User:Raul654/archive17

Is it true that an article cannot appear on the Main Page twice? When I mentioned putting a request in for Canada here, SandyGeorgia claimed that it cannot be requested because it already appeared as TFA on June 23, 2006. However, I did not find anything stating this at WP:TFA or any subpages. -- Reaper X 05:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We have not, in the 4+ years I've been doing it, featured a FA on the main page more than once. That's not to say I won't ever do it (which is why it doesn't say anywhere that we won't) but for the time being I have no plans to. Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I very much hope you're ready and willing. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#New_arbitrator. TONY (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, this one has been tricky, so I'm hoping you'll have time to glance at it: Wikipedia:FCDW/June 23, 2008. (Ditto to above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul; that one had me nervous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Worried about over generalizing, since reliability of sources isn't black and white, and depends on text cited. Wanted to give broad guidelines about what to watch for in content review, without simplifying too much or implying a source was either or, since reliability depends on text being cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, if you can recall I recently asked you to evaluate the consensus on a naming issue here. The time needed for the debate has expired and if you could be as kind as to review the consensus and post your opinion in the box provided at the top of the page it would be appreciated. Thankyou and happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carlos_Botelho, I believe we have a case of multiwiki spam. The nom of this AfD has a list of the articles User:Carlos Botelho created about himself, so I won't relist them here. I think the same AfD criteria apply on all the other wikis, and more importantly, I noticed that in languages that Carlos does not know, the information is very sparse, meaning it looks like whatever was simple enough to get pushed through an online translator without looking wrong. I'd like to get somebody to clean all these articles out as non-notable, vanity, COI, and not advertising articles. Is there some way to do this cross-wiki without learning 15 languages? MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You need a steward to do it, but I'm not sure if they can delete them on wikis with sysops. I'll ask some people and see what they say. Raul654 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can help -- what needs done? — Dan | talk 03:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted , , , and . doesn't seem to mention this guy anywhere -- only the deceased sculptor and a Brazilian politician. I left and -- these articles are lengthy and should probably be put through the local deletion process. I've also left a message for User:Redux, a steward who is a native speaker of Portuguese and a fluent speaker of Spanish, asking him to take a look at the pt and es articles. — Dan | talk 03:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Today.27s featured article.2Frequests straw poll SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting Threop. I was getting exhausted reverting his edits (and running into an iffy 3RR situation). You might also want to block User:Stem Pressure, an account Threop created. Oren0 (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked both current socks and took out his IPs too (He only had the two socks that I could find) Sorry about accidentally reverting you. Raul654 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I created an SSP entry for him. Can I just blank that? Oren0 (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Raul. Thought you might want to be aware of these RfDs. Bstone (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul. Can you look at this FA and look at the conundrum between a few different opinions and possible conflicts between featured article criteria. The problem with this person is that he was a military officer and bodyguard who was known only for a series of extrajudicial assassinations (and his own assassination). This leaves no known or recorded info on his birth/enlistment/earlier career etc. Some people have objected to it for neglecting such things (1b I guess), however, this may or may not trump "relevant body of published knowledge [or lack thereof]" (1c). In any case, some of the reviewers said that the 1b criteria would be satisified if the article was moved to a name which focused on his bodyguard/assassination roles. However, this has now caused people to complain about naming guidelines and the lack of a proper parent article. I'm wonder whether this catch-22 can be broken, ie, is this article inherently not FA-able with the current resources, or are one or more of the objections not in accord with WIAFA. Because if it is the latter, I would appreciate being told so I can withdraw it and get on with things. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to go to bed for the night - I'll look into this tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is decided that the name change helps, the current article title (changed from "Nguyen Van Nhung" to "Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard") doesn't seem quite right yet. I'm thinking that an article title that is more event related eliminates the bio issues; maybe something like "Assassination of ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I suggest that the subject be discussed also on the talk pages of either FAC or WIAFA? I believe this kind of problem could occur again. There are many biographies of persons that will always be "incomplete". For example, minor historical figures in which one could get all "relevant body of published knowledge" would satisfy 1c but still have significant gaps of information in which reviewers would claim failure of 1b. Basically, we should answer the question of whether it is possible to have a FA-quality article that is short because of the lack of information or data. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that we did kind of see this before in the Peter Wall FAC. In that FAC, I basically made a comment like Rlevse did in the Nguyen Van Nhung FAC--RelHistBuff (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar also came up at Natalee Holloway and many of the older "Disappearance of ... " or " Murder of ... " articles. In the case of Natalee Holloway, the nominators added info to make it into a more complete bio. In other cases of disappearance, Marskell has argued that if the bio can't be completed, to name it according to the event. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the article would certainly get around the problem. I suggested such a renaming as a workaround for the Peter Wall article. But what if there is no obvious article name if there is no relevant "event" and comprehensiveness is compromised due to missing data as would be the case for a minor historical figure? I guess we are only speaking about a hypothetical situation for the moment. Maybe I could submit a minor "incomplete" biography to FAC and trigger a discussion like jbmurray did with Peter Wall? :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nag...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, can you take a look at this please? There's been a flurry of more ideologically-oriented article debate which are affecting/taking away the questions of article content. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around the topic of the article. About half the article mentions Nhung only in passing (discussing the coups and events surrounding them). The remainder of the article describes his role in the two coups, but nothing else about his life is described. The article is not a biography of him, nor about the coups themselves, but some kind of weird combination thereof. I think the topic of the article needs to be clarified (including renaming the article) before the FAC nomination can proceed. Raul654 (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have to do this but I missed my chance to put this on the request page.

July 7 Joe Sakic, his birthday.

One more thing, is there anyway for requests that are heavily supported or opposed by users, in words the consensus is clear and not ferther decussion is needed, can be removed by other users so slots are open more often. Buc (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the request, but I already had some things planned for that time.

To answer your question - the requests page is being revamped to make it more clear how opposed requests can be removed. For heavily supported ones, they should remain there (on the requests page) until I schedule the requested date. Raul654 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

marc- would you mind taking over/getting someone to take over dal mailings? I'm on vacation with limited computer access for the next two months.

I hope I sent you the automailing script..let me know if I haven't. It did die thanks to problems with mkfamail, but fixing it should be pretty easy with even a little java knowledge.

thanks, and sorry for the short notice.

Frazzydee|✍ 09:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, send me what you have. Raul654 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

86.146.244.93 (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mark,

Felt I could approach you after some reading up on this and reading your profile. It is something I have been feeling really uncomfortable about during the last few weeks.

Let me describe my problem: a former housemate has been using a wikipedia account, that uses my real name, to start conflicts with other users about football related topics. Now the account has a puppet socket conviction against it and all sorts of blocks.

I discovered this a few weeks back, when I googled my name just for fun and had all these wikipedia entries coming up, including allegations, convictions etc. I was mortified. This could potentially be very damaging to me and, or, my career as my name is not very common. Therefore I want to do something about this.

I read a bit about changing/deleting user accounts on wikipedia, but am I am unsure how to do this or if I am even allowed to! How can I undo what he has done? I feel powerless now.

Can you help me?

M

You go about requesting a rename by asking a bureaucrat (I'm a bureaucrat, so you've already done that much). And yes, you're allowed to ask, but that doesn't guarantee I'll do it. We don't delete accounts for any reason. Before I can do anything, I need more information from you - in particular, what account do you want me to rename? Raul654 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what FAC's role is here ... Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#New references feature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. As far as FAC is concerned with a new referencing system, the existing policy of "whatever floats your boat, as long as the article is consistent" should suffice. Raul654 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul; generally, I was unsure what to do when a novel situation like this appears. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thundercats2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Allegedly someone at commons "discovered" a probem with User:Tabercil/Luke Ford permission (apparently VRTS ticket # 2007111210016632), resulting in hundreds of images deleted on commons, but there is no discussion available to verify anything about this, since it's supposedly an OTRS-covert operation. I can't find where Tabercil was even notified. Could you verify what's going on here? Gimmetrow 08:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied by email. Raul654 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I need some help converting wmv to ogg, and the help page said you were skilled at it. Could you help with this? RedThunder 12:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never tried converting an wmv that I can remember, and since I'm on-the-road until the end of August, I don't have access to the normal battery of software I'd use.

Off the top of my head, I think your best best it to transcode the wmv file to an mpeg using vlc. After that, ffmpeg2theora should be able to handle it. I don't think ffmpeg2theora can handle wmv files directly, but I could be mistaken. Raul654 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit pointed me in your direction regarding something you wrote re: a correlation between primary contributors and the likelihood of passing FAC. Would you mind letting me know where I could find it? Thanks. Jthomsant (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a paper I submitted to ACM Hypertext. It was accepted as a poster, but I didn't submit it as such. I still have it, if you want to read it (it's not anywhere public though). Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds cool. Sorry to post a <aol>me 3</aol>, but I'd very much like a copy too! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. I definitely want to read a copy, if you wouldn't mind e-mailing me one. Jthomsant (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the paper. Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering, if in you experience, there has ever been an article to be Today's Featured Article on multiple language Wikipedias on the same day? If so, who was the first to achieve this? It would require quite the preparation, but I figure that big anniversaries related to the articles are universal.--Patrick Ѻ 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it's never been done. Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You're most certainly welcome. Raul654 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I really want to read that. El general en su laberinto! Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:) Raul654 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul. Further to my advanced notice!, Bradman's passed FAC and I'd like to request a Main Page slot on the 100th anniversary of his birth, ie August 27th this year.

I think that was the most exhausting process I've been through to get to FA. Every stage has been hard work! Ironically, after the heavyweight PR, I thought it would sail past FA, lol.

Thanks so much in anticipation of your help with my request. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, see WP:TFA/R; because it's a 100th anniversary, you'll have enough points to get a slot to list it there as the date approaches, and then Raul won't be tasked with remembering it for two months. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Heading there now. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul, in case you want to weigh in at User talk:Marskell#C-class status.

GimmeBot automatically assigns a B-class assessment when an article is FARC'd. Now that they've added a new C-class assessment, we have a bot issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This one is done; GimmeBot is now leaving the assessment field blank. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I need your feedback at User talk:SandyGeorgia#Requests archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Afer 100KB of discussion, a new proposal and questions needing your feedback at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#NEW PAGE proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New page in place at WP:TFA/R; the only significant change is we now subtract points for recent mainpage appearance (pls check the point scheme), and it's now made more clear how to replace a request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Discussion at WP:TFA/R seems more stable (or maybe people are just away on summer break) and Karanacs is getting involved there. The page is now upgraded to the format of other FA pages, and there are some additional changes proposed to be implemented July 10 (to give you and others a chance to weigh in before we add them). We've also created a talk page template to 1) give advance notice of requests upcoming in the next 60 days, which 2) might help keep some of the reminder notices off of your talk page, and 3) will hopefully encourage some advance discussion and sorting of conflicts, while 4) providing a brief look ahead for you beyond the five on the page. For example, two editors have already proposed articles for the summer Olympics, one of which is political.

Also, on my talk page, Gimmetrow is waiting for some feedback on further automating some of the GimmeBot steps. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A TFA error comment at Talk:Main Page, that might interest you. 199.91.34.33 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Slym_Gym? --BozMo talk 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was afraid he was going to pull a creepy crawly. I still think the latter is closely related... Brusegadi (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to contribute to the Scibaby block, I gathered he is using sockpuppets but I didn't really look into his transgressions. I just felt I should share that the IP range blocked is currently assigned to sprint mobile broadband (air cars) and is dynamic. Since I have an account its not a big deal to me, just thought I would share in case its important. I'm referring to the subnet 72.58.0.0/16 --Arjes (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Shenstar? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See the logs. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are blocking a small portion of a dynamically handed out IP range. You are not stopping scibaby, but you are annoying people willing to edit the wiki in good faith.

You had a nice demonstration last night of how futile your effort is, but your choice was not to lift an ineffective ban, but to delete the demonstration.

If you have any intellectual honesty, you would comment about your blocking a small portion of a dynamic address range, and why you don't either a) lift the ban entirely, or b) ban the entirety of Sprint Broadband Mobile.

I suspect you have no intellectual honesty. Please prove me wrong. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.16.129 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Am i right in my assumption on Heart of a Lion (talk • contribs)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You have helped me before (on video conversion) and perhaps you have some ideas on a current problem I am having, not related to electronics. I recently wrote an article on Conscript Fathers, however another editor wants to redirect the article instead of going through a formal AFD. The discussion on this can be found at the article Talk Page. I feel that if the other editor feels it is a very bad article, then he should submit it for AFD. He only wants to REDIRECT. Is it correct to just REDIRECT instead of going through the formal AFD. I believe the article will stand on its own and is well referenced. It was selected as a DYK on June 13 - which I indicted to him was evidence of this article's quality and accuracy (not a guarantee however). I have had clashes with this editor many times before pertaining to deleting or redirecting my articles, but did receive 40 DYKs since the last major event with him. He has not given me indications exactly (minor small things) why the article is bad, only personal feelings on how I write articles - which indicates to me a personal thing, rather than this being a bad article. He has put the article back as a REDIRECT 3 times from when I undone his REDIRECT. Can the article be put back as an article and IF that editor feels it is a dreadfully bad article that he should put it up as a AFD or (what I suggest) get a "third opinion" as to if the article should exist? What is your feelings on this? I'll look back here on your talk page for your answer. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've since asked for a "third opinion" - waiting on responses. --Doug ^talk 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but generally to redirect one article to another you do not need to go through AFD. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now the July 11 main page article is To Kill a Mockingbird. Someone I suppose, should have pointed this out to me when I requested it, but it's two weeks after The General in His Labyrinth appeared. I blame someone, whoever it was. I'm not sure why I requested this. Mockingbird's 50th anniversary would probably be more appropriate in 2010. Can you replace July 11 with something else? --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Two book FAs on the main page within 2 weeks of each other is not something to worry about. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that train has left the station, clearly. I was, I must admit, also very intimidated about it being the subject of so much attention on the main page. TFA request remorse. Call me goofy. It's rather silly of me to concern myself with such issues when I choose one of the most influential books of the 20th century. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I know I should go to the articles and see what is being said there (please do direct me there if that is best), but I was reading a BBC news article here, and was wondering what that meant for the 9/11 sanctions and stuff like that. Is that one of the "more respectable" theories, and if so, is the balance struck right between the conspiracy theories that are more fringe than others, or are they all treated as fringe theories? I must confess that I had got the impression from the froth arising from those articles that there was a lot of fringe conspiracy theories, mostly of little merit, but seeing this report featured as one of the top stories on the BBC (the news channel I go to first), made me take another look. Of course, the actual situation on the ground on the articles and their talk pages, not the administrative froth and news reports, is what I should have been looking at, but still, it did make me think. One of my thoughts was where Basboll stood on these issues. My objection there was only ever procedural, and I dropped matters after you explained things, but I was wondering if stuff like would impact his ban or not? Carcharoth (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The theory is certainly notable, which is why we have an article Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. However, this theory is not the least bit respectable. There is no evidence whatsoever of anybody planting explosives in WTC7. Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the article. It should be noted that that article covers the theories about both the main two towers and the theory about WTC 7 (which appears to be a separate, if similar, theory). The documentary is about the latter. I've dumped a load of links to the BBC articles on this on the talk page. I suspect they are not reliable sources for the purpose of that article, but it is interesting to see the approach taken by the producers of that series (who I think were contracted by the BBC - ie. independent producers - but I'm not 100% on that). In other words, being the BBC doesn't mean a lot here, but it does give a lot of prominent coverage of the topic - ie. increases notability, which as you say had already been established. Probably worth a footnote somewhere in the article, similar to how the other documentary was mentioned (hopefully) in the main 9/11 conspiracy article, though now I look, it isn't. Also, we desperately need an overview article about the films and documentaries about 9/11. The current overview article appears to be the "in popular culture" one, which is a mess. Anyway, by talk page posts are here and here in case either of you are interested. Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass media outlets are in business to make money. They are not academic sources about history. Have you ever heard the expression that newspapers are the rough draft of history? Take a look at old news reports about any significant event, and you will most likely see major, glaring errors. Early newspaper reports about the Robert F. Kennedy assassination, and Dan Rather's off handed comment about the collapse of WTC looking like a building demolition have fed many of the conspiracy theorists. I hope you watchlist these 9/11 articles and do the hard work of keeping the articles free of misleading crap. Jehochman ^Talk 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Until recently, the general consensus was that falling debris and fire caused WTC-7 to collapse, and our WTC-7 article as it now stands reflects that. The NIST report is expected, essentially, to discount the role played by debris and say that fire was more-or-less the sole cause of the collapse. And if/when it comes out and says that, we can update our article accordingly. What we should not do, however, is give undo weight to conspiracy theories for which not a shred of evidence exists - the controlled demolition conspiracy theory being the most prominent example thereof. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:King Arthur#FAC?. I'm afraid that the new rule about primary contributors has led to some unfortunate results. Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please see the larger discussion I have started here on this topic. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul,

Before you put it on the page, can you make sure the Main Page blurb for New York State Route 32 reflects this edit? I have to go now and I don't have the time. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you were away. I've fixed it now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's intentional or what, but you've been adding a (what would appear to be) stray </div> to each featured article subpage (e.g., here), which is breaking some of the new Main Page redesigns. From what I can tell, the stray div isn't doing anything beneficial or of value. But, maybe I'm simply missing something obvious. : - ) Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The alternatives (for sketches mentioned above) is to update TFA by hand every day, or add an extra div before TFA (which will break someday most likely). It took a lot of fooling around to figure out why columns wouldn't float and then undo the tables needed to work around it. Just seconding, would it be possible that the stray div could go away? Thank you. —SusanLesch (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A related conversation at Wikipedia talk:FA#Source bug. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The stray </div> could go away without any effect on the appearance of the section or the main page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2008 looks fine 18 July (the next open date) and after. Unless some promotion script is adding the div, maybe it will go away then. I hope so. —SusanLesch (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When I schedule the FAs, what I do is copy from the previous day, paste into the next day, (which is why, on those occasions when I screw up, the "More" points to the wrong FA) and then paste in the text from the article I'm scheduling. My best guess is that at some point, I messed up the pasting and included the extra div tag. Because I don't check the HTML, it would have been propagated the next time I copied the template, and I wouldn't have noticed. Raul654 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to nominate User:Moreschi for a common sense brick for bringing some of it into an ArbCom case that seems to be lacking thereof. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is new information available stating that obese people are causing global warming. Consequently, because you are such a "large presence" on wikipedia you should evaluate this charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelseanhof (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hot air is also an issue. Raul is surpassed by others on that issue....--BozMo talk 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, do obese people fart more, and therefore release more methane or something? Deamon138 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Meanwhile the politicians gorge themselves whilst telling others to eat less, much less. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An 8 course meal in Japan is really no larger than a 3 course meal in the West. Besides, Africans are starving so clearly the solution is to starve politicians. I hear if they'd just had bread and water at that summit, the world food crisis would be over. Yes the current crop of politicians could do more to help end poverty, but it is not their fault it exists, it is the fault of greedy corporations and politicians from before I was born. I think the reaction to this is going to be over-zealous. Sorry Raul for my political rant on your talk page: I'll shut up now lol. Deamon138 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Any chance of seeing PowerBook 100 on the Main Page within the next month or so? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Weighted Companion Cube doesn't look like a typical Scibaby sock, but he may be some reincarnation of some other sceptic. Count Iblis (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Witchhunt much? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SEWilco ? Count Iblis (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOCK and then stop with the nonsense. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a SOCK, but definitely an anonymous witness :) Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not Scibaby or anyone else you have to worry about. Raul654 (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul, per the discussion here, unless you disagree, I'm going to go ahead and make this split. I don't want to have to keep syncing the two versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Raul654 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

An ANI discussing the usage of an image not appearing in the TFA for Palpatine is being discussed. As you are the Director of such, you might wish to contribute to that discussion, located here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AN, not AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me; no misdirection was intended. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed some problems with Parallel computing, which I have noted at Talk:Parallel_computing#Some_problems_with_this_article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied again at the Talk page to your comments. Let me know if you need help finding some more reliable sources. I would also be glad to help expand the History section, and possibly start a History of parallel computing article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that User:Ceiling Cat should be appearing in the (article) category Category:Critically endangered species. This removal would require a bit of template-fiddling, I suspect. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 14:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Or substituting the template in and removing the offending category. Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of To Althea, from Prison, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.4literature.net/Richard_Lovelace/To_Althea_from_Prison. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The text is from the poem, written in 1642, and is in the public domain. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do - but I'm off for a short while now. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - DYK next. The various subjects making up the Life of Christ in art is something I'm slowly working on. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested it for DYK :) Raul654 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I know you watch everyone and everything... but just curious... how many people are watching Guitar Hero article? Is every FA of the day that "active"? I'd think though that some FAs are more featured than the others :P Lucifer (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some featured articles are more active than others. The more an article is quirky and/or appeals to popular sentiment (most video games do the latter), the more attention it attracts. And I suspect a greater-than-average number of people are watch that particular article. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thought so. And we can see it in action! Most of the edits to todays article are regular edits. And ofcourse, it being featured is invariably attracting more edits.. and lots of minor ones at that... Lucifer (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I don't know how to check this, or how that might have happened? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If this helps: [1] Pagrashtak 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sex Pistols were on the main page sometime around 2004 - I specifically remember them being up. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been going month-by-month in the archives, but I can't find them yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the "what links here" from the sex pistols article and it wasn't listed there either. Raul654 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess we leave it be? I can't find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of Punk rock, which was up in March 2004, and linked to Sex Pistols in the blurb? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like Sex Pistols is in the archives from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2004 backwards; I went back a few months but couldn't find it. Gary King (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some months ago I had a script check the first bold link in every TFA subpage and verify/add that the corresponding talk page had a matching maindate= parameter. If the talk page does not have maindate=, it wasn't in a TFA subpage as they existed in April 2008. (This check did not exclude the possibility that some talk pages have maindate= pointing to an incorrect TFA blurb.) I also have a list of the articles checked, and "sex pistols" isn't there.Gimmetrow 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope somebody brought pizza and Dr. Pepper :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Scripts don't need to sleep :) Gimmetrow 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2003 lists it as being "Promoted in October 2003 and before" with it as not being on the main page. Halgin (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'm thinking of the punk rock main page blurb. I guess it stays marked as not-been-on-main-page until someone proves otherwise. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to look after the Robert Burns & Paul Klee articles at least, but am tied down with FAR for a bit. So a week or so, and sure. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the date set to 24 July? I scheduled it for 19 October, because that's when it became a national park as discussed on the FA of the day requests talk page. Is it possible you could find another article for this date and postpone Exmoor? bsrboy (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bsrboy, the WP:TFA/R page is not where "scheduling" is done; it's where requests are submitted, subject to a five-request limit. The advice you were given there is that you'd have the best chance of getting one of the five slots on that date; that Raul scheduled it sooner shouldn't be a problem. For Raul to re-schedule is a huge amount of work; I recommend keeping the slot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's too much work then that's fine, but I would just like to inform you that it became a national park on 19 October 1954. bsrboy (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't always have to be a date connection; that's just one factor in mainpage scheduling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I look forward to 24 July then. (unless it changes) bsrboy (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#New proposed changes. Confusion about definition of "basic subject matter for a twelve-year-old", several other proposals, and in particular, can you look at Item F regarding the 30-day period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

About the point for what a 12-year-old might write a report on - yes, it should be changed! It's *really* subjective and needs to be replaced with something objective. (When I first described that point, I freely admitted that it was entirely subjective and that this could cause problems, but I couldn't think of something better) And if nobody's imaginative enough to think of one, you're best off recruiting a 12 year old somewhere on the project and asking him to be referee :)

For the 30 day window - the truth is that I don't like to turn down requests, but I don't want every day to be done by request. And the only way I can do both is to keep the ratio of requests to the request window small (5 requests per 30 days in the future). So for that reason, I'd prefer to keep the window as-is. Raul654 (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We are completely stalled on a decent working definition of the 12-yo concept; it makes perfect sense to me, but issues occur because many editors stretch the concept to include the point, resulting in friction. Stumped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing you could do is pick one or more reference works for kids (like this one), and give a point for topics that are represented in those works. Raul654 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm, gonna go dig around in my basement bookshelves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even have to be kids' encyclopedias - just pick a few general purpose, size-limited encyclopedias - preferably online ones for convience, and give a point for articles that they contain. Raul654 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good; I want to browse some of mine to see how they match. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

U know what, u are really strange...u really are! u just do not wanna discuss so that u just move articles to a protection level that prohibits others from sharing their points of view, and i think that they are usually right, but u just do not want to bother ur self discussing. the article should probably be protected from u. No wonder i found ur user name at the wikimania conference today as an example of users who do not use wikipedia the way it should be used. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the future when editing articles, please do not add claims that are (a) patently false [like your claims about Nickelgrass being the largest American airlift ever], (b) redundant [like mentioning Nickelgrass 2 paragraphs after it is already mentioned and linked], (c) falsely cited [like your claims that Americans were involved, cited to an article that said no such thing], (d) cited using a broken link, and (e) written in broken english. And if you don't understand why these things are detrimental to articles - or why edit warring after being told that your edits, being all of the above, is likewise detrimental- perhaps you need to re-evaluate your participation on this project. Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who deleted the claim about the niclegrass when i knew i was wrong. I copied the link, and pasted it, and even tested it, so even if it is broken that would be some thing that i did not know about, and that u should have pointed out to me to fix it. I then asked u to delete the part that u believe they should be deleted, rather than the whole contribution. BTW, i was ready to delete the claim about the american pilots as soon as we start discussing that on the talk page. For my english, i cannot find a rule that gives u the right to delete some thing because it is not well written. u could have fixed it instead, or place a tag that the subarticle needs to be improved regarding the way it's written.

The point is actually, u know all that, and did not need some one to say it to u, so it's very strange how u act. In case u did not know, it's very strange that u are an admin !

What i am saying is that u do not discuss, u just act as if u are the only one interested, or have the right to be interested in the article. Let us discuss the article in it's own talk page, please. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You "deleted" your patently false claim after I removed it once (saying it was false) and you then re-added it! You don't get credit for re-adding false claims and then deleting them. You shouldn't have re-added them *at all*.

As for testing the link, there is no way that this link - http://http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_266.shtml - could never work. Notice the double http:// in front. You did not test it within the article.

BTW, i was ready to delete the claim about the american pilots as soon as we start discussing that on the talk page. - how generous of you. In the future, how about instead of edit warring to re-insert falsely cited information that's already been deleted once, you don't add it in the first place?

For my english, i cannot find a rule that gives u the right to delete some thing because it is not well written. - Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for half-literate writing, especially not featured articles. If it wasn't already perfectly obvious to you, let me clear it up - Wikipedia articles should be written in grammatically and syntactically correct english. It is not every else's job to clean up your work.

u could have fixed it instead, or place a tag that the subarticle needs to be improved regarding the way it's written. - See above, re: it is not every else's job to clean up your work. But in fact I better than that. I removed the offending passage. That way, the featured article you were editing stays clear of tags, badly written english, false claims, falsely cited information, and broken citations. Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is this story about Wikimania? Is it one big gossip fest, or is that an untrue claim? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the "story" : [[2]]

Hi Raul, Please note that User:Mrg3105 has lodged complaints against you on three different noticeboards: [3], [4] [5] over you proposing a different name to Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation and then voting in a straw poll. He's also trying to get me sacked as an assistant coordinator at the Military History Wikiproject ([6]) for restoring the poll after he removed it and voting in it. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

After 3 very pleasant days vacationing in New Orleans/Baton Rouge with my girlfriend, what a thing that is to come back to. Anyway, apparently Mrg3105 is currently blocked and there's some discussion on ANI, including specific references to his behavior towards you and me. I just paged back through his article contribs, and it looks like he does his share of useful article editing, so I'd hate for him to end up perma-blocked. But with that said, his recent behavior towards you and me (and others on the talk page) is flatly unacceptable. Raul654 (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On 20 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lamentation of Christ, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I'm surprised that it only got 2 edits while it was up. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FCDW/July 21, 2008, written by Karanacs, I had only a quick glance, and Tony hasn't looked yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I made some tweaks there, but it's otherwise an excellent history of the FA procedure. Karnacs deserves a big pat on the back for putting it together.

One thing did bother me - I could *swear* I added the stability criterion because someone nominated Beslan school hostage crisis while the event was going on (or very shortly thereafter) and the article was in complete flux. However, I checked the FA criteria page history. I added the stability criteria wit this edit, citing "some recent FAC noms" as my reason. But Beslan took place months before that edit, and wasn't nominated on the FAC until the following month. So I must be remembering the order of events incorrectly. I do wish I could remember which noms stimulated me to add that criteria, though. Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks, added some links, and submitted it; Tony will likely go through again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A little glitch: Pete's analysis referred to the original 110 brilliant prose articles from August 2001. My later analysis of longest FAs referred to the earliest version of the FA page, from December 2001.[7] The difference is Comet and Rudyard Kipling being among the oldest. Where do I find the first Aug 2001 version of Brilliant prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Marskell raised the same question on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. You probably have no idea of who I am, but I have a question about FAs(I asked you cause you're the FA director). I want to promote Bush flying to FA, and I have a question. Two books I borrowed from the library state different things for the origin. Should I just say some of its original purposes, or should I say the actually flights? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two books I borrowed from the library state different things for the origin. - say that there's disagreement as to how the term originated, and give both origins (and cite both sources). Raul654 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read this page! Steven Walling (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Snowcrash.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 27, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just want to mention that, for the archives on Today's Featured Article as displayed here, the article T206 is not the same as T206 Honus Wagner. The former is not even close to achieving featured status. There is still a day and a half left (as of this writing) to make the correction. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing saga. GimmeBot finally took over the archiving of that page (I heaved a huge sigh of relief), and now a Wiki programmer change has busted Gimme's bot work, creating extra work for him. Who uses that GO page anyway? I'd be happy to abandon it unless we find it has a useful purpose. Followup at User talk:Gimmetrow#WP:GO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the archiving itself isn't broken. More at link. Gimmetrow 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been concerned about some of your checkuser blocking patterns and have opened up a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_amount_of_Rangeblocks_by_Raul654. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey raul, I'm not sure if you're still watching the thread there, I just had a question regarding these hardblocks:

1. 207.195.224.0/19 - 1 year ACB
2. 68.27.123.0/24 - 1 year ACB
3. 205.212.78.0/24 - 1 year ACB
4. 128.241.109.0/24 - 1 year ACB
5. 209.59.44.0/24 - 1 year ACB

Other than the first one that specifically mentions it's a range of open proxies, is there a reason the rest of hard blocked? I'm just trying to sort out how to respond to unblock requests from these ranges. Offer to create an account and grant IPBlockexempt flag or...? –xeno (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't use ranged blocks that affect logged in users unless the range is empty of non-scibaby users (or virtually so). They should stay blocked. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So if a seemingly new editor were to request unblocking from one of those ranges, would the proper procedure be to create an account with IP block exempt or soften the block? –xeno (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not all that sure how the IP exempt tags work - they're a pretty new feature and I don't have all that much experience with them. But more to the point - we can cross that bridge if we come to it. Raul654 (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it would basically let the account edit through the hardblock. I'll drop by your page if I ever get an unblock request from one of those ranges. cheers, –xeno (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If it does come up, I think the best thing to do would be to change the range block to no-anons-no-account-creation, and hard block a narrower range (that includes Scibaby but excludes the person who wants to be unblocked). Raul654 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

k, i'll let you know if it comes up. thanks, –xeno (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder that TFA for the 29th is empty. KnightLago (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I performed this in order to remove any complaint from the DYK group because time was slowly running out, you were not around, and I figured you could edit it later. I hope you do not mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I also find it difficult to exercise in hot weather. I usually wait until the evening. A few years ago I almost blacked out when running in the heat. Anyway, when the people at ANI were becoming impatient, I thought that was unreasonable. At Wikipedia, we are volunteers, not employees who are always on call. Count Iblis (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On 30 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article General Board of the United States Navy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul, are you around? Marskell archived the Reagan FAR, [8] [9] and the nominator brought it right back.[10] The same transcluded FAR is now at FAR and in the archive; GimmeBot hasn't been through yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot has come through, so we have an archived FAR listed at WP:FAR now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to remove it, but I just checked and it is not there now. So I consider the matter closed. Raul654 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Joelito and Marskell each got to it ... removed twice, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul, is Mrg breaking the conditions of his restriction by proposing this move? It seems to me to be a continuation of his disruptive behavior over the article and unwillingness to accept what is a very clear consensus over its title. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I banned him from the article, but I didn't specify the ban so as to include the talk page. So no, I'd say that his latest posts there do not violate the ban. On the other hand, his single-minded pursuit of this is rapidly wearing down my patience. Raul654 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be wearing down your patience with insistence on basing renaming of articles on facts and not opinions, but does adding

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please see the talk page for more information.

and

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

also included in editing ban?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PS.

Single-mindedness—Creatively divergent thinking which sees through, over, under, between, around and beyond the warring, polar opposite pairs of realities we imagine with our words, thinking, acting and communicating.

so in fact Wikipedia promotes

dualistic thinking—dividing things into this or that and then making further dualistic judgments about the pairs of “opposites” we create with our words. Everything is either this or that and this is either good or bad, and that is either true or false.[11]

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair warning - if you continue to blindly revert good faith edits without discussion towards reaching consensus (bold-revert-discuss) I will initiate dispute resolution. Demonstratable edit warring is bad form for an Administrator, IMHO. Jaimaster (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you do not stop censoring valid and well sourced edits and deleting useful and well referenced new articles like my "Wikipropaganda" (shown below) I will also initiate dispute resolution. ~~ Rameses (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on re-inserting that nonsense, Rameses, I'm going to block you, as I should have done when I caught your two previous sockpuppets. Raul654 (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to us on the denial catagorisation and "see also" in climate change denial. I have assembled my case against your block warning as intimidation and your own reverting as edit warring here. I am going to invite comment from administrator Misza13 on their talk page, an administrator I have found completely at random from the administrator list and who appears to mostly be interested in chess. You are welcome to respond yourself or request others to do so of course.

I will also drop a note on John's talk page as I still believe his threat to block me for continuing my edits is inconsistent as no such notice was presented to yourself for your reversions.

Jaimaster (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block, but I was going to block him myself and you beat me to it. Remember there are lots of other admins out there if you ever need a second opinion of a block or anything else, to avoid the appearance of blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute, not something which applies in this case I think though, this was clearly a disruptive editor at work. --John (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This [12], from the only non global warming article so far, seems to fit a pattern (one of the wikilinks leads to a disambiguation page with no relevant entry, the other was already in the article). N p holmes (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Has he run out of socks to use? 168.143.117.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he had one hiding behind that IP. Raul654 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar to the move/redirect yesterday that I've never learned how to sort without admin tools, someone just moved Featured articles, its talk page, and its archiving to a portal !! How come other editors know how to undo and fix these kinds of moves, and I don't? I don't know how to fix it or why it was done. There is no button I can find for undoing a move or fixing a move over a redirect. I guess I'm dumber than the average bear, but in the meantime, Featured articles has been moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to retype the old name in the move box and you need to be an admin to move over a redirect page with more than one edit. I also have no idea what is going on and there are a lot of page moves to revert. Woody (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit summaries for the moves cite Portal talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace, but that discussion was inconclusive and there has been no activity in that thread for the past 7 months. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see now, he used the move with subpages tab, that is easy to reverse, should it be reversed though? Woody (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; let's wait to hear from Raul. I seem genetically impaired when it comes to figuring out moves (others have tried to teach me), and I made a big mess yesterday trying to sort a FAC. I'm in no hurry; I'll wait to do anything until we hear from Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this move should be done until the regulars have had a chance to chime in. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale in favor of a confusing setup in which some featured content pages are in the Wikipedia namespace and others are in the portal namespace? —David Levy 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia namespace is for Wikipedia-related activites. The FA process (and the featured pic, list, topic, and sound processes) are clearly Wikipedia-related. They have always been in the Wikipedia namespace. Perhaps a few of them were put in the portal namespace (I'm not sure) but certainly the vast majority were (correctly, IMO) in the Wikipedia namespace. Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what sets these pages apart from portals. —David Levy 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been no activity because the page actually was moved back then. It's remained in its new location since then, and two other featured content pages were in the portal namespace, so why on Earth shouldn't the rest be? It's the correct namespace for portals. —David Levy 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The page was moved by you 21 minutes ago. The odd vandalism here and there not withstanding, it's been at the same place it's been for years. Raul654 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion in question was about moving Wikipedia:Featured content to Portal:Featured content. That's the move to which I was referring. Additionally, prior to my moves, two other featured content pages were located in the portal namespace, so we had a seemingly random mishmash. Why, in your opinion, does it make sense to leave some of these pages (but not others) in a namespace intended for editors instead of having all of them in a namespace intended for precisely this type of reader-oriented page? —David Levy 20:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion of the move have been brought up on WT:FA? Not everyone checks portal space. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the main featured content page was moved many months ago. Was that not a visible enough indicator? —David Levy 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not, since this came as a surprise to the FAC directors and several FAC regulars. :) Don't be mad; let's discuss this calmly. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all mad. I'm just frustrated by the anger directed toward me for a well-intentioned undertaking that was easily reversed. I appreciate your call for calmness.  :) —David Levy 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably partly my fault, David. I got in the middle of fixing a FAC just last night when the nominator moved the article, and when he moved it back halfway through my fixes, I was unable to put Humpty Dumpty back together since I don't have admin tools. I started the section here as a "grrrr ... " because of my own frustration about understanding moves over redirects, and that set a bad tone for the discussion. For that, I apologize. Perhaps we should now find a better place to hold a broader discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's clear that I should have done that in the first place. I'd be very surprised if there weren't consensus to have all of the pages in question in one namespace or the other. —David Levy 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Namespace for featured content pages. —David Levy 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. David Levy has moved them again, so I'll take the evening off :-) Looking at featured content, best I can tell, Articles, Lists, Pictures and Topics are in Wikipedia space, while Portals and Sounds are in Portal Space. I'm quite surprised that David Levy has reverted the revert without discussion, and considering the discussions here and on his talk page. (Raul, please change the poor section heading I chose here if needed; I'll take greater care with my section headings in the future, but when I started the thread, I thought it was only about my move-impairment.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the section header to something more appropriate.

David has not moved them again. The order was David moved it to Portal with subpages, I moved it to Wikipedia (without subpages), I self-reverted, then moved it back to Wikipedia with subpages. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks (don't know where I picked up a record of a non-existent extra step; perhaps two tabs open, and looking at older tab.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no intention of reverting. I mistakenly regarded these moves as uncontroversial and wouldn't have carried them out if I'd known otherwise. —David Levy 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, getting back to the point at hand - I'm not committed one way or the other to where it should go. I agree that we should be consistent, but I think the Wikipedia namespace is a more appropriate than the portal namespace for all featured content. I am sure, however, that David should not have moved it based on a 7-month old discussion in an obscure location without letting the FA people know ahead of time. Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I cited the discussion to point out the reason why the original move was performed back then. I based these moves on the fact that the high-profile page in question remained in place for all of these months without controversy.

And I seriously would like to know why you feel that the pages in question are substantially different from portals. —David Levy 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking through some of the pieces now. At minimum, before moving anything related to featured content, I'd want to make sure we heard from WP:FAC (Raul and me :-), WP:FAR (Marskell (talk · contribs) and Joelr31 (talk · contribs)), WP:FLC (The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs)) and the three guys behind a lot of scripts and bots that make everything go (Gimmetrow (talk · contribs), Rick Block (talk · contribs) and Dr pda (talk · contribs)). Some months back, Marskell had some ideas about centralizing talk discussions. Also, the move raises a number of questions. What about FAC and FAR archives? What about WP:GO? What about the templates and instruction pages? What are the limits/boundaries to what all gets moved? How does that impact all the bots and scripts? And, in terms of something like WP:SIGNPOST, how is Wikipedia space defined anyway, relative to a Portal? Just moving FA and its talk page raises a lot of questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Various information/background:

1. The featured content page (hereafter 'FC') was originally created purely as a small 'showcase' portal in January of 2006, but was quickly incorporated into redesigns of the sidebar and main page going on around that time, given an integrated look and navigation structure with the other 'featured' pages, and moved to Wikipedia space in March by CJ.
2. Most of the 'featured' pages predate the FC page and were created in the Wikipedia namespace. The two featured types, sounds and topics, which were introduced after FC were created during the period FC was in the Wikipedia namespace and thus originally resided there also.
3. In December of 2007 the FC page was moved back to the Portal namespace along with some of the types of featured pages. This move was performed by Ruud Koot after discussion on the featured content talk page.
4. Because of its links from the sidebar and main page the FC page gets very high readership (consistently in the top 100 Wikipedia pages). However, because it is generally uncontroversial and requires fairly limited maintenance it attracts little discussion. This explains why the page is described as 'high profile' by some and 'low profile' by others. It is viewed alot, but discussed little.

• I think this last point is the heart of the original dispute. The FC talk page is sometimes treated as a central discussion point for ALL types of featured content. For instance, the consistent color scheme for the various types of featured pages was worked out there. However, the page isn't really watched by everyone involved in these processes... indeed, I suspect alot of people never even realized there was a color scheme. :]
• As to what to do going forward. I think we should first resolve what namespace 'makes most sense'. Any technichal issues deriving from that should be fairly easy to resolve. If the different types of featured pages (FA, FP, FL, FPo, FT, and FS) contained nothing but instructions for the 'featured' promotion process, guides to creation of featured items, et cetera then I think they would clearly belong in the Wikipedia space... they would be purely pages about the project. However, since they contain links to actual encyclopedia content of a particular type they stray into the traditional realm of 'portals'... id est 'pages providing navigation to both project processes and encyclopedia content'. The FC page goes much further in this direction than the others because it has 'showcase' boxes for the various types of featured content... consistent with general portal design. A case could thus be made for FC being in Portal space and the rest in Wikipedia space, but I'd prefer to keep them all together given the common navigation structure and obvious relationship. All that said, I've got no real preference which namespace they end up in. --CBD 22:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That explains a lot. Except for vandalism, the talk page there has only about 25 posts in 2008. I've never even been to that page; I guess I shall have to watchlist it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I noticed you uploaded Image:Sea Gull 2.jpg back in '04. I have moved this one to Commons, but I would appreciate it if you could move any other old uploads of free images you might have made there as well. I don't think there is any easy way to see a list (which there should be...) unless you know something I don't, but you can search contribs just for images.

Maybe you could also geocode this image (assuming you remember where it was taken)? Richard001 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On 5 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plan Dog memo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, WP:AN#user:Ceiling Cat. - auburnpilot talk 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly. I need a pet. In getting through my morning watchlist, I actually got to AN before I got a chance to check all the diffs on my own talk page and find that someone had reverted a message. CNN today announced 100,000 previously undiscovered gorillas in Africa; maybe I can get a pet gorilla for my grrrrrrr-ing.  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Raul, I didn't realise Ceiling Cat was a legitimate sock of you. I came across an edit by Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) on my watchlist directed at several people's talkpages with "spam-like messages" with an edit summary "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ". I then checked it's block-log. Without even realising what the date said, it said the account had been blocked indefinitely, hence why I went to AN to request all the subpages deletion. It didn't even occur to me it was your "cat" until someone mentioned it there. D.M.N. (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Innocent mistake, DMN, but the message might have helped cheer me out of an I-lost-my-favorite-bot funk :-) Sometimes fun is just what the doctor ordered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow - the AN thread is... surreal. Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and getting more bizarre by the minute. I could really dump on that thread, since it seems to be the cat's edits to my page that led to it and I'm curious about how others are drawing conclusions about edits to my page, but I've decided to sit on my fingers and bite my tongue, for once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - DMN, I accept your apology. Raul654 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I'm going to be traveling from about 28 or 29 Aug to 3 or 4 Sep. As always, the travel preparations and the afterburn will consume more of my time than the actual travel, and I may have decent hotel internet access, but I'll be a busy in the surrounding days. Will you be around late August, early Sept to cover? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be traveling from Friday August 29 to Monday September 1 (inclusive). I think we can leave the FAC on autopilot for a weekend. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know how you sort these. Would an article like Edward VIII abdication crisis go in Royalty or Law at WP:FA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been reflecting on the discussion over the Manchurian article, and can only express regret that the debate turned ugly, for which I accept partial responsibility. However, I would like to ask you to also look at your own comment in this post in retrospect. How do you expect me to reply to your suggestion to rename the article merely because the title seemed to you "lousy"? I wonder whether "Barbarossa" appears "lousy" to you as well, but this is a side question. What I was suggesting, is a different title based on it being "less lousy" despite it not being found as a name of this action in a singe source. Don't you think there is a problem when content gets changed according to personal tastes of editors rather than sources? I think there are other options to Soviet invasion of Manchuria aside from the fully written out translation of the original that need to be examined also--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I got as frustrated as anyone whenever Everyking would make a mess at something tense that I worked hard to remedy, by just not bothering to take two minutes to review whatever he was talking about [and I realize it's difficult to swallow him denying such a problem existed —though in fairness(?) to him, that's consistent with his position throughout] but approaching him via a condescending History of himself that can equip him to better "con" the Arbcom (at its current state, far from a feat!), only serves to provoke and antagonize him. So, deep breath, onward & upward! El_C 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that description there because I noticed he was (again) trying to rewrite history in his favor, and (again) putting words in my mouth. As I said in my closing sentence - although it was written in the second person, he wasn't really the intended audience of what I wrote. My concern is more with him conning new users with his twisted version of history. If the price of educating these people is that Everyking gets a little harsh reality injected into the fantasyland he's constructed, well I suppose that's the price of doing business. With that said, though, I think I've done just that so I intend to let the matter drop. Raul654 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"you used admin powers to give someone privacy violating material from some deletion revisions" Did he, now? As I remember it he never actually posted those revisions. Haukur (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, you're right - he offered to provide the revisions, but things blew up before he could go through with it. My mistake - it happened a while ago and I mis-remembered that part. Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he offered to provide those revisions then several days passed without him doing it. Then you desysopped him. Why didn't he post the revisions? He certainly had plenty of time. His explanation was that he simply thought better of it. I believe that, you may choose not to. Haukur (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Did he repudiate the offer before it blew up in his face? If not, then the simplest (and most likely) explanation is not that he changed his mind; it's that he never got around to handing over the revisions. Otherwise, why would he publicly offer to hand over the revisions and then privately refuse to? More to the point, no matter how you slice it, the whole incident flatly contradicted his false claims that that he looks before he leaps and re-affirmed everyone else's belief that he didn't. Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he retracted or refused the offer, privately or publicly. He just didn't act on it. He says it's because he thought better of it, you think because he never got around to it. The way I see it, he said he'd leap, then he looked and then he didn't leap. Haukur (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey friend. I just wanted to apologize for my indignance in an arguement that we entertained on the above article. I am new to wiki-world, but eager to jump in, and I promise that the diligence necessary will be worked hard for. My early statements were unclear (too much time in forums and chat) little care for grammar and spelling (as above) and quickness to publish while emotional (i still miss the flamewars of the old days). I respect your work, love wiki, and feel it is essential for more individuals like myself to care for her as a social/educational movement that could revolutionize access to information. Sorry to have gotten off to a bad start. I am not a vandal, and before actually registering kept my edits to fixing vandalism when it showed its ugly head.

As to the weight given to a phrase or sentance in the first line, I do feel that the original, unedited statement could have been understood differently than you did. I know that is confusing, but let me explain. The original is this:

The Plan Dog memorandum was a 1940 American government document written by Chief of Naval Operations Harold Rainsford Stark; it has been called "one of the best known documents of World War II".

The edit that seems most obvious, and how I had originally read it, would have read like this:

The Plan Dog memorandum was a 1940 American government document written by Chief of Naval Operations Harold Rainsford Stark. It has been called "one of the best known documents of World War II".

Your edit was more appropriate and, in my opinion, gave the "offending" statement less weight in the article. Again, I am not saying that the statement should have been removed entirely (I know I did momentarily, but we are all taken by evil humours at times, thus the ability to edit our statements), but given less weight due to it being opinion, especially opinion coming from consensus. ("Best known," I am not refering to the sourcing.) As the article stands, I would not change a thing. CancelHoo72 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I nominate somebody for one of your bricks of common sense? [13] Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On the TGGWS talk page, see [14], Badger Drink is asserting ArbCom rulings do not set precedents. Since this obviously has implications for your argument regarding the ArbCom ruling on pseudo-science requiring peer-reviewed sources in science articles (when no official wikipedia policy includes such a requirement), I thought you might want to weigh in there. --GoRight (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, would like to ask for your opinion on the article Glenn Morris. An editor, claiming to be Morris' niece, has vehemently denounced a cited anecdote about him (granted the cite gives no proof, and may just be repeating a story). Normally, I would just revert such things, but honestly I feel this editor may be who she says she is, and we'll just end up in an edit war. Even should I kindly, with all good intentions, ask her for a cite, I doubt I'd get much cooperation. Should we just revert her changes, and protect the article, or what? Have you ever dealt with angry family members before? Sir Rhosis (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Today's New York Times "Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the Man of Many Heads" p. B26 has a bust of Cardinal Scipione Borghese (1632) by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. The bust is on loan to the Getty Art Museum, in Los Angeles, from Italy, in exchange for the repatriation of 40 pieces. The bust reminded me of you, having seen you in person at Wikimania 2006. The article notes specifically that Bernini executed the Cardinal's portrait with affection, showing Borghese's "rock-solid stability". That is also one of your attributes, in my opinion. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This one? Raul654 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you or any admin who happens to see this message change "18th century Englishman" to "18th-century Englishman" (compound adjectives are hyphenated) over at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 10, 2008? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, but use WP:ERRORS next time, that is what it is there for. ;) Woody (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just reading through the main page blurbs. Didn't really look at the date. Awadewit (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I am sure that whatever the date, someone would be happy to fix it. Woody (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I noticed that you reverted a move of political content from Global warming controversy. Whether you know it or not, the move was discussed on the Talk page. You were not a party to those discussions and you have given no reason for your revert now. If you would like to defend the political portion of a page devoted to the scientific controversy, you may do so. However, acts of random drive by reverting are not acceptable. RonCram (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion. I see (buried in the middle of an unrelated discussion thread) you announcing that you will be moving the material, and (unsurprisingly) nobody responding. This does not a conversation make.

And, it's also worth nothing that instead of copying the material to the Politics of global warming, you dumped it on the talk page - which is also not acceptable.

As for the GW controversy article, that you have decided it should focus on scientific controversies (to the exclusion of the rather well known political ones) does not actually mean that that will be the focus of the article. Raul654 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Raul. Not sure if you're aware or not, but there aren't any TFA's scheduled after today. August 12 and every date thereafter have the placeholder message only. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware. I've been meaning to sit down and schedule a bunch but I've been slacking. I'll see what I can do about it shortly. Raul654 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just checking. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this proposal to deal with 'infoboxes' and other encyclopedic information that might not belong in prose? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Raul: I know that you're quite a busy person with so many responsibilities but, as you've shown interest, please help in improving the article List of most wealthy historical figures that you commented on in the Featured list candidates. Kindly provide as many references and sources as you can, including references for your Croesus claim. Thanks! --Bugnot (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As you'd suggested, Croesus has been added in the Notable mentions sub-heading. Please provide some concrete references for Croesus claim as John D. Rockefeller is well-regarded as the richest person in history. Regards.

--Bugnot (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the user 'Hellcat Fighter' and have created this account to get in touch with you. Please unblock my main account, there has been a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Returnuser (talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#August_29. Am I wrong in thinking that generally speaking (ignore the specifics for now) if you've scheduled something for Main Page that's not date specific and a good option pops up for that particular date, you're not averse to occasionally amending the queue? --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about GoRight. I do not have a say on what he is posting, just how he is posting. Yes, it seems tenditious. However, a ban from the topic might cause problems - he might resent it, as with others, start editing under IPs, socks, etc, if he feels that he is being pushed into a corner. I say this only because he obviously feels passionately about the topic, and such people tend to act in this general manner when blocked or prevented from the topic. Perhaps it would be best to limit him to the talk pages, so he can feel that he still has somewhat of a say, but also put him on a probation in which he does not attack other people, does not criticize other's view points, and tries to work together with people towards language that suits all parties involved?

If you feel that this would not be good, that is your call, as you have far more experience in this area than I do. I am just concerned about the future problems that could result. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of GoRight's behavior on these articles. Read the RFC - it goes into GoRight's misbehavior in excruciating detail (which I don't feel like repeating here). In short - debunking the false information he repeatedly seeks to put into our articles (global warming causes earthquakes!) wastes the time and energy of other, better editors. That time and energy could be better spent writing articles. Your proposal to restrict GoRight to talk pages would let him continue this misbehavior, which defeats the purpose of the ban.

As for the potential for him to use sockpuppets to evade the ban - I am not worried. Scibaby's behavior means that the people who edit this topic are sensitive to sockpuppets. I don't think GoRight would last all that long using them to evade a ban. Raul654 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But there are groups that would use an outright ban as a cause celeb (as you know, there are plenty of sites out there that cater to this crowd), and relegating his promotions to the talk page would have him waste his energies there instead of finding a more devious use to them, no? Also, forcing him into the talk page would show a clear consensus in the future against including what he wants, which would further justify not including the information. The user doesn't seem to understand how to work with others to build a consensus. He wont learn unless he is forced into the position that he would have to try. Otherwise, he could just push his POV in other areas of the encyclopedia that you aren't around to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added my opinion to the proposal. I started my career here reverting and settling disputes in the incorrect manner (edit warring). I learned that this was not the proper way to act, and I have dramatically changed my philosophy to a 0 reverts position. I believe that this user could benefit from being removed from what would provoke his reverts, but also forced into the discussion so that he learns that the only proper way to edit is through consensus building. I do not believe that I can change your position, nor do I believe I could know as much on the topic as you do. However, I just hope that you understand my position and where I am coming from. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon new evidence, it seems that it would be far too late to keep him from starting down the path of sock puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I advised GoRight on a set of editing commitments that could prove to the community that he is not here to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield. However, I know too many users on either side of the dispute, and I find the current situation rather upsetting. I'm dropping my participation as much as possible from here on out. If there is anything you need, or if you just want to talk, point things out, etc, feel free to say so or contact me about it. Good luck with everything. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LFOD is a sockpuppet (other checkusers concur) but please be aware that I have not said it belongs to GoRight. In point of fact, we don't know who it belongs to. Raul654 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My idea was to prevent him from turning to those who rely on sock puppets in this discussion. It seems like there would be little chance now that sock puppets are appearing. Thus, the above solution would not work, unless he was to isolate himself from the above type of people. With what you said, you seemed that there would be little success of my above proposal, and I feel that there would be even less success now. Please correct me if you think otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, GoRight has been posting (in the Wikipedia namespace) on non-AGW topics. It is possible that he is diversifying from being an SPA, despite claiming to be one. See here and here and here. My opinion of GoRight has gone up after reading those posts. I'm also still wondering how long it would take me to get up to speed for editing in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) topics, and how easy it is for editors who haven't edited in that area to arrive there and start editing? I used to know a fair amount about AGW (from an atmospheric chemistry module at university), but sadly it is probably all out-of-date or I will have forgotten it (it would only be useful as grounding anyway, as sources would be needed to actually contribute to the articles). In theory, as long as an editor can assess the reliability of sources, and knows enough about a topic area to get WP:UNDUE right, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. But sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. When people like me turn up (with slightly wrong or out-of-date concepts and sources), what is the attitude? Tell them to go away, or politely explain the current state of the science to them for the nth time? To help the latter, a FAQ would help, surely? Ah, I see Talk:Global warming/FAQ does exist, with its own references as well. Hopefully people are politely pointed towards that. If I ever do head in that direction, I'll make sure I read the FAQ first. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth here. The attitude towards new skeptical editors on those pages seems to be "treat them like a troll; if they respond in kind, block them for disruption; if not, accuse them of civil POV pushing and block them anyway". In other words, block the opposition at all costs, which, BTW, is exactly what people like Solomon accuse us of. When we act to ban editors for debating these topics, we simply hand the Wikipedia critics a "case in point". I think perhaps people have seen so many Scibaby socks that they automatically assume that anyone who offers any kind of alternate view is just here to cause trouble, and that has to stop. Editors who know the ropes on the GW pages need to act as patient educators, not bar bouncers. If you can't patiently deal with new users who may happen to accidentally bring up something that's already been discussed, then maybe you shouldn't be editing such a contentious topic in the first place. ATren (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight is defending Abd's misbehavior because Abd previously defended GoRight's misbehavior. (See GoRight's RFC). What you are seeing there is nothing more than political back-scratching. Raul654 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is certainly possible for a user not up to date on AGW to join in. In fact, I would say that AGW articles and other articles where controversy and disruption is more likely to occur, it is the very basics of Wikipedia policy that are needed to be a good editor over on those. The only possible problematic thing would be that if someone isn't versed in what is the correct weight per WP:UNDUE as you said, then that might cause you to gloss over something that went against UNDUE. However, I am sure the FAQ is good at showing what the correct weighting should be, and also, Scientific opinion on climate change would be a good place to start to see the consensus for AGW. I'm sure you'll be fine! Be bold, isn't that a good idea to apply here? Be bold and join in the fun! Deamon138 (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly possible for non-experts to participate on the GW articles. I myeslf am most certainly not an expert. The key thing to keep in mind is that 95% of the discussion on GW-related pages centers around the same dozen-or-so deniers rehashing the same dozen-or-so canards. (CO2 leads temperature increases, therefore the greenhouse effect is wrong; the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; other planets are warming, so it's the sun; the temperature dropped in _____ so global warming must not be happening; here's a new paper published by some-organization-funded-by-ExxonMobile that disproves global warming; etc) Once you learn the canned reply to these lies (which are already covered in the FAQ) you'll be able to follow most of what gets said there. The problem is, most people do not take the time to educate themselves and get taken in by lies. Other people who don't understand assume that "well, they're probably both somewhat right" and conclude that the truth lies somewhere in between. Science is not easy, and the answers to some of the above points are counter-intuitive. Raul654 (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"I myeslf am most certainly not an expert." - Well said, I couldn't have said it better myself.  :) (Sorry, I am trying to stay out of this conversation but that was just too tempting.) Raul completely exaggerates the impact that I have and most certainly the level of disruption I might possibly create, which is nil, in comparison to normal operating procedure on the GW pages. The AGW proponents regularly revert properly sourced edits with impunity anymore, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with me, as well as entering completely one-sided and self-serving edits of their own. --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(replying to both Raul and ATren) Agree absolutely. The more people that helped out, the easier it would be to be a pleasant educator and not an over-worked defender. And those that were genuinely acting like door bouncers (as ATren points out) would soon become apparent. It is getting people to stick around and help out at an article that is difficult, and avoiding burn out. I am sure some of the people who have such article watchlisted would *love* a holiday to go and edit other articles. But getting proper commitment from others to take over the watchlisting is difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Burnout... tell me about it. When I was active on WP I'd have been thrilled to get more people involved in the global warming articles who weren't necessarily experts, but were open-minded and gave at least nodding assent to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. This thread is an example of an exchange with a well-meaning non-expert who held a misconception. I would love to have had more exchanges like that. But instead we get people like GoRight who just keep pressing ridiculous things in gleeful disregard of our content policies. So yeah, having to constantly deal with people like that is a recipe for burnout. Especially when there's little or no support from the larger community, or the community even sides with them out of a desire for "balance." (I guess that in a way, having editors who abide by core content policies and editors who who refuse to abide by such policies is a perverse form of "balance.") Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No more hurricane articles for TFA.... Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

<devil's advocate> 68/2178*365 = a hurricane TFA every 11 days </devil's advocate> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe require the articles to be kept up-to-date? :-) Hurricane Katrina is sporadically updated, but nothing like to the quality required for an encyclopedic topic. On the other hand, it already appeared on the main page, so I guess the motivation to keep it well maintained is less... (that's only partly tongue-in-cheek). Carcharoth (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

CLEARLY MAOR KATZ ON THE MAIN PAGE ARE NECESSARY. YOU CAN NEVER HAZ TOO MANY. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we limit them to just Caturday's? k tnx. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been on for the summer and now that I back from a break you immediately attack me as before. Stop admin abuse man! I personally think I'm not deserving of this treatment... but even if I was... the last shred of complaint you can call up is from what? 3 months ago!!! Talk about a complete lack of manners and absolute i-regard for wikietiquit. Please, I kindly implore you to leave me alone and let bygones be bygones. If the definition of being a disruptive editor is going against YOUR opinions and fighting to see balance... then disruptive I am. On the contrary, I help to keep balance on here by going against the most popular opinion. And I not the only one. There are thousands of editors willing to fight to see balance on here... and the only way to do that is to fight our stance... which is opposite yours... and the result is compromise and balance. The sign of a good editor is the willingness to work with others and reach a compromise... something which I have done. I have compromised more than you have to date. So please... consider my side in this... be polite... and recognize that your duty as an admin. is not to push your beliefs as absolute truth... but to be willing to work for the most balanced position possible. I'm sorry if I am coming across as rude and angry. I know I have been rude and am rather angry. I hope that you will accept my apology for anything offensive that I've said. Have a good day and please respond. Your Friend, Saksjn (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you might want to fill in who exactly he's a sock of, and change it to {{sockpuppetconfirmed}}. :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 03:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have already said on both this page and ANI, we do not know who the sockmaster is. Raul654 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird. You're confident it's a banned user, right? If not, WR would have a field day. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not know who the sockmaster is. Therefore, we do not know if he's a banned user. However, the account has already been used for disruption and outright vandalism, so checkuser information aside it's perfectly justifiable on that basis alone. Moreover, I really don't care what Trollreview has to say on the matter. Raul654 (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I've written a rough draft of a dispatch on the TFA/R process. Sandy's already looked over most of it, but I'd appreciate if you could glance over it too. I want to make sure there isn't anything in there that you disagree with. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony and Jbmurray will probably do their thing to it later as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, this is where I would get on bended knee and ask you to add my vandal and troll magnet to the Jenna Jameson short list. I may go running from the building if I have to deal with all that likely coprolalia-related vandalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, Tony is going to go through this Dispatch tonight, in case you want to keep an eye on it pre-publication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I put this article under FAR last month. I'm new to the FAR process, but since I've put it under FAR a few other editors have found other problems with it, while no one has bothered to step up and fix any of the issues. I would do it myself but I'm currently occupied trying to get a seperate pet project going. Do you think it would be appropriate at this point to move this article to FARC to try and get some butts moving on changing things? Thanks for your time. (Morethan3words (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

I generally leave the FAR to Marskell. I see he's already put it on FARC. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sometimes a few days late, but I keep it moving along. Marskell (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of 2008 releases do not have SPV, as suggested by the red-link on this page OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ral315, not User:Raul654, surely? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No no, Ral and I are the same person. Raul654 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good, then you can both tell me what to do about Tony's query here; he wants Dispatches to be Dispatch, which involves changing a lot of templates, I think. Since you've merged with Ral, I'll let you do it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have no strong feeling one way or the other. I do suggest that if you want to switch, it's best just to do it from this point forward rather than going back and trying to rename all the old ones; otherwise, get someone with one of those page-moving assist scripts to do it. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Opps. I always get confused between both of you! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious under which CSD criterion you deleted this page (twice). The arguments for deleting it that I see based on tagging and the AfD are notability and that it's a neologism, both of which are explicitly non-CSD criteria. I don't think this should be an article (I would !vote to delete this in an AfD if more sources for the term aren't demonstrated), but I believe that WP policy requires that this page have its day in WP:AFD. Am I missing something here? Oren0 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it based on any particular CSD criteria - I deleted it because it's patent nonsense, sourced to an op-ed by a disgruntled ex-Wikipedian. And no, we do not have to have a policy to delete such nonsense. Raul654 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of speedy deletion, "patent nonsense" has a very specific definition: "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content." This page obviously didn't apply. As I understand it, we as admins are not able to delete pages just because we think they're nonsense if they don't meet specific criteria. Oren0 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BURO. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any sort of technicality. Deletion policies exist for a reason and they're quite simple. Administrators can delete pages that meet certain criteria on sight (WP:CSD). Pages can be deleted if their deletion is unconstested (WP:PROD). Pages can be deleted if the community reaches a consensus on their deletion (WP:AFD). That's it and this page doesn't fit any of the above. Using WP:BURO or WP:IAR to rewrite official Wikipedia policy is not something that should be done lightly. Deleting the page twice, salting it, and blocking the creator, all entirely unilaterally, seem to me to violate the letter and spirit of several policies. Oren0 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

People were lining up to delete it and and deal with its creator before I ever intervened. So yes, clearly it had a speedy termination coming, and Rameses (after being warned not to re-create it) had a block coming for re-creating it. Raul654 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, would this be an uncontroversial maintenance delete? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avoid weasel words I wasn't around when the switch was made (to only articles), so I hesitate to be a g6 tag on it. Interestingly, since it's not on an article talk page, none of our tools pick it up; Johnbod happened across it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Life is too short. I just deleted it under G6. --BozMo talk 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, since you seem to know something about this, you may want to check this out: User_talk:Morven#User:The_undertow — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to Rlevse by email advising him of the situation. Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This might not be the best place for this but still: is it possible to protect or at least semi-protect the TFAs for 24h+ while they are listed on the mainpage? I am pretty sure they are not even semi-protected while on the mainpage. Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it - I was glad to see you included think tank journals as unreliable. I've added that page to my watchlist. Raul654 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe your closing [15] of this [16] discussion was premature. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, when I closed it, the discussion was unanimously against unblocking him. Of course, that was before the canvassing on Wikipedia Review and the influx of people therefrom muddied the waters. Raul654 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Soon after you tried to close it, Jehochman made a good faith effort by offering to mentor the account in question, which I believe is the real reason that the voting began to change in tone. I personally believe that would have put the matter to rest if allowed to take place. Now, it's just tabled again to a later date when it will come up again. But, at least some progress was made on the matter because more people had a chance to discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Ishin-denshin? It could use some expansion by someone with more familiarity with the topic. Also, I'm pretty sure there should be a link to it from Mokusatsu (specifically relating to its usage during World War II vis-a-vis Japan's surrender) and possibly Surrender of Japan. Raul654 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a citation to Mokusatsu, it looks like it was referenced almost completely from Toland's book. I've started looking through my personal library of Japanese language and culture books to try to find more information on Ishin-denshin. I've done some original research with that phrase, my wife says I misuse it everytime I try to use it daily conversation. Cla68 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Raul -- I saw that you've scheduled Dartmouth College as TFA on August 31. The image you selected was Image:Dartmouth College campus 2007-10-20 09.JPG, which as you can see at right, doesn't show much detail when only 100 pixels wide. Would you consider switching it to one of the ones below? As a Dartmouth student I can confirm that they are much more iconic and recognizable buildings -- and, since they're images with a single, central focus rather than the multi-building scene in the original, they're much nicer at 100px.

Given its aspect ratio, the last one might be really good at 100px wide. Dylan (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Image:Dartmouth College campus 2007-06-23 Dartmouth Hall 02.JPG
• 
  Image:Dartmouth College campus 2008-08-20 Dartmouth Hall 01 - edit 1.jpg
• 
  Image:Dartmouth College Baker building.jpg
• 
  Image:Dartmouth College campus 2007-11-06 Baker Memorial Library 03, crop 1.jpg

I prefer a shot of the campus to a shot of an individual building. I've upped the picture size to 125, so that more detail is visible. Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you happen to have WinRAR or similar RAR reader software that you could handle this photosubmission ticket? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All done :) Raul654 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Nominated the Battle of Trenton for FA status. I did it quite a while ago, and I fixed what was asked of me, but how long does it normally take for a decision to be made as to if it needs more improvements, or if it meets the criteria to be promoted? Thanks.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations last at least five days. Most nominations are finished in under two weeks, but some can last over a month. Raul654 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I added a welcome to this user's talk page before realizing the SP problems. My apologies if I have messed with the proper step process. I followed the hist. of Jefferson Davis (one of the many ACW pages I watch) and made their talk after correcting one of the edits. Kresock (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat it - it's no big deal. Raul654 (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A vandal went ahead and attacked your page. I cleaned up what I could, but I'm sure there is probably other stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

THere's a lot more - look at RC. I'm asking in #wikimedia-stewards now. Raul654 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that when I cleaned up the important templates, it went after me. If this wasn't a good reason to install parental approval requirements, I don't know what is. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gave up on the stewards channel in disgust - lots of rubber neckers who waste my time asking for explanations, but nobody willing to do anything or even investigate the problem. I'll leave it to someone else to to deal with. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Hopefully this will encourage Wikisource to promote a few more admin or page protect more of the important templates. I made a posting over at their administrator's noticeboard. Here it is if you have any insight to offer (especially since we both know basically what this is based on them trying the same stunt on AN/I). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the one program is operating Twinkle (this one does). Perhaps this needs to be investigated and something implemented, i.e. a new privileged that would limit only users with that permission to use automated script (or multiple posts within a very short time)? Is this worth taking to Village Pump? Or how about putting in to the program code a line in which people who say ""I'M IN YOUR WIKI" are automatically blocked? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for a mediawiki feature (to limit running monobook scripts to approved users) that's a really, really good suggestion. I'll submit it to bugzilla tonight (after I get back from the New Orleans meetup) or tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Raul, We are hesitating to renominate (it isn't time yet anyway) Natalee Holloway for TFA consideration on Oct 19, since Sandy (who I know monitors this page, so I'm not going over her head, this is really addressed to both of you) has stated she'll oppose because it is NH's birthday and she fears the family won't like it. If NH is on the short unofficial list of articles which won't go TFA, then the editors on that article won't beat their heads against a brick wall, but otherwise, I think it likely that Kww will renominate it at the appropriate moment. Any advice either of you might have would be very helpful. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Noting (again) that my input at WP:TFA/R weighs no more than any other editor. I believe Raul may have thoughts on Missing white woman syndrome; I agree somewhat, as my views on Aruba are that the outcome in terms of Aruban societal factors would have been the same had Holloway been a Missing Brown Venezuelan Woman, but the story would have been less publicized. I'm not aware of the mainstream media having addressed Aruban societal factors in the case, relative to any outsiders, not just a blonde US outsider. The article covers what reliable sources gave it to cover, but I'd hate to be in Holloway's mother's shoes if the article ran on her birthday, since it reduces Natalee's life to ... well ... one party week. I understand that's what our guidelines and policies say about how we should write about people who meet notability for a crime, but our policy in this area leaves me feeling very uncomfortable for the surviving relatives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, it wouldn't trouble me as much on any other day. It's the idea of running it on her birthday that I find distasteful, because the article doesn't deal so much with her life. I could be wrong <shrug>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason we'd go for the birthday is that editors noted that is a more relevant date. I don't care when it runs personally, but I believe it deserves to run, and it has the points according to the rules to be brought to Raul's attention. You yourself passed it as NPOV, which it must be as a successful FA candidate. I'd be happy to see it run anytime; I have no wish to increase the grief of the Holloway family, assuming they are even aware of the article. Sandy, I've read just about every RS on this, and no RS has touched on that area, which you noted during the FAC. That is one reason why we only address Holloway's doings on Aruba through quotations. That being said, I don't want to get into an argument with you either here or on the TFA pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the article covers what reliable sources give it to cover, and I passed it because I thought it to be within our policies for people who attain Wiki notability via a crime; it still makes me uncomfortable for her birthday. But that's why Raul gets paid the big bucks; I don't have to make those decisions :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So, is there any reason the article couldn't run on some day that has no association with the story? Gimmetrow 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That is frankly what I am hoping. But I don't want to step on Raul's prerogatives. But given that Sandy has said that there are five or six articles coming up in October with five plus points, if Kww and the rest of us are going to nominate again, we'll have to do it for the 21st, to get that fifth point. It would solve everything if Raul chose to run it earlier. But all I can do is advocate for that, of course, it is Raul's call entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I said I knew of five or six articles; that doesn't mean they will be brought forward. And several of them are in the same category, so on similarity, they all couldn't run. Four points should be enough to get the request on the page for another date; why not try it, and see what the community thinks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Any thoughts here, Raul? We'd certainly appreciate a reply. - auburnpilot talk 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings on this one way or the other. The case has attracted so much attention, I don't think featuring her article on the main page will be noticed by anyone connected with the case, much less cause any more grief. I didn't schedule it for the requested date because I didn't watch any potentially controversial articles on the main page while I'm away. I don't find the prospect of featuring her on her birthday per se objectionable. Raul654 (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul: Thank you for your input. I think the three of us will confer and will probably renominate, not sure yet if for the birthday or not. We will huddle up and come up with a game plan.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The thing with the candidate page is that several times admins, who are not familiar with the ITN guidelines just go ahead and post the items they find suitable. In order to prevent this, it is better to discuss all new entries. Even admins. Cheers. --Tone 13:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, don't know who else to ask, is this the sort of situation when a range block might be applied? Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ecrone. I've spent the better part of several days dealing with this and the sock/vandal/whatever at WP:TFA/R (which could be DavidYork71 (talk · contribs), considering the Mumia Abu-Jamal submissions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this has been dealt with already. Raul654 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Raul. I have made a proposal regarding Dapete's random article tool and the sidebar here: MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar#add_to_navigation, if you would like to comment. 86.44.22.174 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul654, this page was fully-protected by you in September 2007. Well, it was very recently requested at requests for page protection to have that lowered to semi. I've already done that, but I wanted to speak to you about removing the semi-protection too. Do you mind if I remove the semi-protection, or do you have a reason for that staying? Thanks. Acalamari 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do object. Look at the history for that page - it's the most vandalized disambig page on Wikipedia. It really should stay protected. Raul654 (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Most vandalised disambig page" is a bit like "tallest dwarf"... it still has fewer than 100 edits, spread out over 5 years -- Gurch (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that protection is still necessary, then I'll respect that, but I do believe lowering the level to semi was a good thing, especially after nearly a year of protection. I hope that having semi rather than full is a good enough compromise here? That should be enough to stop or limit the vandalism. Thanks. Acalamari 17:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul,

Can you please change user:Hillelg to user:הללג that was created by the process of unifying my accounts in Wikimedia? Hillelg (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is me. הללג (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a local bureaucrat can do that. I get an error telling me that the target account (הללג) already exists. I think you need to go on Meta and ask a steward to do it. Raul654 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Road signs.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Sign children 25.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Sign children 25.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Raul654 I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you were the prime director and decision-maker when it comes to Featured Articles. Can I ask now that you ignore the user Fasach Nua on this candidate page? When you look at the comments, you will see the fair point that I raised in the sense that he has gone around and deliberately ruined FA's etc by bringing up issues that have already been resolved and proven wrong. My replying comment says it all. He doesn't understand or even listen to the replying arguments given to him, he just keeps opposing due to image violations which clearly don't exist. You cannot reach a consensus with him, so I am therefore requesting and warning that you are best to just ignore his comments when you look at this nomination. You can see the results of his deliberate mind-games arguments here. He has clearly been proven wrong but still brings up the issue as if he has massive support, which he doesn't. Just wanted to let you know personally so you can rightfully overlook his opposing of the nomination and focus more significantly on the actual legitimate issues when deciding upon this article. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Showman60 (talk) ? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on checkuser, I don't think so, but I'm not positive. Raul654 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have joined a while before Scibaby was banned, then a had over a year of no input. Deamon138 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

HI, I just dropped by to stub-sort this one (I couldn't be sure whether it fitted any of the narrower stubtypes under "insects", you might know better!), but I spotted that the few blue links in the list of genera are all links to other things, or to dab pages which don't mention stick insects. You might like to make them into disambiguated redlinks. Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through them next week after I arrive home. Raul654 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Alan Turing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I spilled my coffee --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you :) Raul654 (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cheering me up with this! XD Yamakiri ^T_C § 08-27-2008 • 18:47:49

No kittunz for me yet? Lucifer (Talk) 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All fixed :) Raul654 (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Morning. I am speaking on behalf of my Associate Lucifer. He is very pleased. Lucifer Cat (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you redirect to Desert marigold instead of Baileya (plant) in contravention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)?--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved it from Baileya to Desert marigold because Bailya needs to be a disambig page -- baileya is ambiguous in that it can refer to two totally different genera, and thus requires a disambig page. I choose Desert marigold because that's the name the page was originally created under before being moved to baileya; and more to the point, the Manual of Style (which I don't have memorized) doesn't actually speak to the situation of what to do when a genus needs disambiguating. I you want to move it to Baileya (plant) or Baileya (marigold) or alike, I won't object. Raul654 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand the reason for the dab page, its just that several admins spend a lot of time moving plant articles from the common name to the scientific name over redirects, and it's sad to see something move the other way. You're right about MoS not having any guidelines; maybe I'll bring it up at WP:TOL.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For some psychotic reason I've broke my self imposed Wiki ban set after the drama on the Introduction to Evolution article (Random Replicator) and returned under a new name ...while dragging my sweet little children behind me! Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 Should I seek professional help!!!! No doubt I'm not the first to travel this rode; however, I'm reluctant to research this in that it my kill our enthusiasm and optimism. I've somewhat betrayed my flock in that I speak of the love in Wikiland and avoid conversations of the harsher side. That said, should you stumble across any of them with a wolf attached to their throat, feel free to chase it off. I know you are overwhelmingly busy; but we all might get a chuckle out of this! Ummmm.... natural selection? Who knows maybe they will redeem me from the shame of bailing out the Introduction to Evolution project when things got so very hot; if I could have exercised just a little more patience! (Sigh). Well anyway... let me get my Shepard's staff and set off on our mission. Cheers.... and my most sincerest thanks for that star and your vote of confidence.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Raul - I've posted here because I rarely use my commons account, but re an image you uploaded to commons ([17]), I was wondering if you know what variant of Pz IV the photograph depicts? It looks like an Ausf. G F2, but I'm not 100% sure... Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 10:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea - I took the pics, but I relied upon the ordinance museum to make the identifications. In cases where the identification wasn't there or wasn't legible, I the milhist people (especially User:Bukvoed) helped identify many of them. You might want to ask him. Raul654 (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima is arguing at Talk:Rosalind Picard to remove information about the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition from the bio of Rosalind Picard, and is claiming that "...Raul said that the page wasn't notable enough. I established notability. Raul proved that the Times article did not. It doesn't hold weight. Sorry, but you are practicing synthesis for an article and putting more weight than the subject deserves. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)" and "..Everyone can see that I have already proven that it was undue based on what she is known for, evidence from Raul's previous statements, etc. ... Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)" Seems rather a misinterpreation to me. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava is completely wrong about removing the information. However, looking over the diff from the last few days, nothing strike me as particularly objectionable. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, thanks for the confirmation. Ottava has been helpful in dealing with a bit of disruption started by WAS. Apologies for not coming back sooner on this. . . dave souza, talk 11:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I edit without logging in, but today I got a notice that you have "disabled my address range" because "Range Used by Jon Awbry" ... Who is Jon Awbry? I'm the only one using this computer ... what does this have to do with me? Does this mean someone else is somehow hacking into my computer? Why am I being disabled for what someone else is doing? Trackway (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as you are logged in, you will be unaffected by the block. What happened is that you share your IP address with someone who has previously caused us sufficient problems as to block the range of IP addresses he uses. Raul654 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you unblock 90.200.0.0/16? otrs:1881202. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few legit (logged in) users in that range who are not affected by the block. I went through and counted how many anons got blocked, and I counted 12 unblock requests (90.200.198.99, 90.200.33.32, 90.200.78.26, 90.200.15.20, 90.200.163.10, 90.200.161.157, 90.200.119.184, 90.200.50.154, 90.200.246.108, 90.200.220.17, 90.200.72.226, 90.200.128.77, plus the cryptic message on User talk:90.200.106.77).

At the same time, there is still a Tilejoin infestation in that range (User:Pdexal, User:Fourlaa, user:Rzii were blocked in June). There are also other assorted miscreants - user:LeeAmir, user:JoshuaD1991, user:Nepali7, user:Amir Gurung.

I'm willing to unblock for now, provided the range gets reblocked if TileJoin shows up again. Raul654 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He's shown up today, so unblocking is not a good idea. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi copied your Civil POV Pushing essay into mainspace here, in case you care. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to putting it in the Wikipedia space, but cut and paste moves are bad, mmmmmkay? I've fixed the page histories. Raul654 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I realized this week that Saturday, September 6th is the 400th anniversary of the defeat of the Republic of Venice by my old featured article, Alanya. When I went to put this article to the request page I found myself undone, with Sandy and Wehwalt opining that it was too little time for a proper discussion, even though the request page says it accepts dates as early as September 4th. They recommended that I would put in my plea directly on your talk page. Much appreciated!--Patrick Ѻ 05:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Sandy nor myself made any such recommendation, I merely asked her if I felt this was a route Patrick should take and she responded with uncertainty. Patrick was reversed on the request page because he disregarded the rules and sought to keep a lower point article at the expense of a higher point article, which is not allowed. I am concerned with the last minute nature of the request, and with the trivial nature of the event (it takes up one sentence in the article) sought to be honored.[18]. It wasn't even by the Republic of Venice, it was by a military order of knights which resided at Venice. That being said, it is the 400th anniversary of something, and such anniversaries don't come along every day.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the note left on User talk:Kylu. Looks like someone decided to copy your essay to a projectspace page without retaining page history. :P 207.145.133.34 (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've merged my user space copy into the project space version. Raul654 (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am confused, but the archives and other material seems to be missing.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They're there - Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive 2, Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:Civil POV pushing/Archive 4 Raul654 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you're listed at Special:ListUsers/suppress, and your active, so I choose you! Anyways, can you oversight the following [19][20][21]? Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You fast! Thank you very much. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul654:

I just returned from an emergency extended vacation. When I left a couple years ago I was an Arbcom clerk and an administrator. Do I need to/ should I go through a RfC or RfA for any of those things? Tznkai (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't leave under questionable circumstances, so I don't see why you would need to. Do you want me to restore your admin bit? Raul654 (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I never lost it. I'm going to go reintroduce myself to the ArbCom then.--Tznkai (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he still has his admin bit. See thread I'm starting on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you unsuccessfully nominated this image [22] for featured a few years ago. I recently found a book with more information and context for the photo which I've added [23]. Perhaps the new information will help it have more of a chance to make it if renominated, but wanted to give you the chance to do so since you were the original nominator. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Cla's talk page. Raul654 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem with that chart to me. I'll try to find a more accurate chart and replace it. I'll go ahead and nominate the image and see how it goes. Cla68 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a replacement here Raul654 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I'm not following this. First, I still see the same (old) number displayed on the main page; I'm not seeing the change. Second, do we need to adjust WP:FA and WP:FAS (and footnote WP:FAS to reflect the change in methodology on the percent)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was changed earlier today, but has since been changed back. The issue is that the number 6,907,630 includes disambiguation pages. It just depends what you want to measure, I suppose. What do we intend by using the word "article" to apply to something like Hippo (disambiguation)? It's in article space, yes, but the primary meaning of the English word article would not really apply to such a disambiguation page. If Hippo (disambiguation) is an article it's certainly an example of an article that could never become Featured, or else I would have tried :) (Of course, it's arguable if "article" would apply to a lot of single sentence stubs and perhaps certain lists even.) Anyways, I wasn't involved in any of the changes. I just saw the change to the Main Page and posted on the Signpost about it. --JayHenry (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, could you take a look at this and let me know if there's anything that can be done? The account is linked to my RL identity so it would be easy to verify that I'm the owner, if that matters. Thanks. Raymond Arritt, editing for the moment as Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Basil's talk page. Raul654 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, my house may be flooded by Hanna or without power soon, and I haven't yet caught up with either e-mail or on-Wiki since my travel this week.

Although the work is almost entirely Ottava Rima's and Malleus Fatuorum's, I was listed as co-nominator on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson (over my objections) because of my high edit count resulting from watching and cleaning up that article literally since the day I joined Wiki, and because I contributed on the Tourette syndrome sections. According to articlestats, I have the highest edit count; I've recused because of my involvement in the article.

It's at the bottom of the FAC page now, with 13, 14 15 Supports and 2 Opposes at about two and a half weeks. We are unable to decipher how to satisfy one of the Opposes.

If I happen to disappear for a few days, it's because of Hanna. Fingers crossed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, PS, in case I forget; Johnson has a 300th birthday next year, so if he makes FA, he hopefully won't run on the mainpage until then. Big celebrations are planned; Ottava has the website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On 9/11 mainpage. [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted before I got to it. Nothing to worry about, though. Raul654 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your entry has been rolled back by me because this orchid is not a natural species accepted by the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew [25]. I suppose it is a commercial variety (such as Baldan's Kaleidoscope) or a hybrid. Anyway, it has not been properly registered yet. As the epithet Kaleidoscope is written with a capital letter, that's another indication that this is not a natural species. Therefore, it does not belong in the list of (natural) species of Phalaenopsis. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After some googling, according to this, phalaenopsis kaleidoscope is an artificial hybrid created by Mary Lista. I created the link so I have somewhere to use this pic. If not the phalaenopsis, can you suggest something? Raul654 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. You found the right information. This artificial hybrid is a grex (i.e. all orchids derived from crossing the same two or more parent species; the name also covers all offspring from that particular cross) : Phalaenopsis amboinensis x Phalaenopsis Redwine (the last parent is a commercial variety). There must be hundreds of such artificial hybrids of Phalaenopsis and they cannot be covered by this article, which is a botanical (and not a commercial) description of this orchid genus. As far as I know there no articles in wikipedia about artificial orchid hybrids (there must be many thousands of them). Too bad, but I see no use for your nice photo of this orchid. But keep on making photos in botanical gardens, because most of such photos are useful. JoJan (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Followed up at User talk:JoJan. Raul654 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I can recall wikipedias policy is to refer to countries under their legal name as it is accepted by the UN. however if one looks at the todays 7/9/08 first page/on this day section on will propably see "independence day of Republic of Macedonia"... however there is no such state as this. THE OFFICIAL NAME IS: Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia F.Y.R.O.M. May I remind you also that the are currently negotiations taking place for the removal of continuation of the "Macedonia" bit in the name. Wikipedias neutrality policy dictates that the temporary official name should be used.... If so possible I propose the creation of a bot to undertake the job of fixing this isue. As unimportand as it might seam to you: 1)it is a breach of the wikipedias neutrality policy 2) it is malinforming and incorrect 3) it means a great deal for the current countries in the dispute 4) it is disrespectfull towards the citizens of those countries and the UN thank you very much for your attention 79.166.26.188 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I promised you a big cat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. just thought Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nica.jpg might interest you since it's about your photos of Wikipedia's Golden Nica. /Lokal_Profil 19:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I wanted to ask you because you have experience with how some of the more.... potentially controversial(?) pages turn out. Anyway, I noticed that the "entombment of Christ" page does not exist. I have plenty of information to create said page. However, based on who I am, there is obvious CoI/bias and I would heavily rely on certain Christian texts. Should I even bother? Should I attempt to approach such a thing? There are plenty of other pages for me to work on that do exist and need clean up, but it seems like a rather obvious gap. Should I put something together in a sandbox, link it some where and let people pick and choose information? For the work that I am completing on Byron, I have mostly pursued that in order to try and avoid controversy, but I am sure this is a more delicate subject area. There is always the possibility that I should just duck and cover from such a topic. :) Thanks for any advice you can come up with. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you've noticed, but this looks like an upcoming attraction on the topic, also here. A good blog so the book should be ok. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to see if I can get a review copy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and create it. I recently teamed up with Johnbod to create Lamentation of Christ, and it was an extremely enjoyable experience. Raul654 (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, can you glance at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état, including the page before the restart, where 1b questions went unanswered? If I'm interpreting correctly, I'm inclined towards closing; I want to doublecheck that with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, after several editors struck their Support, I went ahead and closed this one (GimmeBot hasn't been thru yet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

72.58.0.0 I got a message that you had blocked this address range, because of some malicious user, but this is part of sprint's dynamic address pool, so many non-malicious wikipedia users accessing it from sprint (like me) can randomly get blocked. Plus, assuming he doesn't have a static address from sprint, it will only block him part of the time. Thanks Wmdiem (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just tonight found more editing by Scibaby from this range (he registered the accounts using a range I had yet to block, then went back to using this one once the accounts were created). Therefore, unblocking would be an extremely bad idea. Raul654 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could just switch it to a weekday so that I can have pleasure of watching it on the front page :)?? (NEver around on weekends) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(Done a while back). Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark, if you get a chance, please skim WT:MOS#TLDR, which is about Version 0.7, aimed at recent questions from style people. (I don't think you and I have chatted before; hiya. I'm generally regarded as a FAC person and style person myself, but I'm giving 100% of my time starting now to sweeps for 0.7 until it's out the door, unless something derails it.) In particular, I'd love to talk more with you some time about ComCom's view, and I'll be talking with Tim Bartel too. The No. 1 concern about Version 0.7 among my wikicolleagues is that it might harm Wikipedia's image. My feeling is that that's ComCom's area of expertise and concern, and that having ComCom weigh in on this will go a long way towards defining the problem and reducing anxieties. (Feel free to respond here or anywhere, or not at all.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but be drawn to this page as a sociologial experiment. Five of the current five requests have disputed points; I've started a discussion here. Guidance on how to apply "similar" wrt main page representation might help; I've noticed that editors disputing points seem to be applying a tighter definition of "Similar" articles not appearing subsequently on the mainpage than you seem to apply in choosing the TFAs. Perhaps you can help cut through the definition to something less "disputable". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Firebox on a steam train.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 04:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cats needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NE2 12:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)