User:Raul654/archive12

Hi - I notice you just promoted Jenna Jameson. I believe Worldtraveller's comments remain unaddressed, and I entered some comments in a similar vein (perhaps after you decided) that certainly remain unaddressed. I don't know if you ever change your mind due to "late breaking" comments on the FAC page, but my guess is that promoting this article in its current state will help to solidify Worldtraveller's opinion that WP is broken. I don't actually care about this specific article. I do care about losing editors of the caliber of Worldtraveller. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm sorry, but that complaint ("too long for a porn star") is one of the two complaints that I just can't fulfill without destroying the article. One of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is "comprehensive", and it doesn't say anything about "comprehensive, except for porn stars". As is, I will confidently assert we have the best article on this subject on the Web, and that includes some pretty good articles, the ones we use as sources: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Rolling Stone, etc. If we eviscerate it, we won't. Do note, however, that Wt's comparison to Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, etc., is incorrect, those articles are far longer, even if you don't include the sub-articles, and especially if you do. WP:SIZE, which Wt quotes in one one his edit comments, specifically excludes references from article length for comparison, and those make up half the article body. The other objection that I just can't resolve completely is "no fair use images whatsoever" - that's clearly not the way we do things here. I'd be very happy to address other issues, nothing is perfect.

Anyway, responding to that is not quite why I'm here - I wanted to ask about the "main page?" concerns discussed on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson. Raoul/Mark, is it correct that this article will never be on the main page? Or do you think it is qualified? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Rick, I agree with AnonEMouse's characterization of the objection - I do not consider "too detailed" to be a compelling objection. As far as putting this article on the main page, I am undecided, but leaning a bit towards 'no'. IMO, 'History of erotic depictions' was close to the line, but still a few steps inside the boundary. I'm not so sure about Jenna Jamison though. Raul654 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My issue was not "too detailed" (I entered a list of specific, detailed comments on the FAC page - which I think simply suffered from bad timing) and based on a comment on his talk page I believe WT meant to leave a more detailed critique (but was otherwise occupied - and I suspect "too detailed" is not an accurate summary). This is not a big deal in my book and enough time has passed that it is now clearly moot (more specifically, I think what's done should remain done). The only thing about this that concerns me at this point is that I seem to have entered comments on the FAC page after the article was promoted (the bot update of the FAC page lagged your edit of WP:FA sufficiently to allow this - I've checked the time stamps). Perhaps this may argue that the bot should work the other direction (i.e. you close the discussion at the FAC page and have the bot update WP:FA). It is a trifle annoying to have spent time composing comments that weren't considered. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They weren't considered because you made the post almost an hour after I closed the nomination and removed it from the FAC. [1][2] The FAC page is the authoritative listing of what is and is not currently nominated. If something is not there, then it is not curretly a nomination. The whole point of using the bot is so I don't have to hand-close 50+ nominations a week. Raul654 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this [3] the edit that queues the bot, or this [4]? It doesn't really matter, the point is that the FAC page looked open (albeit from a direct link, rather than from the transclusion at WP:FAC). It may not come up often, and you're certainly free to say "tough shit", but there does seem to be a window. Finding a way to close it seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps you could run a "close" bot that does both. BTW - I can't really tell, but it seems like you're annoyed. I'm not, and I don't mean this to come across as whining. Bots are good. Leaving a window open is bad (especially if it was open for more than an hour). And again, I don't care about this article in particular. I appreciate your utter selfless devotion to what you must surely sometimes think is a tremendously thankless task (I, frankly, occasionally wonder about your sanity). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not annoyed. Sorry if I came off that way :)

I'm pretty sure the bot looks at the promotion and archive logs, so the edits that trigger it would be this and this. Raul654 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Too detailed" is not entirely what my objection was, but even if it had been, why is that not a compelling objection? What is criterion 4 of WP:WIAFA for? I have to say that this is just the latest of several articles have been promoted over actionable objections that I've made. I make objections based on the FA criteria, the author denies that there is a problem, the article gets promoted anyway. On similar grounds I objected to Chetwynd, British Columbia - excessive detail, incredibly boring writing, opinions from references being quoted as fact. Similarly, Halo 2 was grotesquely verbose, I gave examples of how the text could be cut in half or better without sacrificing any detail. But the author denied this, and the article got promoted. This, too, goes into ridiculous detail for such an ephemeral person. I'd suggest that if objections based on criterion 4 are always ignored, then the criterion should be scrapped.

Worse, probably, than the excessive length in this case, is the writing in a deliberately favourable tone and quoting from her autobiography as if it is fact. Look at the quote in the section on early life; is this regurgitation of an opinion from a source, presented as fact, an acceptable way of writing? Similarly, She remembers telling Wicked Pictures founder Steve Orenstein... is not acceptable, in my opinion - it is writing deliberately favourable to the subject, and more akin to a magazine article than an encyclopaedia article. Also, the list of awards is not encyclopaedic - it seems like just another example of the author's evident pro-Jameson attitude. I have to say I can't really understand why the article was promoted. Worldtraveller 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not compelling because with few exceptions, what is and is not worth including in the article is inherently subjective (it's basically AFD in miniature). Every article clearly has some things that everyone can agree should be mentioned. When there is a disagreement as to the rest, I am inclined to err on the side of having our featured articles be too informative versus being not informative enough. (So when someone objects that something important is missing, I take those objections quite seriously) On the other hand, when someone objects that an article is too long, I check to see the length, and unless it's above the usual range (in the neighborhood of 30-80 kb, I think) I usually take such objections with a grain of salt. Obviously, someone thought it was important enough to merit mentioning in the article. Raul654 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the issue of using autobiography as a source: Generally speaking, "X says this" sentence constructions should only be used in cases where there are conflicting accounts of some factoid. This is common in an article on, for example, global warming (although in that case, much of the disagreement is created by certain organizations with a vested economic interest in manufacturing dispute). I can't speak per se on the issue of directly quoting her autobiography, but unless someone else has critizied and/or published a conflicting description of some particular event or set of events, I see no problem with taking her autobiography as an authoritative source on her life. Granted, this doesn't strictly extend to opinions and interpretation of events, but definitely for straight factual matters Raul654 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess there's really no point arguing the merits of this nomination now. I suppose we can list this on FAR in a few weeks. The important thing for me to know, though, is this - I spent a lot of time commenting on the three nominations I've mentioned, and if I'd known in advance that my objections were going to be ignored whatever happened, I wouldn't have made them. Am I always going to be wasting my time when I criticise an article's writing style, tone and verbosity? Will they always be promoted regardless? Worldtraveller 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, World, but I do know you can't, or shouldn't, list it on FAR in a few weeks. There's an understanding that three months is the minimum waiting time before you get to put a featured article on WP:FAR. (Don't know if it's written down anywhere.) Bishonen | talk 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen is correct about the three months, and yes, that is included in the instructions at WP:FAR. I, too, am troubled that I often take time to type up my objections yet articles are promoted in spite of multiple actionable objections— curious why that happens, but perhaps that should be taken to the talk page of WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise it was as long as three months. I should have looked back on what happened with Chetwynd, British Columbia, where I was slightly controversial by listing it on FARC (as it was then) seven weeks after it was promoted. Well, let's just say that when I said 'a few', I meant 'about twelve'... Worldtraveller 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Before you rush to relist, please do note that of your actionable objections at the FAC, the only ones that have not been acted upon are "60kb on a porn star is ridiculous, and 106 references is absurd beyond description." and "The list of awards is not necessary; it just reinforces the impression that the author is a huge fan." Rush, of course, meaning about twelve weeks... While I can't meet all your objections, I would far prefer working with you to improve the article than just counting who else agrees. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul654. There seems to be no real dissention on the quality of this article. Do we need do any more to secure FA status? Cheers, --Dweller 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How utterly uncharming of me not to return here sooner and thank you. Thank you for promoting the article. (How do you get through that workload alone?!?!?) --Dweller 21:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. The workload is high but not overwhelming. And I do get vicarious pleasure whenever someone is happy to see their work on the main page, which makes it all worthwhile. Raul654 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot runs when the operator is online and has time to babysit it. This time, for instance, there was one page where the fac template was gone, another where it had been changed to a facfailed (though the article was promoted...), and another where someone had already updated the talk page. Other things come up all the time. Dealing with the ArticleHistory template is a few orders of magnitude more complicated than replacing a fac template with a featured or facfailed, the original intention of the bot. Gimmetrow 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand completely. Raul654 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thing the bot didn't jump on the recent archives :)

Sandy seems to be floating the idea of GimmeBot taking over the FA count. For various reasons, I'm not interested in doing that task at this time. Gimmetrow 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Is anyone else interested in doing it? Raul654 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I realized I was only a couple lines of code away from more or less doing this. So right now the bot counts the number of unique article-namespace links on WP:FA, excludes shortcuts (since WP:FAC is namespace:0), then compares that to template:FA number. The "more or less" is that this isn't an hourly check like the other bot. Gimmetrow 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Note below the question about the FFA/GA status. This seems to be causing some editors problems, and it can be avoided. I also thought of a decent way to handle the merging into WP:FA, though it would take a fair amount of coding. I have to wonder, why haven't you automated this during the last couple years? Gimmetrow 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We sort of talked around this a bit above, but what do you think about the idea of you running a FA bot to close any windows between declaring an article to be FA and the closing of the FAC page? I haven't actually written a bot yet, but it's sort of on my list of things to do sometime (or perhaps Gimmetrow might be willing). The idea is you run a program that gets told (somehow) which articles are promoted and which are rejected, then it moves the transcludes around as appropriate, closes the relevant FAC pages, adds the articles to WP:FA, etc. Given that Gimmebot does at least part of this already, it seems like having you run it would be more direct (and more timely). Just a suggestion. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The order I usually do it in is:

1. Copy and paste the older FA noms to a subpage in my userspace (but I don't save them. I just preview)
2. Using a text editor, I sort the noms into three sets - the ones that are still indeterminant, the ones to be promoted, and the ones that have failed. I save the list of promoted ones in the FA promotion archive, the failed ones in the archive, and on the FAC I replace the entire nom set with the indeterminant ones.
3. I copy the succesful noms onto goings-on
4. I merge the promoted set with the list of featured articles
5. I update the count.

The merging into the FA list and the count updating could be done entirely automatically. Gimmebot, as Gimmetrow just said, does require supervision, though, so fully automating it would be a bad idea. Raul654 05:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How could merging into the FA list be entirely automatic? They are listed in categories on WP:FA.

Most of the source of non-automation comes from dealing with the article talk page. It would be possible to split the FAC discussion tagging from the talk page updating, but that would create other problems. I should note that the last batch, which was quite short (and almost all promotions take less work), still took 10 minutes for the bot. Frankly, I don't really see a problem here with this "window" - it always existed when people did the job. Perhaps, if all this info were metadata that editors could not edit, the bot could be fully automated. There would still need to be some lag to allow for human error closing a discussion. Gimmetrow 05:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How could merging into the FA list be entirely automatic? They are listed in categories on WP:FA. - I envision it as a command-line bot which takes the location of a file. That file is formatted something like articlename catname [optional alphabetizing parameter, if it's not the first one] The alphabetizing parameter indicates which word to alphabetize with. Raul654 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the window Rick speaks of used to be on the order of minutes for some articles (the time it took for me to go from archiving all the FAC noms to tagging the promoted ones) and hours/days for others (I left doing the failed ones to BoG and later Sandy). Now, they are all going to take hours. Raul654 05:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, gimmetrow - are you aware the rate limit for bots has been increased to 15 per minute? Raul654 05:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation of that job file isn't automatic. It could be done while the nomination is in process, but it strikes me as yet more work. As for the rate limit, yes I know it has been increased.

If the window is such a problem, you could go back to changing fac->featured, and I'll have the bot check for the featured template again. You wouldn't need to update project assessments, though, as the bot could still catch any that were not at FA when it updated articlehistory. Gimmetrow 05:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot less work for me to create a file containing the names of promoted articles (which I already do anyway) and their categories than it is for me to do a alphabetized merge between a list of 10-20 and a list of 1000.

As far as the window, I'm not all that concerned. I think it's something people will learn to live with. Raul654 05:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

About the "window" - as it stands there's a distinct window between the time Mark decides to promote an article (and does his thing) and when the FAC page is closed. This window allows additional comments to be added to the FAC page that aren't considered in Mark's decision, aren't responded to, and end up in the "closed" version of the FAC page (for one example, see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson - look at the timestamps related to Mark's promotion decision, my comments, and the closing of the FAC). Doing this manually, I'd close the FAC pages first, then move the transclusions around (and closing the FACs is a pain, so that's not how it's currently done). What I'm suggesting is that Mark run a tool (bot) that closes the FACs, moves the transclusions, and does whatever else can be automated, all in one step. There's always a window between Mark's decision and additional comments, but artificially increasing this (by having the FAC closure be done by a bot run at some random interval after Mark makes his decision) doesn't seem like the best way to do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, another person has asked over at User talk:GimmeBot about having the bot add the article template with the star. Perhaps you would like to respond to this one? Gimmetrow 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. What's going on here? Do we need a policy on what's hidden and what's not? I can see a well-meaning editor renominating Talk:Jane Fonda for GA. Also I thought the display:none hack was rather discouraged? Gimmetrow 07:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and then there's these. Not surprising I suppose. A scan for this brought to light that FA Premier League and MDAC have been renamed, so perhaps the link from WP:FA should be updated? Also found one featured list using {{featured article}}, and a bunch of user pages. The question was asked at Template_talk:Featured_article#False_usage what to do about these. Gimmetrow 07:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Saw you tidied up Talk:Jupiter. In addition to the approach at Talk:Jane Fonda, there's yet another approach being used at Talk:Queen (band), see Template:Small templates created a few days ago. Gimmetrow 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

About the template, see [5] - I like that the template hides everything, but I think it might go a bit too far. I'm also concerned about balkanizing the way we do it.

I have been against template:featured article since day one. It's redundant, and it violates the principle of separating articles from metadata. That's why I won't do it, and I don't think a bot should either. In fact, I would prefer it was deleted today, but I suspect I'm probably in the minority in that.

I'll look at Queen in a bit. Raul654 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to have the bot add the FA template, but for other reasons. Anyway, I've already done some organizing on Queen. Mostly pointing out yet another technology with a hide/show box for talk page templates. Oh, you might get a laugh out of Talk:Galileo Galilei - I rather like it how it is so I'm not changing that one. Gimmetrow 19:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That talk page is absurd. Ridiculous. And, actually, the FAOL's are starting to irritate me to no end. When the FAOL template was created, it was EXPLICITLY to be removed when an article was promoted to FA. And yet, there it is. Raul654 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, what have you heard about the WPCD and 0.5/0.7 templates being merged into a single smaller template? If this isn't done soon, I think we should consider putting the functionality into the ArticleHistory template. Raul654 20:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Would only take a couple of lines of code to remove FAOL on promoted articles. The interwiki links identify FAs, which an editor likely to use a foreign text probably knows. I mentioned V0.5 weeks ago. The template would have to be programmed, and it would add more than a couple lines of code to the bot. Unless someone else is going to write the bot to handle the CD templates, this project needs some sort of limit. Perhaps after {{featured}} and {{formerFA2}} are obsolete, the CD templates can be considered. Gimmetrow 21:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the couple lines of code to remove FAOL for future promoted articles. Also, was thinking, is there a good reason for the FFA/GA combo status in ArticleHistory? It can be avoided. Gimmetrow 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we added it so that the count at FFA could be verified? If we remove it, I won't be able to track FFA tally vs. cat. Unless I'm missing something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Sound/list

all the music is CC, as any music, even that in the public domain, requires some kind of a license. So, even a public domain work can have creative commons license, just one that dedicates it to the public domain.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

therefore, it should be titled CC only, with PD being the only determinant that music has dedicated to be PD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.35.119.54 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, music copyright is complicated that way (e.g, that the music can have one copyright status and the performance another). The licenses column there indicates the most restrictive of the set. Therefore, if both the performance and the music itself is public domain (typically because the copyright on the recording has expired), the licenses column indicates it is public domain. It is incorrect then to say all the music listed on that page is in the public domain. Raul654 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know weather you’ve noticed but the main page request page currently has four sports articles all with request dates within a week of each other. Bill Russell (March 12th) Cricket World Cup (March 13th) Chelsea F.C. (March 14th) Sydney Roosters (March 18th) I assume therefore that only one (if any) of these requests will be successful. Buc 09:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Buc, how could you forget to mention the 10th anniversary of Buffy (March 10 2007). I first mentioned it on Wikiedpia when I was getting the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article featured on 5 October, but added it to the requests page in January. Here's the original mention (from the (1st nomination).

ADDITIONAL: I forgot to mention, that my hoping was that if this article becomes featured, that it might appear on the front page on March 10 2007. That date marks the 10th anniversary. There won't be another date as important to the series until March 10 2017, and humanity might have destroyed itself by then! -- Paxomen 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

'Syndney Roosters' is the only other article which has a rounded date:

Sydney Roosters (Request for 18th or 19th of March) = will commence its 100th season on Monday the 19th of March.

Other requests around mid March are non-rounded anniversaries which come around every year:

Act of Independence of Lithuania (Request for March 11) = 89th anniversary

Bill Russell (Request March 12) = apparently the day that commemorates the day his jersey was retired by the Celtics franchise, but this date is not mentioned in the article

Cricket World Cup (Request for March 13) = Opening day of the tournament

Chelsea F.C. (Request for 14 March) = 105th anniversary of founding

-- Paxomen 14:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a sports article and has nothing to do with what I was saying Buc 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise you were just talking about sports articles - opps, but it was spelt as 'spots' :) -- Paxomen 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm confused - why did you hardblock User:71.31.47.77 for a month after one edit and only a {{test}} warning? Your block reason was just "vandalism", but there must be something more to it to warrant a one month block... --Tango 16:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've missed my question, so I'm just posting here so you get notified again. Thanks! --Tango 18:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I guess I overreacted a bit. I really don't like people vandalizing my artilces ;) Raul654 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit... I strongly suggest you follow standard policy with your blocks in future... (And I'm sure I don't need to remind you of WP:OWN ;)). I assume you're going to unblock the address now? --Tango

I've just reviewed some more of your recent blocks. I suggest you take another look at:

• User:129.67.128.222 - again, just one edit, this time no warnings
• User:67.173.128.146 - only 3 recent edits, no recent warnings
• User:68.220.23.234 - 3 edits, one warning
• User:72.254.8.200 - 1 edit, no warnings

And that's after only a quick check of your most recent blocks. You do understand our blocking policies, don't you? We warn IP addresses at least once, normally multiple times, and we issue short blocks unless they've already received recent blocks. IP addresses are often dynamic, meaning multiple unconnected users can use the same IP address meaning a long block is more likely to affect innocent editors than the guilty one. We also assume good faith - a single edit blanking a page is assumed to be a test, not vandalism. --Tango 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Several of those blocks were issued against IPs vandalizing the main page featured article, which it is generlaly acknowledged is an exception to the standard rules about warning prior to blocking. Raul654 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For 24 hours, maybe. Not for a week or month, as you've blocked in those cases. There is no point blocking IP addresses for that long unless you know it's a static IP. Surely you know that? --Tango 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I wouldn't count 2 out of 4 as several. --Tango 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you use reverse DNS on them, you'll see that 3 of the 4 of those were static or essentially static (chagning once every few months):

• 129.67.128.222 - Oxford University computing center - static
• 67.173.128.146 - Comcast Cable modem - virtually static
• 68.220.23.234 - BellSouth ADSL - virtually static
• 72.254.8.200 - STSN general holdings - unknown Raul654 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

3 out of 4? And yet I see you haven't unblocked the 4th... I'm seriously concerned about your inability to respect policy, so I'm going to WP:AN/I - I suggest you explain yourself over there. --Tango 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for putting it on the main page but I'm puzzled by your choise of image as it's not free use and there are free use images in the article. Buc 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a point that I considered at length. Yes, there are two free pictures (Image:Bears 1924.jpg, a 1924 team picture and Image:SoliderFieldAug2004.jpg, a picture of an nondescript wall at Soldier Field II). However, neither of these are illustrative -- if you took away the caption, nobody would have any clue what the featured article was. That left only copyrighted, fair use images. I picked the one I felt was most illustrative (although the helmet was also something I considered).

If somebody changes it, I won't edit war over it, but I don't think any of those other pictures are particularly illustrative. Raul654 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You put a block on our small company's IP without any understandable explanation. I think this may have been a mistake. Can you please look into your actions and consider lifting them? Thanks. I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.57.149.253 I wrote to you last week but did not see any acknowledgement from your actions.

Could you test to see if a VIDEO I uploaded in Segway works for you? I have some people tell me it does, and others NOT. I am confused. It works on my PC with Windows. "Segway in a 4th of July parade." Thanks. I'll check back here for an answer. --Doug ^talk 19:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It works fine, assuming one has the right software, which most Windows systems don’t have. Have people who are having problems with this video read Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg). —xyzzy_n 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What he said Raul654 07:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the answer!! The ones that have the proper software, it works just fine. Great.... Thanks for help. I'll make sure these others that are having problems install this additional software. --Doug ^talk 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you said the following on AN/I: "Deleting large chunks of cited material from an article is vandalism (or, in the most optimistic light, very POV editing). Raul654 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)" This is exactly what the EK1 case was about, if you recall, although I was not as radical as you, because I don't consider such deletions to necessarily be vandalism, or even POV editing. It appears that you have been condemning me for ages for acting against something that you yourself condemn even more harshly than I do. What am I supposed to think about this? As an arb, would you now be willing to reconsider EK1 in light of this viewpoint? Everyking 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting comparison. However, the two are not quite analogous. The difference in this case is that the anon was deleting sourced material that was highly relevant to the subject of the article (he basically deleted half of the 'alleged bias' section from the O'Reilly's article. As anyone who has ever heard O'Reilly speak can attest, he's extremely biased). The people you were in a dispute with were deleting, well, trivial information (week-by-week album sales in Canada, 'etc). There is a disinction between relavant and trivial information, as is illustrated in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Raul654 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" does not cover any of the kinds of things the dispute was over; look at the list yourself. The dispute was over far more important information than week-by-week album sales in Canada, anyway; during the dispute I was amenable to removing genuinely trivial and redundant things, and indeed, I had already trimmed the article significantly during and following the FAC, before the dispute even started. They were, on the contrary, deleting huge chunks of information, sometimes up to whole sections of the article, including things like short summaries of the reviews the album received from The New York Times and other indisputably notable sources, information about the making of the album, about individual songs, about album promotion...at the most extreme phase of all this deletionism, which occurred when I was blocked, the article was reduced by about 80% and was barely more than a stub. I believe a dispute like that could never happen today; it was an anomaly even then, and I think the sort of radical deletionism that inspired that controversy—some of my opponents did not even think an album article should exist, and voted to delete the articles on the singles—is virtually extinct by now. Two years have passed since the dispute, during which the articles have contained a large majority of the information these people were trying to remove, and yet there has been no serious move to restart the controversy in all that time. Everyking 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Raul654. I work mostly in es.wiki and I have been reading how do you select FA (we use a completely different method and we are thinking in modifying it). The only think I can not find about the procedure followed in this wiki is ¿How do you select the FAC Director? ¿Do you have a link to the procedure or something alike? I am sure that you can answer these. Thanks Chabacano 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no easy answer to that question. Well, I sort-of fell into the role, so to speak.

In Feb 2004, when we switched over to the 4-pane main page style, the featured article was being changed hourly. I thought that was crazy, so I stepped in and started doing it myself every 24 hours. After a while, everyone was content to just sit back and let me do it. My position as FA director was [6] about 6 months later, after a troll revert-warred with me over a main page FAdecision I had made.

So there you have it, in a nutshell. There was no formal process, I ended up doing it, and people were happy with how I did it. The system has worked pretty well for 3 years now. Most of the time, it entails three parts:

• Determining whether a particular objection is valid or not. This is especially common when a controversial nomination occurs.
• Determining whether there is or is not consensus, or if an article has significant outstanding objections.
• Picking the articles to appear on the main page.

Other, less common jobs I have done in my capacity as FA director are/were:

• Setting up and maintaining FARC (although for the most part, Marskell and Joey have taken this upon themselves)
• Determining and interpreting the FA criteria

I'm not sure if you are looking at someone whose only job will be to pick the main page featured articles, or for a more general job (as I have just described). Either way, my suggestion to you is that you find someone who is dedicated, and who has already been active in the process. Raul654 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the detailed answer :) Sorry, I should have specified more, but I did not know all the roles of the director. My concern was about the consensus (as we are [too] used to vote). Very useful answer! Chabacano 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

re: the block you put on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.57.149.253 Please reply this time.

That class B network (208.57.0.0-208.57.255.255) was used by Cplot to vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly. Anonomyous editing and account creation is disabled. You, however, are not blocked (as your message on this page indicates). Raul654 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it is a little excessive/ridiculous? You have blocked the anonymous IP of a company of adults to chase your nemisis? Let me guess, you voted for Bush. Please let me know where/how I can take steps to resolve this. This kind of crap is melting away my admiration for wikipedia.

Dear Raul654,

I nominated Abbas Kiarostami for FA assessment. I will be moving to another country soon and I will be busy with packing, changing my flats etc. FAC page asks us to be online and active in responding comments. I've done it up to now but I am not sure I can continue this from this weekend onwards. Would that be possible that you invite a highly critical reviewer to review the article so that we can close it faster (either successful or unsuccessful)? It would be a great help to me. Thanks. Sangak 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just had the same problem; I'm blocked without a reason; or so I thought untill I started reading about some psycho Cplot who was using my IP; can someone help me with this problem; how do I clear my IP and free myself from Cplot?

Your comments on our discussion page suggest we go to a library or a friend's house to circumnavigate the block you put on our IP range. You put this massive block on to disrupt the vandals of spammers and the spam of vandals. But couldn't then those rogues take the same advice? And post their treason from libraries? You said it is too much work to un-block our valid,fixed IP from the blocked range. And you think it is not too much work for us to register from libraries. And yet you think it is too much work for cplot to do that. And you think all of this makes perfect sense and our appeal is not vaild. Do I have this right?

There is a free image that could be use to illustrate the featured article tomorrow for the chicago bears. I've put forward the suggestion in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2, 2007 Borisblue 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, I found another free photo that is more illustrative, and put it in the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

MUCH better. Raul654 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, I know that I may be jumping the gun here, but I wanted to check with you on a timing issue. I'm currently working on the Knights Templar article, pushing it through the various steps towards FA. It's definitely not there yet (it's still pending a GA nomination at the moment), but I'm going to keep pushing. If/when it *does* make FA, its clear "anniversary date" as far as showing up on the front page, would be October 13th, since it was exactly 700 years ago, on October 13, 1307 when King Philip IV of France simultaneously had many Templars arrested and tortured.

Anyway, do you think it's a reasonable thing, to shoot for getting Knights Templar to FA status in time for an October 13, 2007 showing on the 700-year anniversary? Or is that being wildly optimistic in terms of how long it takes to get an article to FA status?

Any advice appreciated, Elonka 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson took 6 months, and I was slow. 8 months should be more than enough time. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse - you can usually get an article up to FA status in a week if you work hard. Raul654 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Raul654

I added a graph to Wikipedia:Featured article statistics. Sangak 10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really necessarily - one of the German wikipedians keeps a pair of updated graphs - image:De-en-exzellent-anzahl.png and image:De-en-exzellent-anteil.png. The former is the absolute count, and the latter is the proportion. Raul654 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - I have updated the page as such. Raul654 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Fine! Thanks. Sangak 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Raul654, could I be impertinent enough to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Collingwood where hopefully you'll find a community consensus to promote the article to featured status. If you feel more needs to be done, then please don't hesitate to let me know. All the very best, The Rambling Man 13:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A few of us at WP:CRICKET have worked really hard over the past couple of weeks to promote this article, the intention to be to raise its profile before the 2007 Cricket World Cup in a week or so. We'd like to continue and encourage this kind of group collaboration so if you could give us your opinion on the article and the consensus thusfar achieved, the project would be extremely grateful! Cheers. The Rambling Man 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All good, many thanks for your time and effort! The Rambling Man 19:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you maybe give me a head's up on the talk page a day or two before the article is featured(if you decide to actually put it on the mainpage). I expect that it will get a lot more vandalism and other problems than other topics. JoshuaZ 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SmithManly is usually very good about tagging talk-page articles with the main page date within a few hours of me scheduling them. I'll try to schedule it with enough lead time that you see his edit. Raul654 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - I just looked at the article again. I don't really know what I'd use for a picture. Someone should give that some thought. Raul654 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Raul, I was wondering why you undid my edit to Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Since there's no objective criteria to decide when a number is "small" I don't see what purpose it serves to have that word in there, except to express a POV on the issue. Readers can simply count up the (overwhelming) number of scientists on one side of the issue and compare them to the (much smaller) number of scientists on the other side, and form their own opinions. Just because you or I have our own opinion on the relative merits of each side of the argument, that doesn't mean we should introduce that opinion into the wording of the article. I'd have similar (and probably stronger) objections if somebody had phrased it "a significant number" or something similar. I think "a number" is the most neutral way of putting it.

I'm heading home now, and don't want to have any activity on my work account's talk page anyway, so please respond here or on the talk page of my personal/home account. Thanks, --Ltbx.com 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The "small" wording has been discussed at length. In short, saying that "number of scientists actively disagree with the second and third points" gives vastly more weight to the disagreement than actually exists. Raul654 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it just reports the facts neutrally. Saying "a significant number" or "a considerable number" or "a substantial number" or something similar would be giving undue weight. Saying "a number" is entirely neutral and indisputable fact. I can only find a few mentions of the phrase on the talk page, and the longest thread involves the grammar of the phrase (is vs. are).

I'll suggest changing the wording to "a smaller number" since I think that preserves the character of the statement while still being objective (the number of scientists actively disagreeing is definitely smaller than those that agree with the mainstream view). My point isn't to add weight to the arguments of the anti-global warming folks, but just that "small" is a matter of opinion, not fact. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, whatever the subject matter. --Xoom.org 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Raul, think we desperately need help with the April fools main page article, theres 4 weeks left and I really doubt we're going to get the stubs that have been suggsted up to featured status in time. Have you got any ideas of good or A grade articles we could use? I'm more than happy to do a solo mission on it because interest seams to have been lost - just getting a stub up there isn't going to happen! Cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If all else fails, use Toledo War - it's listed at WP:ODD and it's already FA. Gimmetrow 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, but I was hoping for something slightly more original than that, I think the article should be more unbelievable RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking over the unusual articles list, and I found several that could be turned into FAs pretty quickly:

• Boston molasses disaster
• Pig War
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Extreme ironing
• The K Foundation burn a million quid (being that we'll be featuring the KLF on March 9, I'd be uncomfortable running this on April 1)
• Red rain in Kerala
• Human penis size <-- this is already quite well referenced. And if I were putting this on the main page, I'd use Image:Mercury god.jpg

I didn't look through the list exhaustively, so there might be others. With the exception of Burn a million quid (for the reasons I noted), I'd be happy using any of these on the main page on April 1 Raul654 06:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I just snowballed the vote on the april fool featured article page and said we're going for Human penis size, this is fairly close to featured status already so its definately going to be possible to achieve, think this is the best bet RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have a couple questions about main page articles. Would there be any problems with this image being used on the main page? And second, would there be any chance of an episode article like Cape Feare (which is close to being promoted) making the main page? Thanks for the time, Scorpion 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question - a show like the Simpsons isn't likely to have any free images available. So no, I wouldn't have any problems using that image.

As to your second question, the question of whether individual TV episodes should be on the main page -- I haven't made up my mind. Raul654 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There are currently 2 (hopefully 3 soon enough) episode FAs and neither of them have made a request to be on the main page? -- Scorpion 06:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The house pilot has been requested for the main page and is slowly winding its way down the requests page. But as I said, I have not yet decided. Raul654 06:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How long does it normally take for the process to work? Some of the articles on the request page have been there for months. -- Scorpion 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It varies based on the article's subject. Some subjects shoot straight to the main page (math-related FAs, for example) while others take a while (war, video games, pop culture in general, etc). Raul654 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On what basis would an article be rejected for the front page? -- Scorpion 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I decide that on an article-by-article basis. I said I wouldn't feature Wikipedia as the main page FA because it was too self-aggrandizing. Out of the current set of featured articles, I'm concerned Jenna Jamison might be too risqué, and that individual TV shows (the house Pilot is currently an FA) might be too... uh... trivial? I'm not ruling them out, I'm saying that at this point, I am undecided about them. Raul654 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the help. -- Scorpion 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I noticed Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 10, 2007, and that the article 'Mini Moke' is currently in that slot. Is there any possibility that the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' article could be used in this slot instead? That date is exactly ten years since the Buffy series first aired, and there will not be another date as significant for the series until March 10, 2017. I got the 'Buffy' article featured several months back so that it might have a shot at making it onto the front page on this anniversary date, and it has continued to make minor improvements since. Could 'Mini Moke' be moved to any other date (e.g. March 11)? I noticed that the request for Mini Moke did not request any specific date. It was incredibly hard to make everyone happy about getting the article featured (see: original nomination, and then when this got too long the immediate start of a 2nd nom). The final result of such a long debate is a very high quality article. Having it on the front page at the right time would really mean a lot to me. -- Paxomen 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done so. Raul654 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Big thanks. -- Paxomen 14:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have (reluctantly) started a discussion of this at User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#RFC? William M. Connolley 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to bother, but could you please switch featured article for March 11? WP:LITH wrote and promoted Act of Independence of Lithuania solely because we wanted to see this article on the front page on March 11, the day when in 1990 Lithuanian SSR declared independence from the Soviet Union. Thank you! Renata 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could put Chelsea on the main on the 14th. With the cricket WC on the day before I know it seems illogical to have another sports article on. But this is the most sensible date to have it as it was the date they were founded. Buc 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to reject this request. I've already scheduled and rescheduled the FAs for that week three times, and the only way to fulfill this request (without compromising someone else's) is to have two sports articles back to back, and that's not something I am willing to do. Raul654 19:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Raul654

Would you please take a look at Kiarostami FAC? Any comments? Thanks. Sangak ^Talk 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your request for "A picture of the field of Aceldama" on commons. I was wondering whether this request was still active and if so whether you knew where this place was in Israel so I could try and fulfill it. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's still active - I want that picture :)

It's near Jerusalem. The article Akeldama says "The Akeldama (Hakl-ed-damm) of to-day presents a large, square sepulchre, of which the southern half is excavated in the rock, the remainder being built of massive masonry. In the center stands a huge pillar, constructed partly of rough blocks and partly of polished stones. Much of its clay was taken away by Empress Helena and other prominent Christians, for sarcophagi. It lies on a narrow level terrace on the south face of the valley of Hinnom."

PS - I just noticed the Hinnom article has pictures, but I have no idea if those are Aceldama or not. Raul654 01:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Raul. Currently Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back has 13 support votes and 2 opposes, both of which I've opposed (and of course, you have the final word). I was wondering if this could be promoted as it seems pretty much unanimous to me. :) The Filmaker 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

YOU blocked our IP. 208.57.149.253 Is this permanent? Please let me know before you get back to discussing the April Fools Page. -signed Jacquese

We earlier conversed about your comment elsewhere:

• ..that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute.

Do you recall in what case that ruling was made? -Will Beback · † · 23:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Was this it? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#User pages -Will Beback · † · 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. So strictly speaking, I suppose I should have said "user pages" instead of people. Raul654 01:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock 67.167.130.247. This person NEVER did anything wrong and HAS contributed productively and meaningfully. Blocking this person only HURTS wikipedia. Please unblock now. Why block THIS PERSON just because SOMEONE ELSE with a similar gateway ip was bad???????????

He tries to do good things to contribute to wikipedia(just look at the history of contributions!), but does not want register becasue of internet security and public network computer issues. You sensor him for NO REASON of HIS doing???????????

Is it tyranny, censorship, or a personal vendetta??????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unblockmenow (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

As an arbitrator, you should have a good understanding of past cases or you shouldn't be talking about them (why does that sound familiar?). Wik wasn't permabanned for his user page "hit list"; he was permabanned for the vandalbot attack. Everyking 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he was banned by Jimbo over the hitlist. He then gave Jimbo an ultimatum, and threatened the vandalbot attack. The ban became permanent after he carried through on his threat. Raul654 19:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the permaban was for the vandalbot attack. I also don't recall him being banned by Jimbo over anything prior to that; he was the subject of an ArbCom penalty and then started up the vandalbot. The ban was certainly not permanent beforehand; I recall many people urging him to accept the penalty in good grace and return to editing before he launched the attack. Everyking 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you've taken a stand on the issue of "hit lists", I should report that I have found another editor with a "hit list" (albeit a short one), User:Jtrainor. This user also has a user page full of nasty anti-Wikipedia comments. Perhaps something should be done? Everyking 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul, you'll notice I altered the WP:WIAFA page to point explicitly to Wikipedia:Attribution, the new policy, as the citation standard. I wanted to be bold and let people look at the page with the edit made. I'm damn tired of "where appropriate" and the debates surrounding it, but understand if you want to revert back pending more talk (though note we shouldn't point to WP:V any longer, as it's been superceded by ATT). Marskell 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul654

I've nominated Abbas Kiarostami (recently promoted to FA) for TFA. Thanks. Sangak ^Talk 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote in the TFA page, there is a big celebration event for Abbas Kiarostami from 1-19 March 2007. It would be interesting to have him on the first page. Take care. Sangak ^Talk 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you set a number of the Cplot rangeblocks (thank you, by the way), thought you might want to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Time to release the Cplot blocks?. If you'd prefer off-wiki discussion, no problem by me. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if the pictures on either Irfan Pathan and Andrew Symonds are good enough for use on the Main Page for an FA? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To be sure is this actually User:Essjay Picture can you provide some proof ? Did he identify himself to you ? Headphonos 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not user:Essjay. It's user:Sj (as the caption on the subpage clearly says). And having stayed at Sj's house overnight following both the Boston meetup and Wikimania '06, I can say with some degree of certainty that he wasn't kidding me :) Raul654 03:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some question at en.wikinews.org as to who is the person pictured to the right in this image. The news story is Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees. Can you shed some light on this photo from 2004?

Thanks. You can best reach me on my talk page. -Edbrown05 03:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you move Talk:MDAC so it matches the article? The redirect has edits. Gimmetrow 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take another look at a response[7] of yours on the misc. desk. Were you thinking "dots per square inch"?—eric 08:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F and I am not sure why you deleted Speedy delete your rational "(content was: '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion' (and the only contributor was 'Jeepday'))" does not seem to be mentioned. The article has a history, and I for one find it helpful for finding the page it redirected to. As I see it pretty much everything under "avoid deleting such redirects if" applies here. Jeepday 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects are considered harmful and are to be shot on sight. The list of redirects to be deleted is at User:Interiot/cross-namespace redirects Raul654 04:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Got It Read Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and now I understand. Thanks Jeepday 13:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd. I was just looking at WP:FFA, and Wikipedia FAQ became a redlink. Didn't that have some edit history? And do you want the links on WP:FFA to go to the project pages now? Gimmetrow 05:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia FAQ was a redirect for over 5 years. Perhaps the FFA page should list Wikipedia:FAQ? Raul654 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll change that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See note on Marskell's page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So you don't have to read the entire discussion (unless you already have :-), the long and short of it is that we are back to incrementing and decreasing the tallies directly on the pages, WP:FA and WP:FFA, just as we did before the bot business. Something was done with includeonly tags, so that the numbers are picked up in the other places that use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugly but clever. Raul654 18:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you deleted the cross-namespace redirect NPOV. As far as I can tell there was no deletion debate. The page currently has thousands of incoming links which are now broken. Although I agree that cross-namespace redirects are generally bad, I have not seen a change in the speedy deletion policy regarding their deletion. Can you confirm whether or not a change in the redirect guideline or speedy deletion policy has been made? Thanks. Khatru2 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Raul. I'm sure you get a lot of questions about 'Today's Featured Article', so I'll try to make this brief.

I was wondering whether the Gilberto Silva article could be scheduled for the front page this month. The 24th and 27th of March 2007 were the dates I was thinking of, because they are both days on which a huge number of international friendly soccer matches take place.[8] Brazil will play Chile and Ghana respectively, and Gilberto has been included in the squad for both games.[9] Since there are no other international related soccer pages on the request page, I think the article would be fittingly topical on either of those days.

I know the article is quite a recent addition to the Front Page queue, so if it's not possible, then that's obviously understandable. I will resist in saying how good a job you are doing with the front page stuff, since that might look like grovelling.

All the best, GilbertoSilvaFan 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

All done and some time since an oppose. We'd be grateful for speedy promotion, so it's ready in time for the (now) imminent World Cup. Thanks! --Dweller 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, I noticed that the Buffy article features Image:Buffy The Vampire Slayer cast2.jpg as it's lead one on the front page. Whilst I understand it is always preferable to use free images when possible over fair use images, in this case I feel that Image:Buffy logo 0001.jpg is much better, and can be used with real justification (it has a convincing rationale for it's association with the article. The image Image:Buffy The Vampire Slayer cast2.jpg features many members of the cast, but significantly, it does not include the actress Sarah Michelle Gellar who plays the title role, Buffy Summers. Is there any possibility the images be switched so that the logo image is on the front page? -- Buffyverse 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good evening, Raul654. Please be more careful about the redirects that you are deleting. Not only have a number of the recent ones not been valid speedy-deletion candidates, in at least one case I've found so far (here), you speedy-deleted a page which only recently received a clear keep consensus.

There is no consensus that cross-namespace redirects are speedy-deletion candidates except when from the mainspace to the user or Talk spaces. Redirects in and out of the Wikipedia space are individually discussed. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I added a request for Battle of Dien Bien Phu on the TFA request page. You might want to take a look at the paragraph. :) — Deckiller 07:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. This will include what I feel was an inappropriate comment and interpretation of policy again me.[10] --Iantresman 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just doing the rounds of talkpages previously archived by EssjayBot III. Just to let you know that Misza13 has created MiszaBot III to perform the same function. You can request this Bot's services at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests. WjBscribe 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my FAC. It was my first nomination, and I didnt know what I was doing. Cman 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you're busy; this isn't urgent, but an IP and possibly one user only has registered four or five (the only) support votes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan. A flagrant abuse, I'm tempted to remove the nom myself to put us out of its misery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC) PS, wasn't there a sockpuppet a few months back doing similar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking now. Raul654 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied by email. Raul654 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul,

I am in the FA pipeline with a pretty good candidate. You may even be aware of Campbell's Soup Cans given your role on WP. I was looking at next steps and saw the huge backlog and attempted to analyze the process and the evolution of wikipedia. My suggestion is not an attempt to usurp your power as I had no idea your directorship existed. I merely think that some productive researchers might get discouraged if there is not a procedural reason to explain why there articles keep getting passed over. My suggestion was an attempt to respond to that concern before it becomes my own. Please respond at my talk page or the WP:FAC talk page where you previously responded. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I run a much smaller but highly productive corner of wikipedia entirely by democratic process at CHICOTW. I think it works well. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I just posted the stats about the exponentially growing list of promoted articles awaiting FA dates on the WP:FAC talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad idea on multiple levels: First, it's clear that you are attempting to radically change a process that you are patently unfamiliar with. You have, without any prior discussion, gone straight to a vote on it, which is not how we do things on Wikipedia. And you have not notified anyone involved in the FAC process of this proposal besides me. Your proposal makes no effort to address the previous proposals to move to a daily-voting regimen for the main page FA (I don't know where they are archived, but look up the contributions by User:Drbalaji md), or the numerous objections that were registered thereto.

Comment the user you directed me to above has no contributions since 2004-07-14. Discussion on the topic I am raising were discussions looking into a Crystal Ball at that time. Many topics are rejected out of hand because they are speculation. 3 years ago it was speculation that the FA procedure would be such a success that FAs would standards would continue to be raised and nonetheless FAs would eventually be produced at a rate of more than 30/month. Any discussion before 9 months ago was speculation. Now, we are at a time where the issue should be reconsidered. If wikipedia is going to grow and FAs grow in tandem, we need a process that will

1. fairly accomodate an FA production rate of more than 30/month;
2. fairly accomodate a large backlog of promoted FAs;
3. fairly accomodate a continually increasing FA production rate;
4. fairly include a desirable pool of selectors for main page FAs;
5. be a positive experience for as many participants as possible (by introducing them to other articles, introducing them to new techniques such as wikitables, etc.);
6. appease those whose hard work in the FA promotion process does not result in a main page FA.
7. retain the integrity of WP:FA, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR.
8. uphold the collaborative values of wikipedia (especially pursuit of betterment of the encyclopedia).
9. ratain the support of the majority of those involved in the process and not just a select few trying to WP:OWN the process.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Furthermore, the proposal attempts to fix a non-problem. Having featured articels that have not appeared on the main page is a good thing. We WANT to produce featured articles faster than we can put them on the main page. This is a sign of a healthy FA production rate.

It's clear to me that this proposal is a non-starter. If it gets a consensus of FAC-goers (Sandy, Aloan, etc), I'll reconsider it, but that's just not going to happen. Raul654 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's snowing out :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A voting system for the mainpage would generally favor pop-media articles. WP is already criticized for those, it doesn't need more of them to appear on the MP. Gimmetrow 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems you missed several of my points and I missed several of your points. I will thus respond point by point in hopes of achieving clarity.

you are attempting to change a process that you are patently unfamiliar with.

First, is patently a WP:AWW? That aside. Given my track record here your statement is consistent with my successes. I attempted to overhaul CHICOTW in December. I stumbled through a terrible (in terms of verifyable sources for improvement) first selection and little understanding of what would motivate people to help. Now, 3 months later it is better than it has ever been. Regardless, of whether I have full understanding of the process, the process is not flawless. Since it is not flawless it should be open for reconsideration of some sort.

You have, without any prior discussion, gone straight to a vote on it, which is not how we do things on Wikipedia

Many things are resolved on Wikipedia by vote and comment. In fact, both WP:FAC and WP:FLC procedures I am involved in now are resolved in such a manner. In addition, I am often involved in various WP:XFD that are resolved by vote.

you have not notified anyone involved in the FAC process of this proposal besides me

I have been discussing it on the WP:FAC talk page where you removed my notice of my proposal. I am not trying to sneak it by anyone.

Your proposal makes no effort to address the previous proposals to move to a daily-voting regimen for the main page FA

If any change were to occur, I would want it to meet with majority approval and address the majority of all reasonable concerns. I was not aware this had been propounded previously. When I can find prior discussions, I will consider them and incorporate them.

the proposal attempts to fix a non-problem. Having featured articels that have not appeared on the main page is a good thing. We WANT to produce featured articles faster than we can put them on the main page. This is a sign of a healthy FA production rate.

Your statement suggest that I am attempting to curtail production of FAs. The problem I am addressing is the backlog of FAs on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests as shown by the chart on the proposal page. I.E., the number of FAs awaiting main page dates is growing exponentially. Basically, your response says we are happy we are producing many high quality articles. I am saying that we should also address the disappointing reprocussion of this success. I.E., that many FA class articles are hopelessly vying for main page status.

I project the list of articles awaiting FA dates will be in the neighborhood of 365 (a full year of FAs) by the end of the year. I also think it will more than double in the following year.

It's clear to me that this proposal is a non-starter. If it gets a consensus of FAC-goers (Sandy, Aloan, etc), I'll reconsider it, but that's just not going to happen.

It's clear to me is I believe a set of weasel words used to pass of a personal opinion as fact. Isn’t that in one of your list of dozens of rules somewhere. non-starter is I believe some other type of discouraged term on Wikipedia. These issues aside is it a new policy that a procedure is suppose to pass by an administrator and those he works closely with. I do realize you are well equipped with authority and cadres to squelch my proposal without due consideration. However, I am asking you to understand that the problem is not the successful production of quality articles, but the reprocussions of this success.

In answer to Gimmetrow a random procedure for main page voting might favor pop-media articles. My proposal would not. My proposal would favor articles of interest to those whose articles have been involved in the FAC procedure. I believe that the majority of voters under my proposal would be main page FA nominators and reviewers. I am unaware whether other main page voting procedures have used this type of method. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Tony, you've now brought this up in numerous places, and there is a page for the proposal; since many people follow Raul's talk page, why not confine your comments to the proposal page, so this discussion doesn't keep cropping up in numerous places on people's watchlists? In other words, please keep it off Raul's talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I hope Raul will join us over there and chime in with his expertise. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK to move a user-template from template to user space? (This one.) I left a note about a month ago asking the user to do it themselves, but nothing has happened. Gimmetrow 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's something on that one user is interested in, then yes, that's OK. Raul654 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a template of the contributions of that one user. Could you delete the redirect? Gimmetrow 01:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Raul,

I was just wondering if you could reconsider the listing of front page article for March 18th or 19th. I hope you don't take it like I'm whining about it, I'll accept the decision either way...its just that the Sydney Roosters will be celebrating their 100th season on the 18th of March. They are the first australian rugby league team to do so and it will be a momentus occasion. The people that have worked hard towards making the article FA status have been working within this time period to make it a frontpage article on this date a reality.

The article requested would be great if it could appear on the front page of wikipedia to coincide with this historic event, I also have major rugby league sites on standby to promote the front page when and if the Roosters make it on there.

I hope you can re-consider, this is a very rare event and it would be special if we could have this coincide with the 100th season.Sbryce858 06:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to revert the decision, its very important to our fans.Sbryce858 07:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider it. I've been requested by the primary author of the Ian Thorpe article to hold it until the 25th. So I'm debating whether or not to feature 2 cricket articles in 5 days (I don't think I will), as well as how many sports related FAs to have on the main page in a month. Raul654 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about, but Thorpe is not a cricket article (he's a swimmer), and even if he was a cricketer, it would be best move it to the 25th to spread things out anyway. Grumpygrumpy 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment above (I'm debating whether or not to feature 2 cricket articles in 5 days (I don't think I will) means I am considering the request for the 18th (in place of Ian Thorpe, which I will be moving to the 25th per request of the author) but I probably won't replace Thorpe with a cricket article because I already featured World Cup of Cricket on the 13th, 5 days earlier. Raul654 00:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raul, it would mean alot to the rugby league community if it could get front page on the 100 year anniversary. Keep up the good work. Sbryce858 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the complaints about there being too much cricket on the main page have already started Raul654 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbarians! Grumpygrumpy 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a rugby league article though, is there any way to get an 11th hour decision made on it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.231.10.208 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Christ_Illusion, you gave a speedy promotion, with it being in FAC status only for 5 days. Don't you think before promoting an article to FA status you should atleast keep it in FAC status for 2 weeks. Just to get extra pair of eyes, to review the article and comment? --Parker007 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No - 5 days is the standard. There was nothing unusually fast about this promotion. Raul654 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you blocked him for a little too long. While he was certainly doing something bad, he had no block log, and only did it twice. He definitely should have been blocked - but a month seems really excessive. I know it doesn't matter, since his block has ran out, but just saying, since this month block will probably affect him more than a 24 hour block or even a week block would. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not particularly sympathetic to Colbert-inspired vandals. Raul654 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

are you the owner? Favi4et 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, not wishing to be annoying but since the Cricket World Cup starts tomorrow, could you consider elevating the above article to FA? We have 100% support (10 support, including 2 strong) besides one editor who has been inactive for five days (although his comments are always worthwhile and well-considered, so we acted on them and believe his concerns were all addressed on a point-by-point basis pretty much immediately). The FA nom can be found here. Thanks for your continued contributions to WP and the time and energy you put into the FA process. All the best The Rambling Man 21:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondered if you could have a look at Gilchrist sometime soon? Cheers! The Rambling Man 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually working on that right now, and I've already slated it to be promoted. Raul654 07:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raul, much appreciated! The Rambling Man 08:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Raul654

I noticed that we have nearly 30 new Featured article each month. If this is the case, almost all of these articles must be featured on the main page, as there are 30 days in a month. I think the articles from non western countries (excluding india) are under represented on the first page. The number of articles about Non western countries (+ English speaking india and Japan) that reach FA status per month in quite low. Even these very few FAs do not seem to have any chance to be featured on the main page (unless they are extremely important like the article on Turkey). English wikipedia is an international collaborative project, while most wikipedias in other languages are not. I think we need to promote worldview in English wikipedia as much as possible. Thanks anyways. Take care. Sangak ^Talk 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a net of 30 new articles; but we actually promote closer to 40, of which 10 are being defeatured (and thus most of which have run on the main page). So in reality, we have closer to 40 new main-pageable FAs per month.

As far as non-Western topics - it's a concern, but there's really not a whole lot we can do about it. People write about what they are interested in, and you can't force them to write about something they are not interested in (--Raul's 3rd law) Raul654 08:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I question out of the images that appear in Same-sex marriage in Spain whether a little boy holding a homophobic banner, even if it is written in Spanish, is appropriate to have on the front page as the one linked to the article's box? The more relevant, if not more appropriate image, would be either the people celebrating at the Spanish Congress or pride revellers holding rainbow flags. Especially as rainbow flags are pretty much an internationally recognisable symbol for homosexuality/gay pride events, therefore the image bearing more reference to the content.

A main page image should convey the topic of the FA even if you took the all the rest of the text away. I was looking for an image that would, at a glance, convey "same sex marriage" and "Spain". A picture of a protester holding up the Spanish flag with the words "Marriage = Man + Woman" does that well. The article's other two images are too generic - by itself, Image:Same-sex marriage celebration Spain.jpg is utterly meaningless without a caption, while Image:Gay March celebrating 2005 Pride Day and Same-Sex Marriage Law in Spain.jpg (although slightly better than the congress pic) could be any gay-related march. Raul654 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

despite your characterization of it, my edit to Intelligent design is the removal of some of the blatent POV in the intro (which i have repeatedly justified in the talk page), and is not POV pushing. i realize that you do not agree, but i just want to clarify any mischaracterization about it immediately. best regards, Mark. r b-j 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are are three differences between your version and Kenosis/my version:

• The removal of Adam's wiki-text helpers (so as to make it easier to edit the article). This removal is detrimental.

baloney, it's clutter. but put it back if you want, that invisible clutter is not the real issue. POV in tone and insinuation for/against a particular side is. there are clear WP guidelines about that and your/Kenosis's version runs afoul of those guidelines. r b-j 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• (1st sentence) - your versons removes "is an argument for the existance of God"
  • I'm open to discussion on this point. Intelligent design says it is "an intelligent designer", at which point the intelligent desiger is either God or Aliens. If it's the latter, it's simply a matter of begging the question - who made the aliens? That's why nobody - not even the DI people - dispute this point.

of course they mean God, but they don't define ID as such. first, let people say who (or what) they are, and then if there is factual dispute of who they claim to be, then deconstruct it. deconstructing a claim before it is even made betrays the bias of the article. that, Mark, is truly what poisoning the well is. r b-j 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your versions adds "Opponents claim this is a disguised strategy to reintroduce Creationism to the science classroom after being banned from state supported public education by the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.
  • This is misleading. It's not just opponents who say this. The Wedge document more-or-less states this as well. Raul654 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

it's not misleading at all. you might claim it's not complete, and feel free to complete it (but i think the article does a pretty good job of it already). you are misrepresenting what i say (or type). r b-j 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

just FYI, i am clicking the unwatch tab. we can discuss this at Talk:Intelligent design, where it should be. regards, r b-j 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point {{featured}}, {{formerFA}}, and {{formerFA2}} are not transcluded in article talk pages. The replacement seems to be a magnet for vandalism though. Gimmetrow 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul on def jam icon we have a problem on the discussion of def jam icon i wanted to know why weird al isnt in there but chewy told me to shut up and there was arguments and then Ac2565 said to me that

Now I see why Chewy said shut up. You are annoying and post stupid topics. This is not a talk page. Sorry Chewy for backing this guy up. Next time I will know better than to back up idiots.

so there was a problem. Favi4et 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to fix it. I've switched the main page to use commons:Template:Motd2 in the meantime. [[media:blah.ogg|[[blah]] is a blah.]] doesn't work properly if there's a linking in the description (like [[blah]]). Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to change Image:House large seal.gif to Image:House large seal.png in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 5, 2006 as the former is going to be deleted soon (it's a protected page). Yonatan ^(talk) 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well geeze, I could have told Klaus Conrad that! ;) --Monotonehell 04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In discussing biota by country, and whether they should be lists or categories, a user mentioned that categories had been started because there were too many long lists. I notice you have the first post on the current WP:Categorization. Know anything about the reasoning behind implenting categories? Thanks. KP Botany 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know its been a while since I've been a regular FAC contributor, but I have a request to make. I know there's probably a page to formally request this, but I can't find it. I have a friend in real life who has a lot of issues. Because his favorite movie is the Boondock Saints, could you please make it the FA for August 19th, which is his birthday? It's an FA, and if it still meets the mark, it would mean a lot to me, and my friend, if that were the day's FA. It would be a great gesture. Let me know. Either way, thanks a lot, not only for hearing my request, but for all of the work you do. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We have you listed as currently inactive for calculating the majority in pending ArbCom cases. I saw that today you offered proposals and voted in InShaneee. Please advise if you want us to move you back to active status in the other pending cases that are in the evidence or voting stages. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, my intention (at least of this writing) is to intervene in the Inshanee case. Raul654 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I had sent two emails back in February but haven't received a response regarding an autoblock of an IP. I've reproduced them below:

• There's an IP (208.57.179.100) that was auto-blocked as being used by "Cplot", who's apparently a user who had been banned earlier in the year. I'm a registered Wikipedian & sometimes login from work; this happens to be the IP that comes up from my work address. Looking at the modifications made by 208.57.179.100, however, I don't think it ever had anything to do with Cplot...? Perhaps it was misidentified?
• ...from looking at your page, it seems that you guys blocked the entire Class B subnet that "Cplot" was using, so that's where the block comes from. I believe that XO Communications sub-leases portions of the Class B from MPower, although I don't know how much. Can this be pared down to the appropriate class C subnet, for example?

And, actually, looking above, it seems that other people have also complained about the block of the Class B as well. Thanks in advance. --Diogenes00 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking class C's is ineffective - Cplot has access to so many of them that his supply is effectively inexhaustable (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Cplot). The blocks on those ranges were unfortunate but necessary. Raul654 14:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you might want to keep a closer eye on your reverts; you did this three times reverting today's FA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first time I did that, I went back to an earlier version and reverted, but apparently that revert to a legitimate version got edit conflicted out by some damned anon blanking the article. After that, it wasn't too difficult for me to keep reverting to the same bad versoin. Raul654 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake. Raul654 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. No problem. I was confused by all the edit conflicts I was getting. Easy to see what happened after looking at the history. --Onorem 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Can u help to convert the sound at http://www.baruah.in/wiki/kaziranga.wav for the article Kaziranga National Park. The article is upoladed by another wikipedia member User:Bikram98. pls hekp. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the copyright status on that recording? Raul654 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed the talkpage organization scheme with the comment "my eyes, they burn". Was that in regard to the small text of the two boxes? I personally feel it looks a lot more organized using the format, although I do think that the two small boxes are better off as normal. — Deckiller 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta-tempaltes within metatempates are awful. In addition, the talk header template IMO should be deleted; by any standard it doesn't belong on that page. Raul654 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Drawing your attention to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kansas Turnpike. Gimmetrow 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the page - FAR is not an appeal for failed FACs. Raul654 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's based on some confusion with the GA process, where GA/R can be used to appeal failures. Also drawing your attention to one cross-namespace redirect - been in place since July 2004. Gimmetrow 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects aren't bad unless they go out of the main namespace (and yes, that redirect does amuse me) Raul654 00:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to this article, it mainly failed because the concerns were addressed, yet people didn't fix their votes. What would you suggest at this point? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would have been willing to let it go a bit longer if *somebody* had (besides the nominator, obviously) had supported it. After chatting on IRC about it with SPUI, I offered to renominate it (normally renominating it so soon would be considered bad form, but in this case an exception can be made). Raul654 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to put this in the section below named closing FAC's? --Joopercoopers 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops - thanks for the hint. Raul654 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone who isn't even an administrator just closed this: [11] . I thought you were the only one who closed FACs? Personally I think the article will not be FA quality in the near future, however the closing looks weird to me. Kla'quot 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. First I removed it from the FAC and archived it, and then Gimmetrow's bot worked it over. This is how things are supposed to work - nothing strange here. Raul654 03:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened now. Sorry, my mistake there. Kla'quot 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Be nice to bots [12], they often feel unloved, and if you break them too hard then you are showered in small parts and springs and gizmos popping out in all directions. Georgewilliamherbert 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bots which do useful work (God bless User:GimmeBot) deserve many songs of praise; nag-bots deserve a bullet. Raul654 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please either relicense this photo under a free license or delete it? I would think that Jimbo Wales would readily agree that this photo should be under the GFDL or another free license. I am surprised that someone who is an administrator would have a photo with a licensing mess as this one. Also, you might want to go through your back catalog of old photos and clean up any similar licensing messes as this one. I have seen some discussion of changing policy to kick off a massive speedy deletion campaign against all noncommercial use images a month or two ago, and I do not remember where the discussion was. Thank you for your time. Jesse Viviano 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm trying to create accounts with the usernames Geber and Safa but both seem not to work. There are no contributions with these usernames. Can I obtain them? Waiting-for-username 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is quite impolite not to answer to my request. Waiting-for-username 13:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts have been registered but have not been used to edit. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations Raul654 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have the answer: you are the source. — Deckiller 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Raul654 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your evil twin? — Deckiller 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Raul654 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Google came up with no hits. — Deckiller 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be much of a challenge if you could Google the answer :)

Would a hint help? Raul654 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah :) — Deckiller 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote originated from a television show. Raul654 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Something makes me suspect this is from Battlestar Galactica, but as I've never watched it I don't know why. --YFB ¿ 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it did not originate from Battlestar Galatica. Raul654 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I've heard the "I hope the robo-pilot can take it from here..." line, but I think it was in a video game, not a TV show. Meaning either a parody or a coincidence. --tjstrf talk 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt that that line has surfaced in any other medium. It's most definitely a TV show. Raul654 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost in Space? — Deckiller 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Second hint: According to the wiki article, the episode containing that line first aired in January, 1985. Raul654 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

V? --YFB ¿ 01:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Raul654 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Transformers? — Deckiller 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Incorrect (but getting warmer...) Raul654 17:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Mobile Suit Gundam? — Deckiller 17:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope (wrong years) Raul654 17:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin is not being constructive on the Intelligent Design and Evolution talk pages and is making many personal attacks on Intelligent Design and not backing up his claims with legit research. I feel like him, and many others who are unwilling to form a consensus about the introduction are preventing resolution. There seems to be several anti-ID users who are unwilling to treat the ID article with a NPOV because they have strong opinions against it. This seems very unprofessional, and it would be helpful if some users were blocked. Wyatt 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering what's up with this. I don't see anything related in the FAC queue. Also, this is probably a little odd, but would it be a sort of in-joke to have an unusual featured item below the featured picture? I'm thinking a "featured disambiguation page" or maybe a "featured template". Gimmetrow 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured unencyclopedic page? — Deckiller 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Just wonderin'. Gimmetrow 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but a "featured disambig page" doesn't seem all that funny, just sort-of lame. There are many, many articles I'd love to feature that day, but none of them meet the three requirements I laid out on Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article. Raul654 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't find most of the suggested AF articles particularly oddball. Different jokes for different folks. (In case it's not clear - I was suggesting this in addition to a featured article, something at the bottom of the page.) Gimmetrow 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On another issue, I've seen these templates requesting comment at TFA/requests. Do you use the requests in any meaningful way? From what I can tell, you don't use the summaries, and you usually don't use the requested dates unless they are requested somewhere else (like here). Gimmetrow 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I use the requests, but almost-always rewrite them from scratch. And I really, really don't like the requests template that goes on teh talk page. Raul654 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone should TfD it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And a third question - do you know how the various FA-related categories are used? The old templates used a number of categories like Cat:Featured article candidates (contested) and Cat:Featured article review candidates (closed). If these are not actually used, can they be eliminated? Gimmetrow 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't touch the FA cats. I don't like categories in general (the implementation, the way they are used, 'etc) so I tend to steer clear of them. Getting rid of them would not upset me greatly (but I believe there may be some people that do use them). Raul654 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I use FFA, and current FAC and FAR categories to track articles listed and check up on faulty talk page tags—not sure of any potential use for failedfacs or closed FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Current categories make sense - but those are not handled by ArticleHistory. I guess next time I edit the templates I'll probably remove everything but CAT:FA and CAT:FFA, and see if anyone complains. Gimmetrow 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a last-minute brainstorm for an April 1 FA that I'm rushing through now. Any chance for an expedited process if it's submitted by, say, Tuesday? Thanks.--Pharos 04:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

5 days is the standard for FAC. I'd be comfortable if you could get it on the FAC today (the 26th). That way, I could promote it on the 31st, assuming it has no problems. Raul654 04:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's OK that I was a few hours late...--Pharos 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least discuss changes you make before you make them? We've been discussing the pic problem on the talk page and all of a sudden after we decide what to do you revert it. I don't see the problem with the pictogram; it's not ridiculous at all. Using an un-free image is. Could you revert it please, until we decide on the talk page what to do, together? _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  15:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong in every respect. First, the pictogram picture should not have been chosen. Second, whatever you might think, it is standard procedure to use an unfree pic if we don't have a free one available. Raul654 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award you the tireless contributor barnstar for creating over 400 articles, and for filling so many roles on Wikipedia. Congratulations!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I decided to let you put it on your user page, as in most cases, modified other people's user pages without their consent are considred vandalism, I think, and I don't know where you want it.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 23:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still on wikibreak. Cheers! Real96 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you. Raul654 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could get a decision on Minnesota being featured May 11th, I'd like to start a related article improvement drive leading up to that page being featured, so having a solid date would help. Thanks, -Ravedave 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See User:Raul654/Featured_article_thoughts#Deference to the article's primary author Get the article featured, then pick a date, and I'll see what I can do for you. Raul654 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am, it is featured, and listed on the request page, thanks! Links: Minnesota, Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Minnesota_.28May_11.29 -Ravedave 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Yes, I'll make a mental note to feature it on that date (if I forget and accidentally schedule another article there, please let me know) Raul654 02:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated, I'll get the drive started! -Ravedave 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was told to come to you by Gimmetrow. I'll just repaste my comments, with his. Please reply on my talk page. John Smith's 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The recent FAC application for Japan failed. Why was this? Votes were overwhelmingly for. If it is because some people opposed it, please explain how it is possible to remedy two diametrically opposed complaints - see the first two "oppose" votes. John Smith's 17:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ask at User talk:Raul654. There were 5 opposes. I can't tell if the first one is resolved, but the second and third imply incompleteness, the referencing issues in the fourth seem addressed, and the fifth was likely ignored by Raul (gallery? FAs should almost never have a gallery...) Gimmetrow 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting a fresh nomination. How do you think the matter is going?

First Hong keeps going on about "spaces" - but I can't see any. What he does just introduces gaps between the pictures where text creeps in and looks worse. Can you confirm what he's saying with some screenshots maybe? If not could you ask him to stop messing around with the pictures, please?

Second there are often very vague statements made about "need more citations". Can you identify any particular places that need citations? It's difficult to second-guess people, especially when don't clarify what they want to see. Thanks, John Smith's 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I think http://wiki.racetotheright.com/GW has now grown into an obvious off-wiki attack site on various editors, including me (of course), you and various others. I'd like your opinion of relevant policies here - I had a brief search and if there is something relevant I couldn't find it. I'm hoping for some equivalent of no-legal-threats William M. Connolley 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki personal attacks Raul654 22:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Not directly useful, then :-( William M. Connolley 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Raul, I recently put an article I wrote (endgame tablebase)on WP:FAC. How long should I expect the discussion to last? I see some discussions have been open for two weeks or more; is that the usual? Of course, I am aware that "there is no deadline." Please respond on my talk page. YechielMan 04:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 07:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul: I - and Elmer_Clark - have tried to discuss this issue with you on the Inhofe Talk page, to no avail. You acted improperly, not only in the way you handled the issue of the Inhofe edits, and the disrespectful way you treated me, but you improperly used your admin position to protect the page, AND did it during a dispute to which you were a party. For the second time in two days, I have to quote wiki policies to you:

"Content disputes

During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people. Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless all parties agree to the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute."

AND

"Full protection

Indefinite full protections are used for:

   * High visibility pages such as the Main Page in order to prevent vandalism. This includes templates transcluded to these pages.
   * The site's logo, press releases, and key copyright and license pages, for legal reasons. Admins should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion.
   * Certain "system administration" pages, including many editorial, deletion and stub templates, and the entire MediaWiki namespace. These are pages that need rarely be changed, and that because of widespread usage can cause large-scale disruption if vandalized, or modified ill-advisedly. Again, admins should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion.
   * Pages deleted by consensus that are repeatedly recreated. These are listed in either Category:Protected deleted pages or Wikipedia:Protected titles. Requests to overturn such a deletion should be made through the deletion review process.
   * Personal css and js pages like User:Example/monobook.css or User:Example/cologneblue.js are automatically fully protected by the MediaWiki software. Only the account associated with these pages and admins are able to edit them."

NONE of which applies to the Jim Inhofe article and yet you indefinitely protected it.

AND

"Temporary full protections are used for:

   * Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.
   * A history-only review of the article during some discussions on deletion review.
   * Preventing abuse of the unblock template or other disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page."

Which applies to the Jim Inhofe article, yet according to wiki policy you should not have used your admin privileges to protect the page, since you were/are involved in the dispute.

I'm giving you a chance to resolve this issue reasonably before I file complaints about you. First, the issue must be discussed on the Inhofe Talk page - and at least one other person agrees with me that the Inhofe quote belongs; Elmer_Clark has made some helpful suggestions, none of which we can make while you protect the page; seeing as it was inappropriate in the first place, you need to unprotect the page as well. I look forward to resolving this without having to take this any higher. Info999 05:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is you who is in the wrong. Your edits to Jim Inhofe have FAR exceeded the substance of his comments, and despite repeated queries you have not been able to provide a single source that backs up your claims. In short, you have flatly failed to engage on the issues.

Second, as to your allegations about my tone are ridiculous - if you can't back up your own assertions, then don't complain when people remove them because they are false.

Third, your repeated threats ("I don't want to have to report this" as of yesterday, "I look forward to resolving this without having to take this any higher") are without merit and if you persist in making them, then you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 07:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you or did you not protect an article, indefinitely, in which you were in a dispute? You were in the wrong. Did you or did you not use aggressive and insulting language? You were in the wrong. Rather than admit it, you threaten me with blocking - a ridiculous threat, given your history and the facts that are recorded that are not in your favor. It is astonishing that you would violate several wiki policies, and, when given the chance to make it right (which is another wiki policy, trying to resolve differences before reporting them - which is what I was doing, not "threatening" you. As far as the article is concerned, I never made any "assertions"; Inhofe said what he said, and it should be in the article, by itself, without any of your POV "balance". And by the way, it is. Furthermore, frankly, I don't need your personal permission to edit an article, nor do I need your personal permission to be a user on wiki. I hope you can take a breath and back off your attitude. It would be better for us all. Peace. Info999 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I immediately hit the article- of course, I was too late, since I watch the 1:30 a.m. edition :) Ral315 » 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you expect anything less :P Raul654 07:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use the template at the bottom instead of the hard code. It makes it easier to use the historical pages. I created it a couple weeks ago, but both of the last two updates you reverted to hard code during the update. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trampton 07:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Please revisit proposal 2 at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You have with this edit unfairly maligned me. You do not know me, yet you presume to know my thoughts. That I disagree with someone does not make me their enemy. It does not make me a POV pusher. So you know, I happen to believe that Global Warming is a true phenomenon and we are experiencing it. I also happen to believe that mankind may well be spurring it on. And I happen to believe it may cause calamities and upheaval. I worry about the tractor currents like the Gulf Stream, but otherwise I think the troubles will be tolerable and perhaps the earth can be more fecund at a higher temperature. I also think that a period of warmth will cause higher albedo and then rapid cooling which will be worse than the warmth was. But none of my opinions on this matter. Wikipedia is not about my personal views and I frequently edit contrary to my own personal views. Yet you claim I am a POV pusher. This was wrong of you. You should set a higher standard for yourself as an administrator and arbitrator, and certainly you should refrain from personal attacks on people that you do not even know. --Blue Tie 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Judge the lion by the paw. I do not presume to know your thoughts. I said you are a POV pusher, and that's exactly what you have been doing - pushing an anti-global warming POV into an article that is thoroughly accurate, cited, and has been vetted and is a featured article. Your edits to that article have been entirely detrimental - bad writing, falsely claiming the article is not neutral, more tagging. That you don't consider yourself a POV pusher is unsurprisingly, and frankly, irrelevant. William M. Connelly, Raymond Arrit, and Co. have done amazing work getting that article up to the level of quality it is at, and it is not in Wikipedia's interest to have that good work sullied by people wrecking the article. Raul654 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting phrase.. judge the lion by the paw. I have never heard it before. How can I be a POV pusher when I have never pushed one single anti-global warming view into any article? If you can find any edits where I have put any such view into an article I will have to own the label, but I do not think you can find one. I am unaware of any. As for the quality of the article, it is certainly way above the quality of many other articles on wikipedia, but it is not perfect and it has NPOV problems. I feel troubled that the standards of civility and assuming good faith are completely missing with respect to the editors of this article include people like you who are supposed to be examples. Oh well. As I am now aware of your hatred toward me I will not trouble more. --Blue Tie 02:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The global warming article has been under daily attack for months if not years. (including by at least one person who works for an agency that is paid to manufacture global warming doubt). The talk page archives for that article is HUGE - discussion occurs on a daily basis, mostly revolving around (as Mostlyharmless noted) "A small POV section of editors who come, go, and for the most part are replaced a few months later". So if the regulars on that article aren't as tolerable of contrarians as you expect, there's a very good reason (and frankly, they are a lot more patient about it than I am). As to the assumption of good faith, to wit: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you do not consider yourself a POV pusher, then it's hard to see how, based on your actions, that you could be distinguished from the rest. Raul654 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Drawing your attention to {{Good-article}}, as used on RuneScape... Gimmetrow 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted the template (recreation of many-times deleted content) Raul654 04:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Just had to get the cannons directed in the right direction. Gimmetrow 04:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Marie_Brémont.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the GA template on RuneScape. I've asked the people on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#GA_template to pull out the deletion discussions so that we can possibly reconsider the existence of such a template. I've also talked to Pyrospirit, the guy who made the template, and I'm waiting for a reply. Would you please tell me the primary reasons for deleting this template? Pyrospirit's intention was to have an image similar to the FA template...but we'll leave that up for a DRV if necessary.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See Gimmetrow's reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#GA_template Long story short - someone else already had the idea, it was deleted, and reviewed, and reviewed, and reviewed yet again. The result has repeatedly been to keep it deleted. Raul654 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; since I'm traveling, it helped. I still have problems with the way the images are cited— see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kansas Turnpike. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you could check it; no rush, and no need to reply - it's more of a "just in case, did you miss this (if you didn't, ignore this message)" as opposed to a "I think you stuffed up". Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(No reply needed at this point). Raul654 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I added a 5th element to the WP:WIAFA. I realize my suggested changes to the TFA/R process are not going to happen any time soon. However, I think it is important to encourage clean talk pages even if my changes do not get support. I do think in the future it may become important to encourage FACs to consider complete WP:PROJ enumeration and pursue priority assessments before being promoted. I think you should consider making it a part of the criteria in addition to the suggestion I added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Kirill Lokshin has reverted, and I agree with him (Kirill). Talk page layout has nothing to do with the quality of the article. Raul654 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Kirill's revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect to non article objections that we had been discussing on Kirill's talk page, I mentioned my primary concern was navigational box templates (at the bottom). Is overtemplatization an objection. Since I spend a lot of time on Chicago articles, I am curious. Could someone object to Chicago based on overtemplatization at the bottom? While I am at it could you point me to one of those ship articles.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Chicago is overtemplatized. It certainly doesn't look very good to the eye.

As far as the ship, I found USS Yarnall (DD-541). I've also seen this done with two seperate infoboxes on different articles, but cannot find any at the moment. Raul654 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicago is an article that borders on being overtemplatized. I personally feel all templates are relevant and useful. However, I am sure there are others that are more problematic. Would overtemplatization be a valid objection in that context?

P.S. I have created Jennifer Martz. She is a notable orphan. I would imagine if one wanted to detail her playing career one might be able to create a lengthy article that would be a valid FAC. Would you consider an orphan objection relevant to a promotion decision in this context? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Alternatively, could one object to succession box overtemplatization (Barry Bonds)? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As Raul654 says, multiple infoboxes is not common, but it does happen (another example are separate boxes for the Test/ODI statistics and first-class/List A statistics for cricketers).

Obviously articles can have lots of navigational infobxes - sometime too many. My favourite example it Ian Botham (not a FA, obviously). I would say Chicago has too many, for example. One (partial) solution is to have the contents hidden by default. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you understand the context of my questions. Today, I made an amendment to WP:WIAFA that was revert promptly on the basis that class assesment is based on article quality. I am attempting to understand what classifies as valid objection to an article. would you object to an FAC based on overtemplatization? or an orphan? Chicago, Barry Bonds and Jennifer Martz are examples that could be future FACs. I am not asking whether in their current states you would object to them, but whether article like them could be validly objected to based on these general reasons. You think Chicago has too many and others would agree. In a FAC discussion would this be a valid objection? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Entirely understandably: the contents of the talk page have nothing to do with how good an article is, I am slightly surprised that you would think that it would. The talk page is a place outside of the article (but linked to it) to discuss the article's contents. Some featured articles have talk pages that are almost blank; others extend to many archives.

Without getting too legalistic about it, a valid objection is one which is actionable, and which is based on one or more of the criteria WP:WIAFA - i.e. that the article, for some reason, is not "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable"; does not comply with the WP:MOS or other relevant guidelines in some respect; has images that are not free (or where fair use rationales are absent); or has an innappropriate length.

"Too many templates" could be an actionable objection, because the article is as a result not well written, or does not complying with relevant guidelines, or is inappropriately long. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was intentional or maybe had something to do with April Fool's Day, but I figure it can't hurt to let you know that you skipped tomorrow for the TFA. ShadowHalo 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware (and I don't plan on doing this again). I'm holding the door open for Pharos, and the George Washington article (especially for a picture of him). Raul654 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for holding the door. Do you mind if we joke-ify the box with true but strange things that sound vaguely like they would apply the other Washington, per some of the suggestion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington (inventor)?--Pharos 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as they are true, I have no objection to jokifying the blurb. Raul654 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am so confused :/ I wasn't around/paying attention last April 1; what becomes of this article afterwards—does it stay FA and what happens in ArticleHistory? No need to answer until after April Fool's. I feel so stupid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a regular FA just like any other. It's just that the main page blurb is going to be a bit... erm... intentionally confusing :P Raul654 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you completely got me. I was hunting around for the vandalism edit to revert for several minutes before understanding. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiner listed it at FAR; what to do? Rules say no FAR listings right after main page. Ignore all rules? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Raul654 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail sent. Ral315 » 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Thorpe&diff=117830924&oldid=117830504

I thought our mission included promoting and encouraging free content. It's not even like another image was removed - David Gerard 16:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I find image:Replace this image1.svg just plain silly - it really doesn't serve much point. Raul654 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Except the bit where the Wikimedia Foundation is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content" ... so, er, never mind that bit of the foundation mission statement, then? Note also it has actually added new free-content pictures to Wikipedia, but never mind that bit either - David Gerard 18:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the goal (of providing free content) to be silly. I find a picture saying "Please replace this picture" to be silly. Raul654 18:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also - what free pictures? I don't believe it's a realistic expectation that people will contribute because of this (but I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong). Raul654 18:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

e.g. the first test run for "replace this image", David Mamet. Wikipedia being all about the free content rather than about taking random images off the net and calling them "fair use" is actually important, and this helps that along. It'd be nice if we had SUL as yet and so could put them straight on Commons, but it's still better than (a) nothing (b) likely unfair use - David Gerard 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed Pumping lemma is listed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2003 but appears in neither WP:FA (including versions from early 2004) or WP:FFA. I think it pretty clearly would not pass these days. I suppose we could formally nominate it at WP:FAR. Any thoughts on this? To see if there are any others like this I may change my WP:WBFAN script to make sure each article in the logs by year lists (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003) is in either WP:FA or WP:FFA (it currently looks for articles in WP:FFA but doesn't make sure the rest are in WP:FA). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Added here, removed here. As for why it was removed - my guess would be a disagreement over the decision to promote (back when it was not centralized to one person). I think we can simply presume it was never a featured article at all. Raul654 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles that did not pass the RBP check in January 2004 are not listed on WP:FFA, and this would apply to a fair number of articles from 2003. Gimmetrow 17:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So it should be deleted from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2003? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. Raul654 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; anything related to ArticleHistory about the time of RBP is taken with a grain of salt, and often needs further investigation. Changing history might introduce other problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about this - but it does result in a (blue) star for Takuya Murata at WP:WBFAN. No one's complained about this, and I'm reasonably certain it's not the only anomaly, but my general inclination is to try to fix anomalies that I notice. Anyone care if I remove it from the December list at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2003 (neither these by-year lists or WP:WBFAN have any official standing, although I try to make them as accurate as possible). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for the WP:WBFAN stats to be based on the WP:FA and WP:FFA pages, which are actively maintained? Gimmetrow 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That does seem to make sense, since Gimme, I and others put so much work into making sure those lists are accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe starting with FA and FFA and figuring out who nominated each article is computationally infeasible. The problem is figuring out who nominated each FA is a non-trivial task, especially considering joint and restarted noms. I'm open to suggestions, but how it's currently done is (once a month) converting the by-month FA log to a by-month table in the appropriate by-year list (this step is only partially automated - the FAC nominations aren't quite regular enough to reliably parse). Then, WBFAN is generated (fully automatically) from the by-year lists. I've recently added code to make FFA stars rust-colored at WBFAN. As I alluded to above, it would certainly be possible to cross-check the blue stars against WP:FA. Every star should correspond to an article that's either an FA or an FFA. The scripts I use are posted, here and here. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove stuff from the logs. It's probably accurate for the log to note that pumping lemma was listed on the Brilliant Prose page (for a little over 7 hours) back in 2003. However, a prior discussion decided that Brilliant Prose articles removed before or during Refreshing Brilliant Prose (January-February 2004) should not be considered former featured articles. Seems best to check the stars against WP:FA. Would it be difficult to make a list of the articles/stars on WBFAN this affects? Gimmetrow 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably time to move this to WT:WBFAN, but probably the easiest thing to do would be to filter the blue stars against WP:FA in much the same way the FFA's are currently filtered and anything left over would presumably be articles that failed RBP. Going in the other direction, I think there are still some FAs (and possibly FFAs) that don't have nomination histories. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought we got them all; if you know of one will you let us know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Provinces of Thailand seems to be in the category of successful nomination but neither FA or FFA. I haven't looked through the WP:FA history for this one. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a unique case - it is listed at WP:FFA but was repromoted as a featured list. If you didn't know about the latter, you would probably treat it as a FFA. Gimmetrow 11:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a unique one; see the last entry on WP:FFA—a very good find by Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul,

the PD-tag on this image is deprecated, could you please clarify it?

thanks in advance,

TeunSpaans 18:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an expired crown-copyright photo that I got from a British air-force page. (More than that I do not remember). I've updated it to be pd-old. Raul654 18:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the fix, Raul. I'm much obliged. BYT 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Back in mid Febuary you removed plans to put it on the main page leaving the note "will reschedule soon". Well it's been well over a mounth now. Buc 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through the page history of this page and I found a previous featured article nomination back in 2005 which failed and has since been overwritten. Would it be possible for you to move this part of the page history to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Earth/archive1? Note that I have recently moved the page here as I expect Earth to be ready for FAC soon. Atomic1609 17:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Earth/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Earth/archive2 have been split. Raul654 17:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul654, do you know when the next election for the Arbitration Committee will be?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 06:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to nominate you for a Wikihalo. I've proposed that there shouldn't be any approval by the nominee in the future, since it's an award that, in my opinion, cannot be refused. But actually, you have to accept the nomination. Please do it asap ;-)

Here is the nomination.

PS: I also use this occasion to suggest that you turn the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary preference on, since the Wannabe_kate's new feature has shown that your usage of edit summary can be increased.

Happy editing,

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 10:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I should post directly to you or at TFA/R. I left a query for you at TFA/R's talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were gone for the night, and decided to add them before someone else goofed them; now we've got Battle of Shiloh twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was AFK for a few minutes :)

I've fixed the Shiloh thing. Raul654 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL - next time I'll wait longer, but it's bedtime here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

arrrrgh ... ! more work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[13] Well, if you say so. I asked on the admin board what was going on here and what we presently do with such main page FAs, and there wasn't much of a response so I figured people had moved on from the debate. It doesn't appear to be an active dispute, and I couldn't ascertain whether the present version was accepted or not. >Radiant< 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated Mackinac Island for FAC on 31 March 2007 but so far it has only received one comment and is now 18th in the list. Would it be out of line for me to relist this on the top of the FAC page in a day or so if it does not receive any comments? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a little bilboard for FACs requiring feedback:

FACs needing feedback view • edit
2009–10 Notts County F.C. season	Review it now
Teddy Wynyard	Review it now
Gusuku period	Review it now

. — Deckiller 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I think Zeeboid is spamming/trolling/generally being a nuisance at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. Not that he doesn't do much the same elsewhere. Could you see you way to doing anything about this? William M. Connolley 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Could your tool find any/how many GW edits have been done by User:Kim Bruning? I am clearly unhappy about [14] and I do recall seeing him on the article so I am not sure he is a good mediator unless you know him well enough to reassure me? --BozMo talk 08:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

According to my tool, Kim has edited the Global warming article 3 times (I think he's edited the talk page more often). Having met him at Wikimania, I can say that Kim is a very nice person and I have no doubt that he means well in mediating this. However, I don't know enough about him to say whether or not he'd be a good mediator. Nor do I think mediation - whoever is the mediator - is likely to succeed, given the nature of the problems there (well meaning, scientifically versed editors versus anti-GW POV pushers). Raul654 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Today's featured article" says "Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page." Just out of curiosity, is this "unofficial list" public anywhere? If not, is there any purpose to that text being there? Oh, and keep up the good work, BTW. ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick question. I have requested The Simpsons for April 19, but the article has since been put under featured article review over an image sourcing problem. That has since been fixed, but it remains under review. Does being under review hurt the articles chances of making the main page? -- Scorpion 01:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons request conflicts with another, earlier request, for Charles Darwin on that day (it's the 125th anniversary of his death). I was planning on using Darwin. Raul654 01:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured we'd lose out to him. I'll change it to May 20 or July 27. Would you have a problem with making the TFA on July 27, the day the movie opens? That might sound like advertising. While I'm at it, would you put Cape Feare on the main page? Because I was planning on requesting Cape Feare for May 20 (date of the 400th episode) and The Simpsons for July 27 (Simpsons movie) so they'd be 2 months apart. -- Scorpion 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's resolved now. By the way, Schutz bot hasn't been running for about five days, so FAs that have been on the main page are not getting highlighted at WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul. Ronald Reagan's current FAC nomination I beleive is sock puppetry, and should be closed. I am one of the major editors, so I think you should check it out. Other editors even contacted me to ask my opinion about it, and I told them what I'm telling you. Again, I think it should be closed. Thanks, Happyme22 03:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll second this request, as one of the admins dealing with the sock case (this was collateral damage, there's been point-making going on all over the place). Orderinchaos 14:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Third ... but let's make sure Gimmetrow/GimmeBot know how to handle cases like this. Is the FAC going to be archived and botified, or does it get admin deleted and go away? If it's just *removed* from WP:FAC, that doesn't resolve what to do with ArticleHistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the nom during my next pass through the FAC and we'll treat it like any other failed nom. Raul654 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminder :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a question concerning concensus on Featured Article Candidates, recently user Lankybugger nominated Devil May Cry for FA, a number of users expresed themself and we tried to satisfy all of their concerns, some of the users changed their opposision to support, until the overall number was 9 supports and 2 oppositions, we have attended the concerns of the two remaining users and I left a message on the talk page of each one (please see here and here) asking them to please take a look at the article and make their opinions be heard but even though both of them have been editing here they have been ignoring this, I have seen an article (Halo 2's first FAC here) fail FA because people express their oposition and they never come back to see if they have been improved, my question is what can be done if they just ignore this and a justified ammount of time passes? thanks for your time and sorry for witting such a long paragraph, cheers. -凶 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of unprotecting the page as there does seem to be movement towards a consensus - certainly, it might need protected again, but it's probably safe. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sandy is the only user currently objecting to the FA. I addressed her original concerns about reliability of sources, even though Nihonjoe was right to say many of them were ok. However she came up with some new objections and is not talking to me - I have left responses to her on the FAC page and her talk page, but she has not responded. It is clear FA status is widely supported, with no real reasons to withold it. So what's the hold-up?

As ever, please reply on my talk page. John Smith's 12:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

huh? "Not talking to you?" Each time you've left a talk message for me, I've responded, either on talk or on the FAC. I will re-check the FAC today (after coffee and after finishing my watchlist). I'm sorry you've felt ignored; it wasn't intended. I have had almost non-stop travel for about six weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Allright, catching up. I never saw this message; I sincerely apologize, as I do have a very busy talk page and I was traveling and on a slow dialup in a hotel and apparently completely missed it. However, it is not correct to say that I am the only current Oppose; pls recheck your facts. And finally, if you will identify PDFs in your sources, I won't have to re-start my old, slow kitchen computer when I can be using that time to review your article :-) I'll continue reviewing on my main computer later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Raul, there is still a disagreement on the FAC page about whether it is FA quality or not. Can you please tell me how we go from here, because I think a majority of editors disagree with her opposition. I have seen FACs succeed despite unresolved opposition - so can you tell me more about how the process can move forward from here? I'm not asking you to approve it behind her back, of course, just explain the options available. John Smith's 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul has promoted over my objections before many times; consensus works. Nonetheless, the fact that few other reviewers check sources is not a reason for me to stop lodging my concerns. Like I said, look towards the top of the FAC list if you want an example of an article that will become featured even though it relies almost entirely on personal websites. I'll continue to check sources and raise the issues, because 1c is policy, and does matter, even if others ignore it. Please understand, it's not about *you* and it's not about Japan; it's about why reviewers support articles for FA without checking sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, if I believed you have some sort of prejudice I would ask a more senior administrator to intervene - I know that you are just applying what you believe to be the necessary standards. I was merely asking Raul where the nomination can go from here.

By the way I removed the links to the copyrighted material. John Smith's 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is their any particular reason you made this the FA on April 18th as opposed to the requested date of November 19th? A few on the Talk page showed interest in this date because it is the one year anniversary of the relase. The Placebo Effect 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.... Did you see this message, or did you have reasons for not moving the date? The Placebo Effect 00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I'd first like to thank you for a lot of the good work you do both as an editor and as part of the Wikipedia power structure. Having said that, I am wondering if perhaps you would consider using edit summaries more often when you contribute. I know you're busy guy, but edit summaries do help others understand better what you changed, and I think the time it takes you to write the summaries is more than offset by the time it saves the other editors who run into your contributions. Anyway, I wonder what you think of my request. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I make it a point to use them for the more important edits, but most of the ones I do don't need anything more than the default section name. Raul654 05:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to flip the preferences bit that forces you to make them. People going up for RFA would be expected to make comments on things like this: [15] -Ravedave 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean like I did here, here, here, and here, 'etc? Sheesh... Raul654 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed the Wikipedia Magic: The Gathering cards. I'd originally set out to make more, but with WotC owning the card-design and mana symbols, that'd just be asking someone to come along and delete the lot as a breach of Fair Use policy. I figure with only one card per colour (and one artifact), only the worst of the copyright paranoids would take issue at my bit of fun. I might make up a few more and just host them off-site - they are quite fun to think up :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Heya Raul!

• Here's a request to class an article.

• Sivaji: The Boss - The film has not yet been released but will be on May 17. Can you check the article status and where it ranks and then consider it for a possible enrry for the main page on May 17 coinciding with its release. Thank You and please respond.

Cheers

G Ganesh 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to be a featured article, and article must be both comprehensive and stable - a movie that has not yet come out is probably not comprehensive, and an article on a movie that has just come out that day is probably not stable. I'd be hesistant to feature that article on the main page on that date for those reasons. Raul654 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Multiple_Banner_discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm on the fence about this one. The stated purpose of RFA is to identify trustworthy people and, given his former employment by the foundation, I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy (I didn't see any of that in the RFA). He's done an incredible amount of good work in the time he's contributed to Wikipedia - so much so that many of the newer users are ignorant because much of it was done before they got here. At the same time, a number of people have found other things to criticize about his behavior. Yes, Danny has a (raw) 68% support, but that 32% opposition is over 120 oppose votes. I find it difficult to call this consensus. So like I said - I'm on the fence about this one. Raul654 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)" - from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat

I was wondering if you could rewrite that. Double negatives are a bit confusing. -- Cat ^chi? 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this phrase - I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy. To restate that, I believe, given his prior employment with the Foundation, that everyone on Wikipedia believes (or should believe, at any rate) that Danny is trustworthy. By trustworthy, I mean unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Raul654 20:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, I noticed you removed E pluribus unum from the The Apotheosis of Washington and cited it as not being relevant. That phrase is on the banner in the center of the painting. I believe it is appropriate for mention in the article but perhaps doesn't need its own link at the bottom. --Daysleeper47 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi fred. I edit under User:SiobhanHansa but sign as Siobhan Hansa. It's recently been brought to my attention that there is an account User:Siobhan Hansa who made some nasty edits. You blocked the account back in January. I've never edited under it and don't want users who see it to associate it with me. Is there anything I can do about it? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 15:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you help this guy? I guess what needs to happen is to delete the bogus account, then let him recreate it as his second account, perhaps move his old account to it. Fred Bauder 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, but what I can do is rename the vandal account to something harmless, register with the name formerly used by that vandal (to prevent someone else from doing it), and redirect it to your page. Raul654 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark. That would be great. Is there anything you need me to do to make this happen? Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per User:Tony1's suggestion, would you be willing to extend the Jurassic Park FAC to allow me to find good copyeditors from the Dinosaur WikiProject? Alientraveller 12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Raul654 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Form IV: Ataru (Lightsaber combat), which has been nominated for FA, has also been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is completely in-universe, is on an irrelevant topic, and the content is considered original research. Is this sufficent ground to end the discussion now? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Which discussion - the FAC discussion or the AFD discussion? Raul654 15:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The FAC --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I don't see much point in talking about an article's FA potential if it's on the verge of deletion. Raul654 15:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you reverted a pov pushing anon's addition of a FAR template, but another editor seems to have created Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design. This doesn't appear at WP:FAR and so doesn't seem to have been done properly: it seems to be a reaction to the usual controversy when in practice two acceptable versions of the intro are being debated as a further improvement to the article. Should the FAR proceed? ... dave souza, talk 19:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I addressed that on the talk page already. Raul654 19:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, my bad not spotting that. .. dave souza, talk 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul654 - I have just started running a new IRC Bot on #wikipedia-en, and now been told that I should be seeking permission for a bot request, so that I can have the bot flagged as being one. As you are a bureaucrat on here, and Meta recommends seeking help from a bureaucrat, I was wondering if you would be willing to assist me with the necessary applications process please? The bot is link2, and is based on linky - found in #wikipedia-de.

The idea of linky & linky2 is that you type, for example [[Whatever]] into the irc channel, and linky & linky2 expand those links into a full URL, and paste it back to channel. This can be useful for IRCers who do not have a wikipedia plugin in their IRC Client.

It also does interwiki links, like this: - [[pt:Brasil]] would paste up http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasil.

"Linky" is active in #wikipedia-de and suffers no abuse or problems in any way.

Your help would be most welcomed. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On-wiki bots need approval - IRC bots don't. Raul654 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, why are you intent on using weasel words on an article in which you've had very little involvement and a discussion page you have not visited in many months. It was fairly agreed upon that we would use neutral language. There's no reason to fan the flames. ~ UBeR 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true you have made more edits to that article than me. After all, it's easy to rack up a high edit count by making multiple inflammatory edits and then reverting to keep them in. Just because you make lots of edits to that article doesn't make them good or productive ones. That article would not be on FARC at all if it weren't for your "contributions".

In point of fact, the edits of yours that I have reverted give undo weight to the tiny minority of scientists who disagree with the consensus position on global warming, as expressed in the IPCC. And your own removal of citations aside, Oreskes work shows "that there is a robust consensus" supporting the IPCC's position. Raul654 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This shows your general misunderstanding of the topic. I don't care how many edits you have made, I care if you have been involved with any of the consensus making at the article or not. You have been uninvolved with the article, and you are going against decisions that have been fought over menacingly. Oreskes' paper details how many abstracts from her sample of 928 papers explicitly endorse the IPCC view. Two percent did. Even tough none of her sample went against the IPCC, this does not translate into "a small number of scientists disagree." See WP:SYN. You are fine to detail Oreskes' paper, noting that it deals with paper abstracts, but it wouldn't be appropriate for the lead, especially since a lot of people would start including the criticism of her paper. Do you understand?

Oh, before I forget. Please cease your personal attacks. I don't really feel like getting in a long predicament, in which third parties have to be involved. Just please act responsibly. ~ UBeR 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And so it appears I am correct, and you were wrong. Perhaps it is time to start assuming good faith, and stopping your personal attacks? ~ UBeR 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason William thinks it should be removed is because it has already been replaced with the AAPG study. William believes that the AAPG citations is suffcient. I disagree with him. I think he should pay more careful attention to the tactics used by the anti-science POV pushers attacking that article. They are really quite ingenious, in a sad sort of way. It goes something like this:

1. Request a citation for every clause of every sentence in the article [16][17].
2. When they are provided:
   • Ignore them
   • Question their veracity based on the fact that you personally don't believe them [18] [19][20] or understand them [21]
   • Use discredited science to try to counter them because you work for an organization that is paid to advocate against global warming.
3. When all else fails, claim it's not neutral or "weasel words". After all, non-neutrality and weasel words are subjective concepts, so even the most outrageous claims made by the POV pushers are difficult to debunk.[22][23][24]
4. And when polls show you are in a tiny minority of users on that article - such as advocating certain biased beliefs that the majority of users on that article reject - ignore those polls too [25][26]

Meanwhile, the whole process have shifted the onus of doing the hard work (finding citations, adding them to the article; debunking the bad science that certain organizations are paid to promote) onto the relatively few people who actually know the science really well, and are capable of finding literature to reply to the endless {{fact}} tags the POV pushers are only too happy to add to that article. So - is one citation enough? I don't think so. It's only a matter of time until someone questions it, using one of the above tactics. Raul654 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot speak for Tjsynkral, Blue Tie, Ted Frank, or Sm8900. As to why your take your frustration with them out on me is beyond me. I think everyone who actually cares to participate in discussion instead of blindly reverting has agreed Oreskes is inappropriate for the lead. Needless to say, if you disagree with someone's edit, Wikipedia has actually created a discussion page as an open forum to discuss these quandaries, but your involvement there has not been forthcoming. ~ UBeR 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul - I agree that the asking for citations of the bleedin' obvious is annoying / trolling; and the failure to accept that citations aren't needed for see-also sections ditto. But I don't see why the answer to this is to put Oreskes in the lead. I don't see why the current state isn't good William M. Connolley 09:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it stays that way, it's fine with me. But as I said, I don't see it staying that way. Raul654 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be stable for now. I'll just have to hope you're wrong William M. Connolley 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A 3RR report has been filed against you here. Under the circumstances, I have suggested that you be given an opportunity to respond before any action is taken. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an admin discussion and the consensus seemed to be to block you, therefore Wizardman has done so for 12 hours. You can read the discussion here. Heimstern Läufer 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)