articles in Wikipedia", one should be able to assume that means it meets all of Wikipedia's policies — NPOV, verifiability, and No OR — and be worthy of existence. (I see that a number of Wikipedians who have weighed in the article also see FA status as important in their vote.) NPOV and verifiability are explicitly mentioned in the FA criteria. In the specific AfD that brought this up, the nomination is based on OR, which I would expect to be addressed by FA review. I acknowledge your objection, but also have a basic faith that those who review FA are steeped enough in Wikipedia policies to take note of OR. —ERcheck @ 01:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the AFD page, the FAC checks for most things - including NPOV, NOR, 'etc - but the articles there are *assumed* to be "encyclopedic" (because I DO NOT want the FAC to became a second AFD). This assumption only makes sense if we are willing to, in principle, allow AFD nominations independent of the FA process (e.g, where FA status is not used as an argument in favor of inclusion). Raul654 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Message,

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

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

Rick Block stole my thunder :) Raul654 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fan edits

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

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

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

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

Oops - a mistake on my part. I have restored it. Raul654 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Circa 1900 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

$ ping

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

Thug Ride, again

Someone has added Thug Ride to the FAC list again, this time tampering with the previous vote history [6]. Dmoon1 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

regarding "civility"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released

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

Two things

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

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

About the conference - better. I believe all the events in the grand ball room (including Vinge and Godwin's speeches) were video captured and webcast. I don't know where you can get a copy - I can email Lenny and ask. Raul654 15:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

About the companies-in-wikipedia - it does please me that they are afraid of using us as a PR tool. I hope the politicians take the hint. Raul654 15:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek

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

Dilbert-IIT

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

Sorry, it is not possible - I found that one on google images. It's too bad - I was actually looking for the one where Asok says he'll refrain from gratitious uses of his mental powers, like heating his cup of tea by holding it against his forehead ;) Raul654 15:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish we could get the image of the heating the tea cup one though. It's such a famous one! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

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

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

Add more informations on UN

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

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

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

Public Domain Music

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound/list Hi, I want to use some of the music from the sound page in my film, but I'm not sure how to go about crediting the people that put it up or the license holder of the different pieces. Could you give me any help? Thanks for any help you can give me. Mattel84 15:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Electrostatic induction

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

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

Highway's RfA

File:Pikachu plastic toy.JPG

Me relaxing...

Request for Adminship

---

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

FAC on zoophilia

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

I'm not as clued in on style, the areas I'm looking into are content and struucture. So for example, citations, and moving legal and religion out to their own articles. A draft of the "legal" is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/draft_laws but I'm not happy with it, the content is good, the structure's not unreasonable, but the flow is somehow diabolical right now. I haven't moved the core content over yet. Could you look at this and see if you're able to help knock it into shape a bit, before I go further? It'd be appreciated :)

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

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

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

No, keep the bibliography in the article. Raul654 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Quick heads up, there's a slight render bug in cite.php, affecting the render of the link in footnote 20. I've checked it, it renders fine when not in a footnote, and I've reported it on bugzilla. Please ignore the ugly fix I put into the footnote to get at least something reasonable rendering, I'm hoping they'll fix it reasonably quickly, it doesn't look complex to debug. 'Bug' due to "=" symbol in URL confusing the render engine, now fixed, (thanks Platonides!)

I've been otherwise adding cites, and trying to not disturb anything already improved. Thats the heads up for the time. FT2 (Talk) 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Question on FA about "offensive" topics

Mark,

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

No to the former, yes to the latter. In other words, as far as awarding featured status, the rule we have adopted is that any article which could survive a trip to AFD could theoretically become a featured article (for the purpose of FAC, we simply assume that anything that is nominated could survive AFD).

As far as main page content, there are a *few* featured articles (there's no official list anywhere - it exists solely in my head) that will never appear on the main page. As of now, there are about 4 articles that fit this bill, sort of. Wikipedia will definitely never appear as a main page featured article because I consider it to be extremely gratitious self-advertisement. Caulfield Grammar School (a run of the mill high school) I am very hesitant to ever putting on the main page because I believe it very likely to inflame the high school deletionism/inclusionism wars; Hopkins School (a somewhat more notable high school) I am a bit hesitant about putting on the main page but I might give it a shot for May 30th which has been requested by the article's author; Memory Alpha I am still undecided about for reasons that are valid but hard to describe (basically it amounts to the fact that it would be confusing and/or look bad that we are advertising a relatively unimportant site, and another wiki at that, and one affiliiated with Wikia at that) Raul654 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PS - I was pleased that the Prostitution in the PRC article (the FA from 2 or 3 days ago) was well received. I don't think I saw anyone complain about the racey content. Raul654 15:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my question. Personally, I'd be more comfortable if you'd say "I put these at the permanent bottom of the list of Main Page candidate articles", that is, in the scenario where we run out of articles to feature, you'd even feature these before repeating yourself. But otherwise I think this minimal editorial judgment is probably better than a policy on something which is so hard to define.--Eloquence* 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording

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

The text on your userpage is still incorect, you probably should do a slight reword sometime.Voice-of-All^Talk 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the word "choose" to "schedule", which seems to be what you are getting at. Raul654 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice fix...(why didn't I think of that :D).Voice-of-All^Talk 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Santa.jpg

Seems unlikely to be the work of the US government. More likely a web designer at the air force base with a lack of knowledge of copyright law. ed g2s • talk 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Video

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

Dinky icons

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

oh god! That's it. I'm putting them *all* up for deletion and I'm going to put forward a policy that they are never to be used. Raul654 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have put those two on TFD already - I hope there are no others. I think there is still wide consensus (barring present company ;) for {{featured article}} but I am less sure about the utility of {{Spoken Wikipedia}}.

So that is how new policy gets written. Are you proposing to delete stub templates and categories too? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories are not necessarily wikipedia metadata ('category:Living people' is not wikipedia-related metadata; 'category:articles in need of clean up' is) I am convinced, however, that stub tags belong on talk pages. The problem is that it's a long-standing tradition (from back in the days when bad practices proliferated in the absence of experience) not to and getting people to change their minds is not easy. Worse - the fact that stub exists is used by some people as a justification by others for making even more meta-data templates. Raul654 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have renamed the policy to Wikipedia:Keep Wikipedia-related metadata out of articles to make the distinction (versus other metadata) more clear. Raul654 23:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By that reckoning, doesn't {{Spoken Wikipedia}} indicate to readers that there is a (free) spoken version of the article, in just the same way as an interwiki indicates that there is other content elsewhere? Is that Wikipedia-related metadata? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, in the absolute strictest sense, that is correct - it is almost equivelent to an english audio interwiki (it actually a pointer to an en audio version, so it's a bit less functional than an interwiki). On the other hand, the icon at the top right is (a) redundant with the spoken box, (b) breaks the layout, and (c) is the camel's nose in the tent (and only encourages the proliferation of these damned things). Raul654 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with (a) and (b). (c) we can fight with the pointed stick or comfy chair as necessary. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Raul, what is your position on templates such as {{Geolinks-US-buildingscale}} (more of them at Category:Coordinates templates), which utilize {{Coor title d}} to place the geographic coordinates in the top right of an article (though below the line)? They're not exactly metadata templates, but I was wondering what your opinion on them are. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

--Cyde Weys 00:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopkins School and May 30th

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

Oops! I had intended (albeit hesitantly) to fullfill your request, but for some reason I was thinking you had requested the 31st (not the 30th). Raul654 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very very much! Staxringold 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Small side request: Any chance of using the student pic I put in the suggested write-up rather than the school logo? It is a more engaging photo and has the benefit of being free. Staxringold 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Settling a debate for an FAC

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

TfDs

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

I know full well how to nominate an article for deletion, thanks. However, people are expected to use a modicum of sense when nominating articles for deletion. Adding TFD to a template which is used in 1000 high profile articles (including one prominently linked from the main page every day) is an inherently bad idea (and that's just the FA template). I have left a note on the relavant talk pages, so that the people who are most affected will see it. Raul654 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I know; however, you should still put the deletion notice on the templates' talk pages (some of which are active), or somebody who is more process wonky than me can come along and speedily close the debates. Kusma (討論) 22:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have already dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles (where the featured article template was first proposed) and template talk:Spoken Wikipedia. Raul654 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pointing you to the instructions was a bit silly, I apologize for that. Kusma (討論) 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

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

Hurricane Irene reply

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

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

I'm sorry, maybe I am a bit dense early this morning, but I am having a hard time connecting the dots between my edit and your response to Eloquence. Are you referring in particular to "(for the purpose of FAC, we simply assume that anything that is nominated could survive AFD)"? Why do we assume that? Or am I missing your point altogether? In any case, regarding that particular FAC, it seems I am in a distinct minority believing it shouldn't be an article at all, so I'm not disappointed it made FA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - that assumtion is the statement I was referring to. We assume it because, to be frank, I don't want FAC turning into another AFD shit-storm. To that end, I think would be ideal for us to simply avoid the matter all together, and assume that anything that is nominated is notable enough to be kept. Also, for this reason, I am adamantly against using an article's featured status as reason to keep it (as I said during the recent patriot act AFD nom). I hope that answers your question. Raul654 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think I get it. If I feel like objecting because it shouldn't be an article, I should swith venues and actually nominate it for AfD (where it being featured or not shouldn't be prejudicial - in theory). Otherwise the FAC becaumes an AfD. Reasonable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Raul654 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you accept nominations for common sense bricks?

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

Templates for Deletion

Hi Raul,

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

There is a procedure for listing templates for deletion here.

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

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

Cedars 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

FA Huricane Mitch Summary

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

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

June 1 Featured Article

I noticed that you recently chose the featured article for June 1, passing over the request for 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to be featured on that day. Before trying to convince you that 2005 Atlantic hurricane season should be on the Main Page then, I'd like to see if you could tell me why you chose to pass over it. Thanks! —Cuiviénen^T|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 02:15 UTC

I didn't notice there was a specific date attached to the request. I'll look into it tomorrow (I was just about to quit for the night). Raul654 02:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for considering it. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 03:07 UTC

The KLF

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elisa Villar

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

That user has no edits outside of his/her own userpage - so that clearly is a case of a user using wikipedia as a webhost. On the other hand, as I said in my previous comment, it is a long-accepted practice that a "regular" editor can upload a picture of himself to his userpage. Where you draw the line between someone who makes few or no edits outside his userpage (and is thus using wikipedia as a webhost) and someone who has many thousands of edits (whose picture is clearly acceptable per long standing practice) is a subjective question. Raul654 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree w/r/to that user's having used her page for unencyclopedic purposes and having contributed nothing to the project. The question you raise w/r/to line-drawing is an important one, but we also ought more clearly to note that it is permissible that one should upload a pic of him/herself for userpage use because having a picture fosters interpersonal communication and then encyclopedic collaboration. As someone noted at MfD, the criteria in view of which images should be deleted would seem to extend to the uploading of personal photos for use other than in mainspace; perhaps we should make clear (somewhere) that userpage use is also acceptable, where the usage is de minimis and designed to facilitate the writing of an encyclopedia (as against to help one's social life). Joe 21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

*poke*

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

Crab Nebula

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

It may not be the longest article on wikipedia, but it's considerably more than a stub. To be frank, I agree with their point that "it's not comprehensive" is simply not helpful if you cannot give them some indication of what's missing. I'm not an astronomer (in point of fact - both WorldTraveller and ALoan, the primary authors, are or have been) and, having read it myself, I didn't consider any significant fact ommitted (arguably the composition of the nebula, but I don't know enough astrophysics to say whether it would be anything other than mostly helium) Raul654 06:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's helpful—I'm saying "write more of what you know". Or "use those 'Crab studies' to expand this". It's kind of like "reference the info more thoroughly" or "proofread it"—they're general complaints, but they are certainly valid ones. The fact that astronomers wrote it makes my argument stronger, actually—they are clearly knowledgeable enough to keep expanding it for a good long while. They just aren't inclined to do so. Everyking 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't consider a general "proofread it" to be especially helpful in fixing a mature (read: not chock full of errors) article. *Of course* the author has already proofread it, and will continue to fix errors when (s)he notices them. However, the point of doing peer review is to give the author feedback about what the problem is, and "proofread it" does not help. For the same reason, "It could use more references" isn't quite as bad, but still isn't terribly helpful. It usually just means the nominator will throw in a bunch of references for trivial statements that don't really require attribution; it doesn't harm the article, but it doesn't improve it greatly either. The FAC instructions, in fact, clearly say that all objections require a specific actionable reason, which "proofread it" (or, in this case, "it's too short") fail to address. Raul654 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the implicit praise, Raul654, but I would not classify myself as a primary author here - Worldtraveller wrote almost all of it; I only copyedited. I was an astronomer, but I worked mostly on a somewhat larger canvas: Worldtraveller is more expert on this kind of astronomy.

There is a (short) paragraph on composition - like most astronomical objects, most of it is almost certainly hydrogen, with traces of other elements; Worldtraveller may be able to dig out some papers on abundances, but I doubt they will be very interesting.

Of course more could be said about the Crab, but plenty of knowledgeable people think this says enough for an encyclopedia article on this topic. "Compehensive" does not mean that every trivial detail is pinned down exhaustively: part of the art of writing is knowing what to leave out. Unless Everyking can point to specific omissions, I'm don't think more needs to be said (for example, on the talk page, he is asking for more details of the discovery by John Bevis in 1731 - I doubt there is very much of interest to be said there either: he had a telescope; he spotted the nebula; end of story). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As the remanant of a supernova, wouldn't most of hte hydrogen have already been fused? Raul654 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Crab was created by a Type II supernova. Type II supernovae are characterised by the presence of hydrogen emission lines. The spectra of Type I supernovae have no hydrogen emission lines (the most famous kind, Type Ia, are white dwarfs, which are mostly carbon and oxygen). But even in Type Is, the progenitor star does not burn all of the hydrogen into heavier elements - the outer gas envelope is blown off in an earlier stage, leaving a core which later explodes. I'm struggling to find a quick link to an analysis of abundances or masses of the various components, but I would be surprised if "most" of the initial mass of any star was turned into something other than hydrogen. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Video issue

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

Common Sense Brick

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

TFA:Bangladesh

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

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

FARC and FAR merger

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

TFA

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

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

New Law?

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

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

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

June 6, 2006 Featured Article Image

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

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

Three Laws of Robotics

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

Yes, I have fixed it. Please avoid doing it again in the future - fixing page history splits rather easy to screw up. Raul654 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

When objections are ignored...

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

Your objections were not ignored. They were debated at some length and almost nobody agreed with you that the writing was "flabby". jaco♫plane 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the examples I gave, I only saw Linuxbeak himself claim they weren't flabby writing. Worldtraveller 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Picture for PSW article on main page

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

Raul, I changed the pic at the top of the article and explained at talk. I think the new image (map) is best to use at the mainpage as well as the most neutral and informative. Reasons at talk. Please take a look. Thanks, --Irpen 06:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw when you changed it. The idea for putting a map on the main page is a very bad one. I've replied on the talk page. Raul654 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet-Polish article

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

Xx236 08:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

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

You have had it listed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Bulbasaur since March 12! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's nine from the bottom, I sit on the page. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah - I thought it had been delisted after Raul commented that it should "lie fallow" for a while. I'm just wondering if that's still the case. — Celestianpower ^háblame 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Indian related FA nominations

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

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

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

Blu Aardvark unblocking

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

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

Torchic FAC

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

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

I understand your concerns. I'm at the beach at the moment, so I'll look into the matter when I get home tomorrow night. Raul654 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Hang ten, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but has this not garnered enough support? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm mulling it over - particularly Taxman's objections. Raul654 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Can I just ask you, have you ever came across a fictional character article with such information? Personally, I believe that asking something of an article that doesn't exist is no reason to block it from FA, especially if other articles are allowed. Or maybe it's just 'crats like to have a go at me? (not you Raul, Francs2000 pushed for deletion last time if I can remember). Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Can I just ask you, have you ever came across a fictional character article with such information? " - Dracula ;)

Like I said, I have nothing against the article - I just want time to think over the objections that have been expressed. Raul654 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Is there any home address I can send generous bribes too? ; ) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll

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

June 8 featured Article

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

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

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

Incorrect. The "finals" are the month long tournament that occurs every four years. That month long tournament is considered the "final" to the 4 years of preliminary matches that occur beforehand. Raul654 18:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But if you look at many of the sponsorts, the sticker albums and so forth, you seeFootball World Cup written on them. Jean-Paul--Talk to me 15.56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, right, most people think of the tournament (the finals) as the whole "world cup", but there's more to it than that. And to anyone who is confused, I suggest they read the article :) Raul654 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Wheel warring

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

No, I am not imbued with special authority. I do, however, support the right of any admin to launch an experiment in cases like this (which Lethe, by reblocking Blu <5 minutes after I unblocking him, rather rudely cut short). That is to say, if Blu is allowed to edit on a contigency basis and does badly, then he'll be reblocked in a short time (and I will not unblock!) and we're not harmed much for it. And if Blu is allowed to edit on a contigency basis and does well, then we have regained a previously good user and we're all the better for it. As I see it, there's little to be lost and much to be gained. Raul654 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That does not respond to why you operated outside consensus and the normal channels. That does not respond to why you immediately reblocked (wheeling). I suggest you voluntarily suspend yourself from admin actions for a week, to set a good example. El_C 01:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not be using my admin powers again in this case (a moratorium on admin action from me is a non-starter - I write the FA summaries and protect them pretty much every day). And I understand the claims of IRC cabalism, however, my decision was based entirely on his actions on Wikipedia and WR (or, to be specific, lack of any "beyond the pale" type actions on WR). Raul654 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have examined the facts carefuly enough. And I think that operating unilterally in such a heated case (esp. with already existing IRC-unilateralism concerns) was a mistake on your part. Blu is worse than Selina, btw. Much worse. El_C 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, how so? Blu had one bad day on Wikipedia, Selina was *constantly* throwing bombs to the point where I had to block her for 30 days per bad edit. Off wiki, they might do some trivial amount of sniping, but neither of them has done anything beyond the pale as far as I am aware. ANd Blue has already given an apology (and in response to Kirill's questio, he posted clarification. So how is Blu worse? Raul654 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

His apology strikes me as rather half-hearted and overqualified, but that aside, Selina didn't falter in the face of Nazi hatespeech, Blu did, in a big way, on the original proboards Wikipedia Review. El_C 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not psychic, so I cannot offer any insight into Blu's actions. I can say, however, that from what I have seen WR is more tolerant of people with intolerable views. Holding that against Blu Aardvark seems unfair to him. Raul654 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By virtue of not being psychic, next times, try to guage on the opinions of others on-wiki, no matter how stagnant you may find that discourse to be. El_C 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Well..

I support what you are doing[7], although I admit to being oblivious of the social dynamics going on here. Also, if want arbcom on this one, according to one member their mind is already made up:

"I would like to reassure you that I, and I believe a majority of the ArbCom if not in fact all of us, do NOT welcome MSK or BluAardvark back to Wikipedia; in fact, quite the reverse. I believe those who do are a tiny percentage of Wikipedia's admins, let alone the organisation itself inasmuch as such exists. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)" [8]

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

Experiments

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

I'm not inventing this out of thin air - there's always been leeway for admins to do this kind of stuff. Hell, Ed Poor unblocked Plautus satire, of all people. Raul654 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Here is my attack

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

Deconstructivism

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

There's not enough feedback for me to call it consensus, but with your change, I'm willing to let it "cook" a little longer on the FAC. I've restored the nom. Raul654 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll see if I can't enlist a few more people to look it over. RyanGerbil10 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently nominated this article, and it was promoted. It has the notice on the talk page, is listed on WP:FA but has no star on the article page. Is there something I am missing? DVD+ R/W 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't normally add the star to the article myself (On principle I object to its existance) Raul654 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured out how to add it myself, why do you object to them? Also, where do I submit the article to post it on the main page? Thanks, DVD+ R/W 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a requests page (which is filled to overflowing) - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Raul654 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, expect to see it in line soon. DVD+ R/W 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As for why I object to the star, I am strongly opposed to putting meta-data into articles (it makes our content difficult/impossible to reuse effectively or easily). I consider the star (and other stuff like it) to be database pollution. Raul654 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what meta-data is but I've found that wikipedia has an article on it, which I am about to read. What are some other examples in wikipedia? DVD+ R/W 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark

Hello,

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

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

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

You recently protected[9] this page but did not put in a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, article talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Please be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAC

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

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

Checkuser

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

Iranian peoples

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

Feature Article Promotion Question

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

I know you're a busy guy, just checking in again to see if you saw the comment about. I don't mean to be impatient, but it's been on my mind. Did I do something wrong? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. This thread seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. I dealt with Rlevse's objection reworking the line he objected to personally; I felt that Fieri's objection about a lack of context had been addressed (this was, I believe, the first of your objections) - the article now includes a mention of the fact that Colbert does a conservative character and the purpose of the press dinner; the comment about the blog citation is valid, but minor - - a number of other valid cited sources also mention that his routine fell flat with the live audience.

Beyond that, I disagree with your characerization of how the article treats Cohen and Calame; I think it accurately summarizies their positions. Calame said in his blog that they didn't mention it and wishes they had, but never really gave a satisfactory explination other than 'it was familiar territory. Raul654 19:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your getting back to me. My objection to the Calame quotation is that the line sounds as though Calame's article was critical of the NYT, when the overall tone seems like that of someone responding with to letters with an explanation, in a normal editorial capacity. I thought it was sort of unfair to quote him as saying "that doesn't explain why Colbert wasn't covered" as though he were demanding an explanation, given that this line is actually used to introduce explanation, which isn't mentioned at all in the article. It might have been a poor explanation, but I really thought since it was the closest we'll get to an official explanation from the Times, it was extremely relevant to the discussion of the media's motives in excluding the story. What could be more relevant? As for Cohen, I don't think his article was incredibly substantial or eloquent, but it seemed to me that if you're going to quote the guy's criticism at all, an effort should be made to quote the most substantial part. The isolated words that are quoted instead sound like name calling rather than criticism -- I thought Cohen did have a bit more to say than calling if all Colbert "lame", "rude", and a "bully", even if the article was mostly fluff.

But I'm getting away from the point. I admit some of the stuff I mentioned my objection is minor. However, I don't feel that all of it was. To be honest, I was surprised by the article's promotion because I felt that my objections were raised in good faith and were specific and substantial enough to at least provoke discussion. The promotion was especially distressing to me, because I ultimately ended up curtailing the explanation for my objection, thinking I'd have time to clarify these points later, since I'd already written quite a lot. I thought that time for discussion -- and clarification -- was inherently implied in the term consensus-building, and feel my argument wound up being less effective because I operated under this assumption. I could see doing this if a person raising an objection wasn't being reasonable, and their motive was apparently to stonewall the nomination, but I don't think this applies here.

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

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

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

Inside Joke

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

Quoting law #6

Hi,

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

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

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

User:172.209.207.72

Hi I noticed you blocked 172.209.207.72, and they're currently requesting unblock. I can't see why you blocked the user without any prior warnings for doing a test edit. Kevin_b_er 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

please do not harrass me

Your message to me is unacceptable. Please read my reply to that guy, Im not offending or trying to offend italians, coz Im currently in Italy. But Im seriously wondering on the real identity of this guy, becouse he claims that I've never been in a club and do not know dance music. So, maybe this guy knows me personally? I'm recently trying to make a hard work here, I'm trying to fix the inconsistency and lack of logic of many articles in the "music genre" cathegory. A user, despite the fact that I'm wworking on 2 articles at the same time having put the

template, Housemusic and Club music is reverting my edit endless. Ciao Brian W 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Main page picture

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

See here Raul654 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

colbert on main?

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

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

Ya I knew Raul was familliar with it because he just promoted it a couple days ago, otherwise I would have provided a link :) --kizzle 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (searching for "Colbert" on WP:FA produced this answer in 3 seconds). Kusma (討論) 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflit with Kusma) Kizzle is referring to Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, which I promoted a few days ago. Kizzle - I have no problem putting this on the main page. Put it on the requests page, and I'll get to it. The queue is quite long, however. Raul654 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Mail

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

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

Yom Kippur War

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

June 12 TFA

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

I'm of the opinion that, generally, pictures are superior to maps for illustrative purposes. The map shows the areas affected, but the other picture does a much better job of illustrating the nature of the disaster - think of it as the "oh shit" factor ;) Raul654 05:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but I still think it's kind of difficult to see what the picture is portraying at first glance. This is the main reason why I wanted to change it. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps kicking it up in size a few dozen pixels will satisfy your concerns? Raul654 20:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding whether User:Richard Branson violates username policy

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

Complaint on OTRS, ticket #2006060510011091

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

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

Request for spam blacklist addition

Hi Raul!

I know that there exists some sort of spam blacklist, but I am not sure how to add items to it or request items to be added to it. There was a pornographic link spammer some days ago using a number of different IPs to add links to less-than-reputable sites. I blocked two of those IPs for a week (User:222.107.17.108 and User:221.138.36.46), but a Google check today confirmed to me that he has targeted more articles than this one. I don't know if this spamming is going on right now so I. You can check the undelete page of Category talk:Public domain for the sites which should be blacklisted. Thanks, Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done Raul654 20:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember me?

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

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

Problem with a user

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

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

Main Page Question

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

00:00 UTC Raul654 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So shouldn't Krazy Kat have been removed earlier today, as I remember it yesterday.

It switched at the proper time (midnight UTC, 8 PM US Eastern daylight savings time) to the new FA, Muhammad Ali Jinnah Raul654 02:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We Belong Together

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

I can do that, sure. Raul654 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Malmedy massacre controversy

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

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

Your deletion of Britannica related article is inappropriate!

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

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

What do you mean by reputable source? I quoted from the book itself. Anyone could check it. If you cannot check it due to it being in a lnauguage that is not known to you, I am helpless. Kerala is a small geographical territory. Conspiracy of silence could effectively be clamped on such a local literary and critical discourse there if you have clout. The local publisher has it. I could only fetch this link with a clusy search.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040810/43/2fffq.html It is enough to prove what has been reported as "flatly false". I request you to reinstate the entry immediately. Don't you think it would be proper to disclose the identity of the parties who made the complaint? The article needs to cite the case number, the page numbers of the errors mentioned etc. That will be soon done. I could assure you that this page would be off the web very soon. Cruxit 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA world cup article intro for the 8th

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

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

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

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

Actually, I think the official name is the 'FIFA World Cup'. This does seem to be a bit of a non-issue however- and using the word 'football' may lead to problems due to its ambiguous meaning in the US and the ROW. I don't quite see why this needs to be changed (see also my response on the Main Page Talk). The World Cup Finals are THE World CUp Finals. Badgerpatrol 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Badgerpatrol - the current name is the correct one. Raul654 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TFA guidelines

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

uncivil

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

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

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

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

advise

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

There is no system. Why would you try to administer what does not exist? Raul654 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

When modeling a system that does not exist, does one use a queue depth of zero or infinity? - O^O

One digital path ends with a divide-by-zero exception, the other with a stack overflow. Buddha tells us to choose the third path. Mu. Raul654 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the path of Z. Buddha is wise indeed; he lights the way to coherency of memory and finity of state. - O^O

Cache coherency is a devil's bargain. One cannot follow the path to Nirvana without accepting multiple states of being. Raul654 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)