User:Raul654/archive11

Orphaned fair use image (Image:EricRaymond.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:EricRaymond.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The above boilerplate does not make perfect sense. However I am supposed to tag as orphaned any with permission images that I orphan, so the image is indeed correctly nominated for speedy deletion – I think I will have a word with the editors of Template:Orphaned. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am new, could I seek your advice..

I am new, could I seek your advice, how could I know two users are one and the same or one is reborn in the new name? Swadhyayee 05:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser Raul654 06:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Karmafist/manifesto

Mighty Raul, would you please undelete this page as you have so many other victims of Gurch's purge? Thanks--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:BahaiLotusTemple.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:BahaiLotusTemple.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I bother you?

Mr.Raul654,

(To Mr.Tony)

I have seen you applying mind to Hinduism shortcomings. My concern is HeBhagawan do not allow right connotations being incorporated in the article. My feeling is, it is due to the article having been nominated for FAC apart from his personal belief to be most fit to write Hinduism article.

I suffer a great deal of pain when Hinduism is projected dimly. I do not want to improperly glorify Hinduism but I want that right connotations of Hinduism find it's place in the article. Hinduism has capability to provide thinking for human religion, rather is a human religion. The philosophy imbibed in Hindus make them tolerant to contradictory views and contradictory customs. Hindus have a very large population. One may experience isolated incidents or groups intolerant to contradictory views and customs but average Hindu is very tolerant, co-operative and helping.

I am deadly against the psyche of any editor of not allowing others to incorporate facts of general knowledge in the name of citation. Though Hindus are strict vegetarians and believe in idol worship, they are not vengeful against Muslims. There may exist element of dislike but it's due to some other reasons. Christains and Parsis though non-veg. have excellent relationship with Hindus. This I am saying to support my statement that Hinduism is a human religion and I wish Hinduism is properly explained in the Wikipedia article.

To my mis-fortune, enough knowledgable editors are either not available or do not come forward to help. I am pretty sure that HeBhagawan is involved in sock-puppetry.

If you observe, he has to frequently edit his statements and yet you could point out poor language. In spite of this, he has been repeatedly involving in incivil comments against me that my English is not good, is full of grammatical mistakes, give a different meaning, my contributions damage the article and exhibit un-fettered authority by suggesting me to edit other articles or edit in other languages and is being supported by Priyanath to suggest me to write blogs or personal websites.

I have principled objections against Wikipedia articles being deprived of free edits. I believe, howsoever good one editor may be, he has no extra constitutional authority to prevent someone from incorporating additional facts in Wikipedia articles that not known to him. It's still worst to involve in sock-puppetry to make incivil coments to serve the malice purpose.

I do not know whether you have a chair of authority to help me or not but I found you interested in preserving standard for FAC and I wish you also hold views of significance of right means behind a right cause.

With due apology for long comments.

Swadhyayee 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony1"

Featured Article Candidate: W. S. Gilbert

Hi! I hate to be a bother, but is there any chance that this might be able to get approved in time to go on the main page on November 18th? That's the 170th anniversary of his birth. No worries if it can't be, but there hasn't been another Oppose in some time, so I'm hopeful it's up to standard now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, not to complain or anything (well, I'm sure you have seen right through me straight away, but I have to try to be polite to the Grand Fromage of FAC <tugs forelock>) but FAC is a teensy weensy bit backlogged... 67 candidates and rising! -- ALoan (Talk) 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes, I'm aware. I'll look at it sometime within the next 12 hours or so. Raul654 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have cleaned it out. I do believe 18 is the most I've ever promoted in a single batch. Raul654 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Busy busy :) Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dundee FAC

Hi Raul – is there a persisting issue on Dundee's FAC? Ydam and myself cleared up all of Tony's points, who withdrew his objection. 2 supports have been lodged (1 by me) and the nom is a month old. If there is something that needs to be done, please let us know. Thanks, Rama's arrow 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Archived FACs

Hi Raul. It looks like you haven't changed the tags on the talk pages of failed FACs not only for this month (which you've only just done), but also for October. That means there are talk pages out there which supposedly link to current FACs whereas in fact the FACs closed weeks ago. I suspect that in some cases even the nominators don't realise the FAC failed. --kingboyk 21:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

More top-secret Aman stuff

This one's a day later (Oct. 6), marked urgent. I just noticed that it was added to the Hebrew entry. Will try to have it translated soon. Best, El_C 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, can you offer any suggestions on how to replicate the format of the document in wiki-form? El_C 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See User:Raul654/test. That should help with everything except the heading. Raul654 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that works well. Yeah, the heading is the complicated bit. I used columns for the first time for the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee entry I translated yesterday. I should try experimenting with that... El_C 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm getting somewhere. Oh, and please have a look at my other question on User talk:Raul654/test#Box colour. El_C 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Enjoy! Thanks again for your help. Best, El_C 08:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

CM Punk

I see you removed it's candidacy and am guessing that it failed, which wouldn't surprise me as I thought it would be a hard sell to begin with considering the subject matter, closed situation it was in and the fact that there hasn't been a FA yet on a "fictional" character to cause guielines on how to source articles on characters.

The reason I'm posting this is to query in how the article could be improved? Both of the peer reviews I had taken before posting for FA were extrordinarily low participation and I have been trying to get help any way I can and seeing as you have judged FA's longer than most was hoping you could give me some feedback. Any would be appreciated.

Thank you for your time. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:LordPrincess

Claims to not be a Bobo sock. You may want to ublock (however oddly she sent me an email with the request as well. It isn't clear to me why she would have picked me to email if you made the block and she didn't have some connection to our user). JoshuaZ 05:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the checkuser is fairly conclusive. It would take an unbelievable set of coincidences to explain away the evidence. Furthermore, if you look at Princess's first edits, they are clearly not the work of someone new to Wikipedia. Raul654 05:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I figured. Thanks for confirming it. JoshuaZ 05:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I too received an e-mail claiming a case of mistaken identity and requesting to be unblocked. Obviously, CheckUser evidence prevails. Redux 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC Woes

I know this may sound repetitve, but is it normal for an FAC to have only two votes after 17 days? I put an article (Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. FAC is here) in an FAC and have put a lot of work into it, but it hasn't even been commented on in a week. Is this normal? I'm kinda new with this, so if it's a dumb question you can revert this as vandalism or something.--Clyde Miller 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry forgot to get rid of this.--Clyde Miller 14:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pilot (House)

Would you mind explaining to me why exactly, that my FAC on Pilot (House) will have to run through another week of voting when it has seven support votes and two inactionable objections? The last nom (before your restart) also featured ten support votes and only two objections that were either taken care of or were inactionable. I think the discussion is pretty much closed. The Filmaker 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Apologizes, it looks I've been made a fool of. The Filmaker 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the House pilot nom because of (apparently accurate) claims that it is, at least in part, a copyvio. Raul654 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom clerks

Hi, I've put my app on the page, and I've been waiting a bit.. and since you're pretty high up there, i was wondering if you could advise me what to do.. Note the hidden comment:  :) Thanks — Deon555^talk_Review 05:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

I put forth your request, but the arbitrators thought you might be a bit too new and inexperienced. Raul654 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Coordination related to FA

Belgrade maybe would become a featured article. If it happenes, as a president of Wikimedia Serbia I see it as a very good promotion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedian project in Serbia. So, my ask is: if it passes, please let me know and, please, choose the date for putting the article as featured according to talk with me/us. The same is, also, for any other featured article which may be related to Serbia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, my memory is imperfect, but I'll try to make a mental note of that. Raul654 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look and explain.

Ok, I've let off my steam and I'm back now. So please, could you explain why you failed the FAC on Bereishit (parsha) here, after just four days? Four days in which, I'd like to point out, I struggled to get the editors so ready to slap an oppose down to engage with me to improve the article. Look at their talkpages and see the messages I left, asking them to reply. Why did you close an FAC I was actually in the middle of addressing objections to? The FAC was shut hours after I had requested specialist help on Wikiproject Judaism: why? I really don't understand this. The FAC hadn't been abandoned, I was working hard to deal with it, and it was shut arbitrarily and I have not an inkling why. Maybe you could explain? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Raul, won't you please reply? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(to the tune of "Oh Dear, what can the matter be")

Why, oh why, will Raul not reply to me?

Oh, tell me why he shut down my FAC!

It was closed, down, so unexpectedly,

Nobody knew it was there.

Dev920 (check out this proposal) 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Dev920's talk page. Raul654 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet user pages

Following your comments and a request from SlimVirgin, I've restored all user and user talk pages I deleted that were tagged as sockpuppets – Gurch 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Raul654 02:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about you at WP:AN

Don't know if you saw this, but User:Dev920 has a complaint about you here. Regards, Mikker ^(...) 00:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's unfortunate. Dev920 is making a mountain out of a mole-hill and irritating a lot of people in the process. Raul654 02:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... but I think you've solved the problem in your reply on his/her talk. Mikker ^(...) 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I award this Liberty Bell Star to you for your support of all things Philadelphia.--evrik ^(talk) 04:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology.

Thank you for your apology. I felt that given the irritating slowness with which people were replying warranted a bit longer for me to work on it, which is why I left the messages on your talkpage. Ultimately, however, you're right in saying it would probably would have never passed, and so I will take it back to Peer Review and make a nuisance of myself there until I get some suggestions. :)

Thankyou for replying, Dev920 (check out this proposal) 10:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article and bolding

Hi Mark, just a little detail... when you prepare the pages for "Today's featured article", can you make sure that you link to the actual featured article, and not to a redirection ? Today's featured article is Eric A. Havelock, but my bot did not manage to bold it autmatically because the link was actually to Eric Havelock, which it could not find in the list of FAs. However, pipes are ok. I think it's the first time it happens in the few months since the bot has started running so it's not likely to be a big problem, but I thought I'd mention it to you. Cheers, Schutz 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Main-Page FA request

If, once again, I may be so bold: if nothing more appropriate is in the queue, could Karen Dotrice be featured on her birthday, 9 November 2006? TIA :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are far too kind. My thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On another note

This is the page about English language usage I referred to last week Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations. --evrik ^(talk) 18:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming NYC Meetup

You wanted to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fun – I think I can make it. However, I don't know enough about New York to pick a place. Good rail access would definitely be nice. Raul654 21:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

TFAs

Hey Mark, just wanted to drop by and let you know there aren't anymore TFAs filled in after tomorrow's, just in case, since you usually seem to fill them in within a week or so of the empty date, yet nothing's filled in yet for Nov. 8 and beyond, so wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten or something. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 11:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I was aware. I've stocked it back up. Raul654 19:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well that giant load made up for it nicely, lol!! Have any idea what's going on with the image at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 18, 2006? It's coming out as just the backtext to me. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

quid pro quo

the price for me getting your back on Coulter is to finish up the Colbert WHCD nomination for Today's featured article, that's how this works ;). And besides, he's getting all lonely on that page, he's been on there for a loooong time. --kizzle 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought about putting it up for election day, but that would have caused quite a furor ;)

My next thought was that if the dems take back the house (or senate, or both), I'll put it up on the swearing-in day ;) Raul654 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Realistically though, I would like the first two sentences tweaked so that I don't have to do anything weird to link to it from the main page blurb (e.g, the full title – or something very close to it – should be the first linked phrase) Raul654 19:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Try it now? --kizzle 21:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note, the reason why I left in the "While mocking Bush..." segment that you dropped, it was important to include in the actual article because of the initial AfD's claims of non-notability; many people were like "ok so he mocked Bush, so what?" It was the fact that he got to say it right to his face, the opportunity of which is typically almost non-existant, that made his performance notable. Just some food for thought, doesn't mean the passage has to be in the summary for the front page :) --kizzle 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the summary as it now exists. Raul654 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweeeet :) --kizzle 21:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Sorry; I didn't see your PM until about a day after you sent it. If it's still relevant, please e-mail me. Also (and possibly related), I wondered if you had any comments on Intellipedia. Ral315 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Email sent. Raul654 20:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Chess stuff and deletion debates

As a chess player, I couldn't help noticing that you were one of the players at Wikipedia:Chess championship, and got to the semi-final. I thought you might be interested in the deletion discussion currently in progress. The background is that the Esperanza Coffee Lounge game pages got put up for MfD, and the nominations (logically) have spread to some of the pages at Category:Wikipedia games. Carcharoth 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 18, 2006

I'm afraid the image for this article is getting hit by the funny picture bug that makes some sizes not work: Might I suggest 101px, unless you know how to fix it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

101px is a fine hack ;) Raul654 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

November 11th TFA

Please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 11, 2006. Thank you. Borisblue 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vorbis / Theora

Good afternoon

I run an art website through which artists work together on collaborative projects. I am in the fortunate position of making a choice of which format to use for encoding all media files uploaded, and I have decided that the best choice is Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. In order to continue the growth and spread of open formats, it's critical that this sort of knowledge be available openly, and it would be a tremendous benefit to us to be able to speak with someone able to advise us on the best technical setup to make such a thing happen.

That said, I was wondering whether you might be able to put me in contact with any organisations who have made this choice and been through this process in order that we might benefit from their best practices. Since Wikipedia do this, some advice on how it is done – without wishing to tread on any toes – would be tremendously helpful. I would hate to have to reinvent the wheel in the process of trying to further the spread of open formats.

Thanks in advance,

Oliver Luker

"Disease"

Where did you get the definition of "Disease" that you put on the talk page of the Asthma article. Alec – U.K. 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage dictionary (electronic edition). Raul654 18:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See here Raul654 18:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hi, I had an email from a user with ISP 72.177.68.38 (didn't give a username as such) claiming that other kids at his school (he said it's the school computer) had vandalised articles and the school couldn't edit. I did an WHOIS, but that gave nothing useful that I could understand. A search of the blocklist showed youv'e got a current 6-monther on the ISP. I'm not requesting any change, just trying to see what's happening – any ideas? jimfbleak 18:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive60#Massive sockfarm and User:Interrobamf/Bobabobabo Raul654 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#More regarding Bobabobabo Raul654 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

November 16th TFA

Greetings! Could I request that the TFA for November 16th be changed to Half-Life 2? I was unable to find on the requests page (even checking if it was removed), but Half-Life 2 has been up since July 4th and some amount of time after that (August if I remember correctly) someone left an unsigned post with a request for the 16th. If you could be so kind to change it? Thanks much Userpie 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've already scheduled something for that day, and rescheduling articles is a major pain in the ass. So I'm going to politely reject this request. However, I'll give this request extra consideration when I do more scheduling. Raul654 05:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence supporting comments

• Raul654, you wrote: "I do not believe Ian Tresman's deserve good faith. This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
• The policy also mentions "Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying."
• At the very least, I think your should provide diffs supporting your "evidence to the contrary". --Iantresman 12:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious

As to why James Robert Baker was not promoted to FA (though it is still on the FAC list). It currently has 5 Supports, no opposition, and every comment has been responded to or acted upon.Jeffpw 17:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Football for November 20

I noticed Football was chosen, yet it's talk page doesn't have a featured article tag, and it's been listed as a B-Class article in the Wikipedia 1.0 assesment scale. Is the tag just missing, or is this really an FA? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I noticed what the problem is now, the link Football leads to the article about all the different types of football, and we want Football (soccer), I'll change it, sorry about the mixup. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Okay, so I'm like three months late, but I got EssjayBot III set up to do your archiving per your message from ages ago. I set it to archive anything older than 14 days to your current archive, it will create a new one when the current one gets to 400 posts. If you want to change anything, or have changed your mind, let me know. :) Essjay (Talk) 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds excellent. Raul654 06:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, it seems that something changed while I was out; the bot has apparently not been approved yet. I've reactivated the request to have it approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EssjayBot III, we'll see what they decide. I'll let you know when I know something; sorry for the confusion. Essjay (Talk) 06:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All fixed, it will run each day and check you for the need to archive. :) Essjay (Talk) 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

72.177.68.38 block

Regardng this block: I rcvd the following e-mail from Bobabobabo (User:Interrobamf/Bobabobabo)

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

I'm very sorry!! May you please unblock me and my IP address 72.177.68.38. Please unblock me!!

To tell you the truth, I was a wonderful contributor to articles in Wikipedia "Yu-Gi-OH and Pokemon". The story began when a user named Mitsumasa began creating and upload Pokemon images and articles.

After about 5 months after the start of the articles the PCP began merging the articles (A Man in Black, Ryulong, Interrobamf) i tried talking to them, and the PCP but they did'nt listen. I even tried to leave a committ on their usertalk pages but A Man in Black is the only one that responds to my committ. I gave up until recently students at my school "The Learning Community School" began bullying me, they knew that I was a contributor at the site "Wikipedia", so they told my teacher that they logged in some accounts and began vandalizing the articles that I personattly was currently having problems with you. My teacher Mrs. Lisa Mercato talked to the students Jene', Jessica, Aaron and restricted them from using the school computer.

I'm very sorry. May you please unblock me and my IP address 72.177.68.38. May you please just make it that I can create a new account. It is a total misunderstanding. If you want to talk to my teacher, please email her at [email protected]. The block is casuing the school not to edit Wikipedia.

How can adding images/ creating episode articles and changing a template to keep the images be considered vandalism? I think the block was overdone, for editing 'Pokemon' articles. The user A Man in Black and Ryulong, and the one that I think the mastermind of it Interrobamf were being too hard on me. How come a good contributor like me) be blocked for trying to keep the Pokemon articles up on the site if A Man in Black and Ryulong, and Interrobamf continue to merge and put "check user". I am 13 years old and you are treating me like the Wheels on Wheels are users that just edit Wikipedia using profanity. I hope you will go easy on me…..

I don't believe I've ever crossed my paths wth this person, so I suspect they just mailed to a bunch of random admins. I don't know what's going on here, so I am leaving this issue to you, unless you want me to lookinto it.

rgds, `'mikkanarxi 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has sent emails to dozens, possibly hundreds of admins [1]. Just ignore it. Raul654 03:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Protect today's featured article!

Or not, of course. Some people have been arguing that your treatise on the subject is irrelevant since it's "just some user's opinion". Would you object to moving it into Wikispace and adding a {{guideline}} to it? I know it's pretty much redundant to older users, but it may help educate newer users. Just my $.2. (Radiant) 14:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase a simpsonism, it is difficult to argue with people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. The point you bring up has been discussed before at User talk:Raul654/protection#Policy. As far as moving it to the Wikipedia namespace, no, I have no objections. However, if it is going to be tagged, {{policy}} is far more appropriate than guideline. Raul654 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. It has longstanding precedent, and more importantly it makes obvious sense. In my experience at least, most users who lack the experience to tell a random opinion from an agreed-upon good idea, tend to respect p/g tags. I'll just move it then and see if it attracts any wonks. (Radiant) 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Main Page protection

First, thanks for putting the Eagle Scout article on the main page. Yes, there were a few good edits and we met some new users interested in that topic and all, but I have to say my piece a different matter. The Eagle article was only protected after it came off the main page, by a user I'm not familiar with. The vandal edits outweighed the good edits by at least 3-1. I've read your reason for not protecting the MPFA before and I still totally disagree with it; a) we shouldn't have to fight the vandal scum in the first place and 2) "here's one of our best articles and oh by the way some porn and vulgar language for you to look at"...right. This article seems a better and better idea to me and many others. Rlevse 11:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver FAC

At 05:45, November 12, 2006 User:Bobanny went through the FAC and made several strikeouts of what he/she felt had been dealt with. I left a polite note on their talk page that is not proper FAC ettiquette and thought you should know. I almost reverted all the strikeouts, but decided to tell you about it instead. Rlevse 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The user was not familiar with the FAC procedure and struck out the comments made by you as he thought that's what was supposed to be done once each of those concerns had been addressed. These two had discussed this and come to an understanding about his mistake. 142.35.144.2 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC Vancouver

Not sure if you're back yet =P, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I was inquiring about the status of the article Vancouver in response to its FAC nomination. Hope you had fun at Supercomputing 2006. Lily Towers^talk 23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

master's thesis

Hi, I saw you reverted me returning someone's Master's thesis as an acceptable reference for a FA, that is something that should exemplify the WP best work, that includes being properly referenced. Honestly, I am surprised that our standardsfor FAs allow that but I will not argue with you, since as a FA director you have more experience in FA's referencing standards. In my defence, I checked with WP:RS and did not find thesis to be discussed there. Would you consider raising the issue at WP:RS page to avoid confusion. My gut feeling is that doctoral thesis could be acceptable but not the master's one, at least for the history articles. But that maybe just me. Regards, --Irpen 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed documents (journal articles, masters and doctoral theses) are always acceptable. In fact, all things being equal, I'm pretty sure the average master's thesis goes through a stricter review than a journal article. Raul654 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Protecting featured articles up to the day of feature

It might be worthwhile routinely protecting with {{sprotect}} featured articles from the time that they are scheduled for the front page until the day after their appearance. Knowing that a page will have publicity must be an invitation to any vandal. JMcC 11:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be a vandal-magnet but it also confirms Wikipedia as the "Free Encyclopedia" any person can edit. Rama's arrow 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

FA/FAC work

Hi Raul654 – I'm interested in working in the FA/FAC area so I wanted to ask you if I could help out with any of the chores. Please lemme know – I'll be only too glad to help – will follow your lead. Cheers, Rama's arrow 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner ban

Since there seem to be enough votes to ban me from editing any article that I am expert in, I just want to make a few points to each of the arbitrators personally so there is no excuse that they don’t know what they are doing.

Not one of you have said what the difference is between my case and that of a climate researcher editing an article on climate research, which is specifically allowed by the Wiki conflict of interest policy. Any professional scientist by definition has a financial interest in the funding of his or her research. Climate researchers "make money off of" climate research. Especially in any controversial field, they must appeal to the general public to generate political support for the governmental funding decisions that they depend on, if they are at universities.

Like myself, anyone working for a corporation has a financial interest in that corporation raising money from the public, both through the sale of products and the sale of shares.

Arbitrator Bauder has said that Bill Gates should be allowed to edit the article on Windows as an expert, yet in no way says how the same rule would not allow me to edit “aneutronic fusion” as an expert.

Aneutronic fusion using the plasma focus is NOT just my work. I am one researcher among quite a few in all these fields, just as a climate researcher is one among many. Nor is that the only approach to aneutronic fusion. Someone who thinks aneutronic fusion is a good idea could, for example, invest in TriAlpha’s Energy, which has a competing approach, or a Congressional aide might be inspired to allocate some money to University of Illinois' effort on the plasma focus.

The case is even clearer with "plasma cosmology" because I never have, unfortunately, gotten funding for this work (except my brief stint at European Southern Observatory.)

Quite clearly no general rule seems to be operating here, at least none that any of you have chosen to defend, that distinguishes my case from that of any other professional expert who makes a living from their research.

My only conclusion is that the intent is simply censorship—to eliminate all those promoting certain viewpoints, specifically on cosmology, from Wikipedia. I assume that if I am banned for conflict on interest, anyone who in any way supports a similar viewpoint will be banned as my “meat puppet”.

If I am mistaken and you actually do have some way of showing how a general rule would lead to my banning, but not the a banning of every other professional scientist, I hope you will post it on the proposed decision talk page.

Eric LernerElerner 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tyrone Biggums.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Tyrone Biggums.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your block of 72.160.0.0/16

We've gotten complaints at OTRS. This is more than just a University. Consider account creation. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I considered this very carefully when I made that block in the first place. The range (which is not a University but a normal ISP) is not all that active except for BluAardvark, and as I found out last week, he spent most of late October and early November registering over 150 sockpuppets(!) and using them to abuse users/admins and vandalize. You can dig through the ANI archives if you want the full list.

The current range block (which blocks anon editing or account registration in that range but allows existing accounts to edit) was a compromise from the full block I intended to issue. In short, there are only a handful of good users in that range, and they already have accounts. Until and unless I get confirmation from the ISP that Blu won't be bothering us again, I'm keeping that range blocked. Raul654 04:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks

just wanted to say thanks for helping get Colbert up on Today's Featured Article, although apparantly that makes you an "over-zealous leftist administrator" :) --kizzle 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin action summaries

Please remember to use action summaries when preforming admin actions :) -- Tawker 19:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Belgrade

I see that Belgrade is going to be the main page featured article on the 24th. If you have nothing against, I would like to give you an edited version of the text someone has prepared to go on the main page, because it currently reads like machine gun prose. // estavisti 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's close to what the intro says, I'll be happy to use what you guys want. Raul654 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Tamil Nadu

Hi Raul. You added History of Tamil Nadu here but didn't add the featured template to the article's talk page or mention it here. Is the article promoted? Or is the FAC still on? - Aksi_great (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake – I was promoting and somehow it slipped through the cracks. I've finished promoting it now. Raul654 13:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent you a quick e-mail...

...let me know. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information

About Belgrade as featured article. We will try to organize promotion of Wikipedia in Belgrade as better as possible. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

You know a lot about feature articles status. Maybe you can help with the project's B-class articles? Kingjeff 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Harold Pinter.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Harold Pinter.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NYScholar 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn you Raul, you uploaded a fair-use image three years ago and didn't give a rationale! You should be desysopped! Debureaucratted! Decheckusered! Deoversighted! Dearbitratored! De-featured-article-directored! Decabaled! Decapitated! Circumsized! ;) Essjay (Talk) 09:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a joke and no jokes should be made about it. The message above was a template found in the image in question; see {{no rationale|month=November|day=24|year=2006}} The uploader (Raul654) according to his signature in the image history) needs to provide a rationale or delete the image entirely from Wikipedia Commons, as it is violating copyrights and not within fair use without any or a convincing rationale for fair use given. It is entirely inappropriate for User:Essjay to reply as he has done above. The template asks that such messages as the one that I posted (the template) be posted on the talk page of such uploaders of images with these tags.--NYScholar 20:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh lighten up; if you knew anything about Raul654 or myself, you'd know we both take the fair use policy very seriously, and are both quite experienced with it, what with being long-time en admins and Commons admins. The fact of the matter is, Raul uploaded the image long before fair use was an issue on Wikipedia, and he's not given it a second thought since then; somebody uploaded a new image over it, and a third person went back and reverted it yesterday, triggering you to tell him it needed a rationale. He'll get to it when he's next around, and if in the meantime, we decide to have some witty banter over it, well then that's just too bad. Essjay (Talk) 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Essjay: WHY would you even assume that knowing "anything about Raul654 or [your]self is at all relevant to these issues about the tagged images?! (See WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor.") I was simply following Wikipedia policy--commenting on content not the people making the content; the content of the message to Raul is a template provided by Wikipedia! Of course, I knew you were joking, but there are new Wikipedians who follow links, and they need to know that the matter of this content is no joking matter (they need good examples, not bad or misleading ones). They have no idea who you are either. Being an administrator should mean setting a good example.

"That's just too bad"?! What kind of mature response is that!? Going from the ridiculous to the absurd. . . . This section is about a rationale for a photo. Not you or Raul, or your feelings, or witty comebacks.

The uploaders just need to supply the rationales (which they probably cannot, since the images are not within fair use but copyrighted properties), or (as will eventually probably happen automatically) DELETE the images entirely from the Wikipedia image database. When they get around to doing it. If you know Raul so well, perhaps you can alert him to this problem via e-mail. I don't know either of you from Adam, and you don't know me either. "Comment on the content, not the contributor." That is, stick with what you might know rather than something or someone about which or whom you know nothing. Your reply was unnecessary and frivolous, funny as it may have been. If you want to joke with Raul--do it privately, not in such a public way. The idea is to solve the problem relating to these images; not to make jokes back and forth to entertain people.--NYScholar 04:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the relevance of the statement "Raul uploaded the image long before fair use was an issue on Wikipedia. . . ." See the image page. He is the original uploader; the tag says there needs to be fair use rationale; he would know that (even in 2003, and he's been around since 2003, according to his talk and user page and the discussions on this talk page.)

"Fair Use" has been an issue on Wikipedia for at least a couple or a few years or more. Policies about uploading images have had "fair use" tags and all kinds of criteria that many Wikipedians have ignored for too long, but the issue has been an issue throughout the history of establishing those policies. Please do not mislead people who might come to this talk page via links to the tagged images in the articles using the photos. The matter is really no cause for frivolity. Wikipedia is concerned about potential lawsuits due to copyright violations throughout it. Fair use and copyright are legal matters, not causes for joking. Most people who read Wikipedia have little interest in the personalities of its contributors. They just want to read useful and reliable articles. I would have preferred if the article in question on Harold Pinter could have kept the image that is more recent, but it is not within fair use either. Pinter is a living author, and most photographs of him are copyright-protected by their professional photographers, not in the public domain or within fair use. Images from the Nobel Prize site are not within fair use (despite people's protestations to the contrary); they are both copyrighted and trademarked; the whole issue has been hotly disputed in Wikipedia in previous articles relating to the Nobel Prizes. --NYScholar 04:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, as it doesn't apply here. Note that the tag clearly says "uploaded after May 4, 2006." In all other instances of a lack of a rationale, you should just ask the uploader to provide one, it's not speediable. Raul: The image is now orfud, however, so it needs to go in an article before 7 days. --Rory096 06:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO

I've made some of the changes that Dave suggested. I think the 'notification' is the most significant change – I'll bring it to the community's attention so that it gets followed but I thought I'd check that you approved of it first. --Robdurbar 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

El Greco featured article nomination

There seems to be an issue down at El Greco featured article nomination where an editor nominated an article and does not wish to withdraw the nomination after the request by the main author and a few other editors. I was just wondering how you stand on the issue and if you could offer your opinion. Thanks and hope to hear what you have to say since this is quite a unique situation, to me at least. – Tutmosis 18:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming

Blech. Since you seem to be generally on top of it, JonMoseley, aka JackMcGuire, breaker of the 3RR rule on global warming is also sending me threatening emails to block your edits (which I obviously would not do.) Just thought you might like to know. Here is the email:

I demand that you TERMINATE   Raul654  from any rights or authority at Wikipedia.

Raul654  is  pushing a left-wing BIASED perspective on the page for Global Warming.

There are numerous false statements which I corrected -- backed up by clear citations for each point.

I allowed those statements to remain but BALANCED the discussion with CITATIONS to hard facts.

And rather than confront the hard citations that I provided,   Raul654   HID FROM HIS ATTEMPTS TO LIE in the Wikipedia article by blocking me.

He did not identify anything incorrect about the corrections I provided.

He did not counter with any other citations to the contrary.

He only LIED and said that the matters had been previously discussed on the Talk page.   THEY HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE.   The
first mention was today.

Your Global Warming article is curently riddles with UNSUPPORTED assertions from a biased point of view.


If Wikipedia is exposed as being a nest of left-wing activists, it will harm the entire enterprise.

Trust me when I say I have the news media connections to make the truth clear.

Feel free to post it on the PA noticeboard. I'm just going to ignore it for now. Thanks! -- Marumari 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting votes

For the Joseph W. Tkach article, there has been two support votes, but I know I can get more. The people who worked on the article may not be aware. Are we allowed to ask people to vote? --RelHistBuff 09:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments left in my e-mail about you

Hello! I received an e-mail criticising you when I logged on this afternoon. I have posted it to the Incidents noticeboard, linked above. Can you assist/resolve the matter? I made the e-mail public as I don't know how many others received it and what the correct course of action would be to take. (aeropagitica) 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC and current event

Can an article with a current event tag be a FA? I'd initially thought no as if it's a current event it can't meet the stability requirement. But then I thought, what if there are no longer daily or weekly updates to it and only occassional new bits of info? Also, at what point would the current event tag come off? See FAC for Mark Foley scandal. Rlevse 11:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the stability require *specifically* to avoid people nominating current events. In that particular case, someone nominated Beslan school hostage crisis even before we knew who the shooters were. So my intent was to avoid topics for which crucial information was not known and would be known in a few days.

On the other hand, for the Foley scandal, I've removed the current tag. It doesn't strike me as being current anymore. Just look at the tag – "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." If it is not changing rapidly, then the tag seems inappropriate. Raul654 16:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem :) I nominated Beslan school hostage crisis (nom) in February 2005, almost 6 months after the event. The main objection was references, not stability.

Stability came in about month before. I think it was the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that was the trigger (now a FA, incidentally, but first nominated on 31 December 2004 (!) and then again on 6 February 2005 before it was successful in April 2006). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks Raul. Rlevse 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use on main page

There's been a recent discussion regarding fair use image use on the main page. I did a survey and found that the rate of fair use image use tied to the featured article of the day was ~20% over the last three months (September: 5 of 30, October: 5 of 31, November: 8 of 30). There was some concern in the discussion that this rate had increased from prior months. Your thoughts on this? --Durin 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This month was a statistical anomaly. I've been going out of my way to select name-recognizable FAs, and I think that has had something to do with more fair use images appearing than normal. I try to avoid fair use images on the main page where possible, but there are cases where it is unavoidable – virtually all modern culture is copyrighted. Raul654 16:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just had a brainwave!

Hello Raul 654 ,

Once again I'm sorry for the disagreement in June of this year. Concerning Featured Articles, I just had a (good) brainwave. Why don't you have special days (like D-Day Operation Overlord) placed on their own respective days (so Operation Overlord would be on June 6, World War I would be on November 11 and Attack on Pearl Harbor would be on December 7).

What do you think?

Please reply on my talk page,$

Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala?

Generally, that's not a good idea because it's my preference that the featured article doesn't conflict with the selected anniversaries section of the main page. On the other hand, the solution in those cases is sometimes as simple as pruning the selected anniversaries blurb. Raul654 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Public Art Registry

I would welcome any comments on the story I wrote for this week's signpost. Sorry for not including a link – I was in the middle of compiling my list of news items for the ITN segment. --Trödel 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Main Page FA

Hello Raul, I just had a question about an upcoming Main Page FA, specifically the December 2 date. I requested the Battle of Austerlitz for that date (the 201st anniversary) but was somewhat disappointed to see that you had selected another article. I'm not really sure how this works, but I very much hope that you can give Austerlitz another consideration as I believe it to be more qualified than the current selection. I also noticed that the Battle of Midway had been given the December 1 date some time ago (probably why you decided not to go with another military article the next day), but that battle is in June, though I don't mean to suggest that military articles are selected based on anniversaries in any way. I was just hoping you could take one more look at Austerlitz for December 2; I firmly believe it is more appropriate given the circumstances. Thank you very much.UberCryxic 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much!UberCryxic 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser page of Khosrow II

• Hey, I'm waiting about for 2 months for checking user of Khosrow II Can you please take a look? Here the link Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Khosrow II, Thanks Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI

• Check this out Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2#Press. --evrik ^(talk) 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FA Status

Hi Mark, I'm new to this FA nominations process. I worked a lot on the aldol reaction page. How do I get more people to comment on its suitability for FA, or are there enough comments already? Thanks. Eugene Kwan 20:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about FA requested for main page

Hey Mark, I'm just writing to satisfy my curiousity about why an article another user and I requested be on the main page a few months ago hasn't been on yet. The article is Kengir uprising (was requested here). I know the question makes me sound kind of disgruntled or jaded or whatever, but, really, I ask this in total innocence and good faith. I suspect that it isn't suitable for one reason or another and, if that's the case, I'd just like to know for sure so I can stop thinking about it. I've been telling people for months that it's going to appear on the main page soon and everyone thinks I'm a liar! Thanks for you're time. --Clngre 22:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

a message from a revert weary user

Mark- (met you briefly at Wikimania and Philly meetup) I’m writing to you because I know you are involved in a lot of behind-the-scenes and policy type discussions. I almost never participate in that type of thing; I just like to work on articles. Anyway, I wanted to express my opinion to someone sensible who also has a voice in ‘the community’.

I’ve been contributing since June 03, and it seems to me that something has changed lately. Recently, every time I look at my watchlist there is nothing but 1000 vandalisms that need to be reverted. It has begun to feel like more of a chore than a hobby.

I think that there are many proposals for policy changes to improve this situation, and I am sure that they have been argued over at length. The only thing I would like to convince you of is that something needs to change. This project only works because enjoy working on Wikipedia. I think that most users who stop having fun won’t raise a stink, they’ll just slowly fade away. I don’t want to see that and I hope things can change. ike9898 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dave Chappelle.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dave Chappelle.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Oden 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! (Barnstar and an Idea!)

Here is a barnstar for your continued efforts on Wikipedia

Anyway, I have just realised that you ought to protect the pages found on the Main Page (the featured ones) because they will get vandalised, as they are the first thing anyone will see on Wikipedia. (Then again, ALL the pages linked from the main page should be protected from IP editing!)

Hope all is fine and well,

Booksworm Talk to me!

Thanks for the barnstar. As for the idea, it's been beaten to death and then some. Raul654 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why you should do it. Rlevse 23:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:84.71.120.124

Hey, there. Looking into this user's current unblock request. Was there a reason you gave this one a week-long block after it apparently made only one edit? I don't see any warnings, unless there's some prior incident history, sockpuppetry, deleted edits or anything else I should know about. I'm a bit inclined to AGF and unblock, but if there is anything I'm missing, please do let me know. Luna Santin 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I appear to have misread the diff and thought that that edit was a vandalism. Raul654 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Deriviative Work

The reason why I changed "based on and a close copy of" to "based upon one or more preexisting works" in the definition of derivative works is that is how it's worded in the USC Code 17 definitions. [2]. It infers that copying isn't requried (eg it indicates that "elaborations" are derivative works). Do you know that the quoted "based on and a close copy of" is quoting?

    Steve

Hello

What do I do if a Arbcom is violating:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Hearing

The party who is the subject of the Arbcom has not even responded yet, as he is away on business for a week, and has told me that he got an okay from the Arbcom about this. The case was just opened on 23:03, 28 November 2006.

In addition, how do you force an arbcom to recuse themselves if they refuse to recuse themselves?

Thanks a lot. I messaged User:Mindspillage too.

I will watch your page, if you would like to respond here or via my email.

Travb (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#How can I get an Arbcom to recuse himself if he refuses? Sorry to waste your valuable time, the question has now been answered. Travb (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Raul

I can't help noticing your reluctance to include Macedonia (terminology) in WP:TFA. Do you see any flaws? Is there anything I can do to improve the article? NikoSilver 11:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks! I added a more wikified version here. NikoSilver 13:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Could you please explain your recent reverts here? Coulter wrote one or more columns critical of the U.S. government's response to 9/11. She was particularly hard on Norman Mineta. There is a section in the article on that. Someone renamed the section, to imply that it was about Arabs and Muslims. (They had of course been mentioned in 9/11 columns, but these columns were far from ABOUT them.) Then more Arab/Muslim stuff percolated into the section. (BTW, that stuff has an aroma of malicious editing, since there is a bad match between the what the citations say and what the edits say. I know it's not YOUR stuff, but it IS questionable stuff.) Then the section got cleaned up, with invitations to put Arab/Muslim stuff in its own section. Now you've put the old stuff back in, including the malicious-smelling stuff. IMHO, things are pretty misleading in this section now. Lou Sander 04:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The section is *not* about her 9/11 comments; it's about her numerous racist comments regarding Muslims and Arabs (many, but not all, of which also pertain to 9/11). It was always that way; the name was changed to '9/11 comments' about a month ago, and should not have been.

As to the citations – if there is anything that is not backed up by the citations, feel free to point it out. However, I checked half a dozen quotes in that section, including all the ones I added back, and they all appear verbatim in the citations. Raul654 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When one reads the Coulter columns that are cited and discussed in the section, it's pretty clear that they're about airport security, and that they mostly criticize the government. I would certainly disagree with you that the section covering them is about "numerous racist comments," though she often makes silly/stupid/racist comments to illustrate her substantive points.

Regarding the citations in the questionable paragraphs, it would help if you could point out the verbatim words you found about the Jyllands-Posten Muslim cartoons controversy. When I checked them, I didn't find Jyllands in any context that applied to what was said in the paragraph that cited them. Lou Sander 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The second half of the quote appears in the cited article – "Ann used the term 'raghead' when describing what our homeland security policies should be: 'I think our motto should be post-9-11, "raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."'

As to the first half ("What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons?"), I can't verify that she said it in that particular speech, but it has already appeared in her columns, along with a nearly identical second half – "Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb? If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?" -- [3] Raul654 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe my question wasn't clear. I'm trying to find if either A) the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy material is in the citations and I missed it, or B) if it is NOT in the citations and you put it in your edit anyway.

The Jyllands-Posten controversy involves a blasphemy against the Prophet (PBUH), for which the blasphemers and their enablers have famously been condemned to death. I don't believe that Ann Coulter has ever gotten involved in it, and I can't find it mentioned in the citations you use to support your assertion that she has. I DO believe that malicious editors (not necessarily including you) have persistently and wrongly tried to tar Ann Coulter with the blasphemous Jyllands-Posten brush. If they are doing it here, it needs to be dealt with. Lou Sander 04:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, in that those two citations don't appear to relate to that particular controversy; you're wrong in thinking she's never gotten herself involved in it. Just read the first paragraph of the citation I pointed out above – "The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence." Raul654 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finally pointing it out. The citation wasn't in your edit of the article (and still isn't, unless you've added it). When I saw the edit, it sure seemed to be biased or malicious per WP:BLP, and therefore to qualify for immediate, discussion-free deletion.

Now if we can just get past the point where encyclopedia editors think that saying "camel jockey" turns a pithy, notable column into a hateful racist screed. (They don't think that way at Britannica and World Book. Nor do most readers, IMHO.)Lou Sander 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Camel jockey", like "nigger, "spic", "chink", "raghead", and "kyke", are all racist terms. Period. It may not invalidate her point, but just because she has a point it doesn't exhonerate her from making racist comments either. The fact that you're extenuating such a term is frankly apalling. --kizzle 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Solidarity

I noticed you listed the History of Solidarity second nomination on the featured article page. The nomination title was History of Solidarity second nomination but was for the article History of Solidarity. The History of Solidarity article does not have its featured star on its page, but you did add the featured template to its talk page. Thought you may want to check it out. Mkdw^talk 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Everything's good now. Raul654 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Username

Hello! I looked at your "username change log" and i saw you changed some usernames by "usurping" existing accounts. Does this mean it is now official policy? Can i eventually be renamed to User:Canderous, since that account has no edits? I have put a notice on his talk page. — Canderous Ordo 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

emailed request

I sent a request to you via "e-mail this user" --Rikurzhen 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. --Rikurzhen 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Online?

Raul, will you be online for about twenty minutes? I'm looking for a 'crat to help test mediawiki's ability to reattribute edits on deleted pages. Trying to put some doubts to rest at Wikipedia talk:Usurpation.--Kchase T 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

20 minutes? I suppose so. Raul654 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it probably won't take that long. The question is whether the software can reattribute edits correctly. So I've got a couple of accounts and a page set up to test just this thing. User:Kchase02v is an old anti-vandal sock that I never use and User:Kchase02test is an account I just set up for this purpose. Could you do the following in order to test this:

1. Delete User:Kchase02v as db-author. The page in question has a single edit from that account that should be appropriatelly reattributed if everything works.
2. Change the username Kchase02v to Kchase02vold
3. Change the username Kchase02test to Kchase02v
4. Restore the page User:Kchase02v

I think that should appropriatelly test the reattribution ability of the software.--Kchase T 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Another typo. Sorry for refreshing your talk page every two seconds.--Kchase T 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like the software can't do it after all. Thanks for your help, though, Raul.--Kchase T 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Debatepedia.com query

Hi, I noticed that you went to the DC Meetup, and that you're a dedicatd Wikipedian. I'm the founder of Debatepedia.com, the new wiki debate encyclopedia, and am working out of DC with a group of Georgetown students and professors. I was hoping to get your suggestions, and maybe meet up in person, if you'd like. Brooks Lindsay 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A final block warning you issued recently

Remember Voln?[4] I'd like your input at WP:ANI#Admin plays detective...what next?. I've collected evidence that this editor is the Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Joan of Arc vandal. So far the consensus has been unanimous for a community ban. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied by email. Raul654 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO under dispute

After the Down Syndrome article went up, several users are beginning to dispute the viability of NOPRO. As Featured Article Nawab (and originator of the policy), perhaps you could contribute something to the discussion?Borisblue 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation Downfall

Hello,

I have a habit of asking stupid questions. Comes from being a PhD student. Moreover, my questions are frequently so stupid that people almost invariably take them as sarcasm, instead of the straightforward requests for information that they actually are.

So if you wanna drop a line on my talk page and explain to me why the prettiness of a page is more important than its verifiability, I would be sincerely grateful. I also promise I won't respond, except perhaps to ask for amplification or clarification.

--Ling.Nut 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(Replied on his talk page). Raul654 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 7, 2006

Just a heads up that I recorded a spoken version of the article Extrasolar planet just then, which is the featured article for tomorrow, so you may have to add something to the FA synopsis text. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's all right – we don't link spoken versions from the main page. Raul654 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok, cool, just checking! :) enochlau (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dien Bien Phu

Hey, hope you don't mind me adding some citations and whatnot from the Bernard Fall book. I had to be careful, though, since we both know the book tends to be a little biased towards the French :) — Deckiller 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I also have that book sitting in my lap (I stopped at my Uni's research library the other day and cleaned out the Dien Bien Phu shelf) but any help would be greatly appreciated. Raul654 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

BOT – Regarding your recent protection of Extrasolar planet

You recently protected[5] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it; looks like you removed the edit protection and left the move protection, which made it look like you'd move protected without a summary. I unprotected and reprotected to leave log entries and keep the bot happy. Essjay (Talk) 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Time-sensitive question

I hope you recognize what this refers to. May I have a speedy reply? Durova^Charge! 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

DB-Nonsense Article

Hello Raul I originally reported this to another admin but it seems that they may be away at the moment. The creator of this db nonsense article has created several articles with nonsense content. Could you take a look at them please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All fixed. Raul654 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice work!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RE Khe Sanh

Raul (I love that name) thanks for the complement on the K.S. article. I could't even slip that one into A-Class. Check out it's assessment review, I think you will find it quite interesting. RM Gillespie 14:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment and FA hijacking

Dear Raul, sorry to bother you with wiki-politics, but at my RfC I have just been accussed of 1) harrassing you; 2) using WP:FA for propaganda and 3) hijacking WP:FAC voting with canvassing votes from a Polish cabal :> I thought you, as a person I presumably harrassed into having close to 20 FACs approved, may want to take an opportunity to comment there :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This message is what the RFC is about. Piotrus, please look at your contributions and estimate how much of them are "requests for input", "Ghirlandajo said... so I search for your opinion", "I know that you have had conflicts with Ghirla, so please comment on his latest outburst...", "thanks for reporting on Ghirla's actions", etc, etc. I don't know how others feel in such situations, but I regards such actions as unseemly and incivil. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you use somebody as an example to back up your 'case', I believe they have the right to know they are being used. Your 'Piotrus harasses Raul' example has already been criticized at the above link by several users; and indeed, your posts lacking any diffs like above to show quite nicely what this RfC is about.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC list Template

Hey Raul,

As u r more competent in stuff related to FAC, I thought I'd post this here. Is there a way links to all the current FACs from the FAC page can be auto generated into a template (which would be automatically updated when a new FAC comes in and when successful FAC listings are archived)?? Such a template could be of great use in userpages, so that interested people would know what articles are up for discussion in their talkpage itself and could actively participate in the current FAC discussions which are of interest.

It requires some technical knowledge. Cheers. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: FAC

Dear Raul,

I had a question regarding the FAC for Ohio Wesleyan University. We just addressed a major concern regarding the Activism section by restructuring the section, trimming it down and removing POV language. There are several but minor issues related to copyedit, references and a few other things brought up. I wanted to ask you (1) how we can relist the FAC for the page once we address the remaining issues (2) if you might be willing to provide advice on how to improve the page. Thank you so much for your time! WikiprojectOWU 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

FA schedule

Hi Raul, sorry to bother you...I was just wondering when we can expect the aldol reaction page to appear on the front page? Thanks. Eugene Kwan 01:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here. I did a chemistry degree, but that article has brought back bad nightmares... :-) I don't mean that in a bad way. It is a great article, but very, um, technical. But hey, that shows the diversity of Wikipedia, from Bulbasaur to History of erotic depictions via aldol reaction! Carcharoth 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I think.  :) Eugene Kwan 02:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re California Gold Rush FA

Special thank you for your continuing contribution and for your kind selection of California Gold Rush as an FA. NorCalHistory 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

FA of the day request

Raul, could you possibly tell me how I should request a featured article to become "Featured Article of the Day"? Much thanks, Absecon 59 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests -- ALoan (Talk) 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Media

As FA director you may be interested in a proposal to change Featured Pictures to Featured Media. see here: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Proposal The idea is to keep a high amount of traffic to the candidates page while having separate criteria and listing pages for each type of media. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RE Khe Sanh Again

Raul, I put that article up again for an A-Class review. See if you can get your two cents worth in. RM Gillespie 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Germany

Hi. I was wondering whether you would reconsider your unprotection of the Germany article. The article is currently an FA candidate and so there's quite a bit of work going on and the constant vandalism is a distraction. Pascal.Tesson 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you consider it a distraction on working on FAC suggestion, I'll leave it semi-protected for the duration of the FAC nom (but without the obscene 'this article is semiprotected' template at the top of the article). Raul654 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of templates in FA

Hi Raul, I was one of the major contributors to Enzyme inhibitor. This article is now in the main-page queue. I was wondering if it was now advised to semi-protect the templates and images before the normal wave of vandalism? Thanks. TimVickers 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you are so inclined, you can protect the templates and images. Raul654 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hero of Belarus

Saw your note as I was trying to clean up the talk page – should I also remove the old FAR from Bodyline? I thought we would need a complete record of arhived FACs and FARs, in case they ever went to FAR again. Second noms (for FAC or FAR) often seem to be messed up. Sandy (Talk) 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be removed. I also agree 100%, that for second noms, the system is sub-optimal. My way of dealing with repromtoed articles has been to strip them clean, with no mention of the first FA/FARC nom, and treat them as new FAs. It's not perfect, but I think it's the least likely to confuse people. Raul654 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, done, thanks – will check list of all 11 re-promoted articles, from Wikipedia:Former featured articles. Sandy (Talk) 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, and thank you. Raul654 02:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Converting media?

Hi Raul654,

You were listed as being able to transcode media. Can you convert a .mov into a suitable format for inclusion here? Please respond on my talk page; I'll respond on yours. Thank you! Triddle 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(Replied on his talk page) Raul654 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:TFA suggestions

I see that the TFAs for the Christmas period are not yet selected. If I may be so bold, some suggestions:

• United States Bill of Rights for 15 December (date when ratified in 1791)

• Cretan War for 24 December (per request)
• Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope for 25 December(seems appropriate for Christmas day)
• Arthur Ernest Percival for 26 December (born on that date in 1887)

• Kroger Babb for 30 December (born on that date in 1906)

• Operation Auca for 8 January (51st anniversary of attack in 1956)

There are another 102 (!) candidates at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh – I see 15 December has gone already. Never mind. The 215th anniversary seemed appropriate, though – it is a WP:SA anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Project Mainpages

Hi, I think its a great idea for each project to have it's main page, to start with im working on WikiProject_Judaism, and the draft is here. I would very much apprecaite your help in getting the coding right. At the moment I'm at a bit of a standstill, please have a look. Thanks FrummerThanThou 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos

This has already sparked a lot of interest and you where mentioned. Check out my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 11:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you support putting the number of FA's on the front page?

Hi there Raul, I know this has come up before but I was wondering what you thought of putting the number of FAs on the front page just after the total article count? I would appreciate it if you could comment on the talk:main page topic entitled: "Number of FAs mentioned as well as total number of articles, please" thanks, Witty lama 04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raul, There seems to be support for putting an FA ticker on the Main Page, and even more support for placing it in the FA box. I'm willing to take the plunge. As an initial step, I have created {{FA number}} to see what the suggested wording would look like plugged into {{TFAfooter}}:

You are obviously the key person in this and, before I implement it, I wanted to see if you are OK updating {{FA number}}. I would of course protect the template and replace the occurrences of the number at Wikipedia:Featured articles, allowing one-stop updating. Thanks, BanyanTree 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the idea, but as I said on talk:main page, I'm not especially keen on adding yet another step to the (already time-consuming) promotion process. Any thoughts on the matter? Raul654 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We can modify WP:FA, so you only need to edit {{FA number}}, and don't have to update the number of articles at the top. How does that sound? Titoxd^(?!?) 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely another page to add to the watchlist. However, it doesn't require any more edits than already used. For the counter idea to work without a template would require admins to watch for changes at WP:FA and then directly modify {{TFAfooter}}, but that seems to clearly add to the number of edits required, and duplicates effort. Given the benefit of one-stop updating allowing other users to transclude the number for use in other pages, and finally getting a counter on the Main Page, I would say that using a template would be much more elegant. Cheers, BanyanTree 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Given what appears to be a clear consensus in the discussion and no firm opposes, I am being bold and implementing Zocky's modification of Witty lama's original proposal. Thanks, BanyanTree 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raul, one major use of documentation subpages, as Template:FA number/doc, is that it allows non-admins to add categories and interwikis to protected templates without asking an admin to do it for them. - BanyanTree 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, how often do they need to do that? It doesn't seem like a huge imposition on them, versus having yet another page to keep track of. Raul654 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spam.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Spam.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 24, 2006

Hi Raul,

When we took Banksia integrifolia through FAC, it was pointed out that what was then the opening sentence,

"Banksia integrifolia is a species of tree in the plant genus Banksia."

is largely redundant to readers who are familiar with binomial nomenclature. i.e. after reading the first two words, they already know that it is a species in the genus Banksia, so the rest of the sentence tells them very little. We fixed that for the B. integrifolia article, and I had been meaning to fix it in the B. brownii article too. Your selection of B. brownii for TFA has prompted me to do so. If my change to the article is not rejected, then I would like to update Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 24, 2006 too. Any objections to that?

Hesperian 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hesperian 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Notification of Featured Picture delisting nomination

Hi Raul, an image which you created, File:Wfm stata center.jpg, has been nominated for delisting from Featured Picture status. You may wish to contribute to the discussion here. All the best, --YFB ¿ 02:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Smith

I see this article you started on June 3 2004 hasn't got a references section. Did you use that bio or the external link as a ref in writing this? By the way, I think I'm going to move the article since there's a whole lot of people by that name, so I think it makes sense to have the dab at this page instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I used the external link to the Marine Corps biography of him to write the initial stub. After that, Looper appears to have done most of the writing. Raul654 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus

Concerning this statement. I'm not surprized that Piotrus asked you to comment: that he constantly asks dozens editors to comment on my edits is one of the reasons for the RfC. I'm suprized that you mention some claims of "sockpuppeting" on his part. Could you clear up who made such claims against Piotrus and on which page? By Piotr's meatpuppets I mean a group of users who would support him whatever he does or says. From what I have read on WP:SOCK, meatpuppets are accounts which "may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate". There is incontrovertible evidence that Piotr regularly solicits support for his actions on Poland-related noticeboard. This is quite different from sockpuppetry, no? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

TFA

Raul, is there any chance of asking you to change your chosen Today's Featured Article on December 19 from that Muslim guy to Jake Gyllenhaal? I don't know what connection the guy has to December 19, but Jake's birthday is tomorrow and it would be really great if we could put him on the front page instead. How do you decide, generally, what to put on the front page when? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FA

Thanks for reverting me. Someone got their fix in just before I did, I think. Was that a template hacker? It seemed like the only thing was to go back to an unhacked version, but someone got there before I did. Thanks again. Cheers, Moreschi 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A question

Hello Raul654, I have the following question concerning Wikipedia, if you could help me solve it, I'd appreciate:

I want to include a reference in an article, from a known academic. The reference is not from the academic's university professional homepage, but from his personnal homepage, which indeed contain references. Can I refer to his personnal homepage, or is it not considered as valid for Wikipedia ? I haven't found a way to solve this up to now.

Thanks !

TwoHorned 11:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are referencing something he's an expert on, I don't see why a reference to his personal page would be unacceptable. Raul654 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

BOT – Regarding your recent protection of Template:TFAempty

You recently protected[6] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

XMAS gift

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Salad'o'meter™
	put barnstars here (no thumb or direction)
	n00b	involved	been around	veteran	seen it all	older than the Cabal itself

Battle of Leyte Gulf FAR

Battle of Leyte Gulf has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you deal with this?

This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jack of all

User:Jack of all keeps readding my name to your sub-page [7] It's pretty obvious by the deleted diffs of my userpage and his other edits, he is an obvious attack account that needs an indefblock. Thanks -- 209.214.141.33 (Moe) 09:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire

Thanks for designating the article as featured aritcle. I just made a FA request at

"Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests". While the request looks fine below, the article name does not appear on the top of the list. What is wrong here. Can you please take a look.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I took care of it. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The story behind your name

Your name is Mark Pellegrini. Your Wikipedia username is Raul654. Can you explain the story behind your name lol? Nishkid64 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pilot (House)

I appreciate that you haven't delisted it from the FACs, I hope that you can extend it as I haven't been able to attend to it for the past couple weeks because of real life (Christmas) and because of a stubborn user who refuses to listen to reason who is making unhelpful changes to my other featured articles. In other words, I'm working on it and I hope you don't delist it while I'm looking for people to help copyedit it. Thanks. :) The Filmaker 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Canderous0 to Canderous

Hello! I see you have performed some "usurpations" and i'd like, if possible, to get renamed from Canderous0 to Canderous, since i use this name on the other wikipedias (the existing account Canderous has no edits and i wrote a notice on his talk page, to which he hasn't responded, so i assume the account has been abandoned). Thanks in advance. — Canderous Ordo 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Jan 1 TFA

I know I should follow procedure and go to the requests page for this, but... can I request Influenza as the TFA for January 1? Thanks! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Danke Sehr!!! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 07:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused...

You selected Ahmose I for Todays Featured Artical here [8], then delisted it as selected here [9], but then replaced it with somthing else here [10]. Do we need to renominate it for Todays Featured Artical to get it on, or did you just reschedule it or somthing?

Thanks. Thanatosimii 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone else requested that I run Kroger Babb on December 30th; I've going reshedule Amose I sometime in early January, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Raul654 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I had re-requested it at the advice of the other members of the wikiproject, so it's back on the request page. Should I remove it, or just let it stay? Thanatosimii 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

FA alpha list

First, let me be explicit that this is not a complaint, just an observation of alphabetical oddities. Now that you've promoted Scouting to FA -- and the article is certainly better because of the FAC process--, I can't help but mention that on the FA list page, it's right after the "Prostitution in the PRC" article-;) Of course, it's sheer alphabetical happenstance, but it is still a bit of strange serendipity. Rlevse 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about music

The source link on Image:Handel – messiah – 44 hallelujah.ogg is dead. Do you know where I can find the original site?

Asmeurer 07:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the internet archive has some of it backed up. Raul654 03:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the Internet Archive doesn't seem to back up music files. Asmeurer 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It didn't back up the files themselves; just the html pages on which they existed (For example, this). So it's useful for verifying the copyright and whatnot, but if you want to get the music, you're out of luck. Raul654 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Latter Days FAC

Hey Raul, can you pass Latter Days' FAC either today or tomorrow please? I've neutralised all the opposes and I'd like to pass it before the end of the year. Thanks, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I know you're online, I can see it in your contribs. Can you please either pass the article or explain why you're not doing so? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a happy new year! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

FA bot

Raul, it's the second time it's busted this week – I'm not sure what got it re-started last time, as I never heard back from Jmax. I come up with a count of 1208 – did I miss one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just rechecked my count and I also get 1208. I'll update. Raul654 16:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Spam.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Spam.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Bkell (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thanks for dealing so professionally with the FA process. TimVickers 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email

Yes, please do. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Already replied. Raul654 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nickname

Hi Raul! I'm a user of the Italian Wikipedia and I want to give my contribution also working for the English one. But there is a problem... I want to register using the nickname Nyo, but it is already in use, precisely by an account that is unactive since November 2005. My request is: could you delete or rename the unactive account? So I can register using my nickname. Thank you, bye! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.8.78.32 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Nickname

Hi Raul! I'm a user of the Italian Wikipedia and I want to give my contribution also working for the English one. But there is a problem... I want to register using the nickname Nyo, but it is already in use, precisely by an account that is unactive since November 2005. My request is: could you delete or rename the unactive account? So I can register using my nickname. Thank you, bye! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.8.78.32 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Help desk

Heh heh, you beat me to the revert. Cheers! — Arjun 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I need you help

Mark, I wanna ask you some questions, could you give me a email of you. My mail is david.raddish at yahoo.com. Could you send a mail to me, let me know yours. Something a little bit urgent. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabbitiger (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Evolution FAR

Evolution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany FAC

Hi Raul, could you please take a look at the Germany FAC. That page has become bloated over the course of the few weeks and most of the concerns presented there have already become outdated due to profound changes in the article's structure. At the same time, the rate at which new comments are listed there has slowed down to a crawl. Most recent comments (in chronological order, not necessarily how they appear on the page) have been positive, and I believe that all major concerns have already been addressed, so don't want to give up on the FAC. As to the oppose votes that remain, although I have tried hard, I could not get in touch with the authors. I wonder if it would be possible to re-list the nomination, to begin from scratch as it were. I saw that you did this for at least one other nomination, and I believe this is a good case where the same mechanism should be applied. This way an assessment of the article in its improved current state would be encouraged, and hopefully constructive criticism will be generated. I believe in its current state, this FAC will remain relatively stagnant and doesn't even have the possibility of moving forward due to its relatively obscure placement at the end of the FAC list. Thanks, TSO1D 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FAC closing

It's been suggested at WP:VPR, and something that I agree with, that closed FACs should have a note on the bottom for when closed and what the result was. Otherwise, there's no way to tell how you ruled from the page itself, or even whether a particular FAC has been closed. I suggested something like what is on the bottom of WP:FPC pages, with a single line in bold that specifies result and date. You can see this in action at the archive. Is there any particular reason we don't do this already? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that reason is that it would be more work for me. If someone wants to do it themselves (e.g, go through the page promotion and closing archives, and tag the fac noms and succeeded or failed) I have no objection. However, maintaining the FAC, FA list, FA-by-email (etc) are already a time consuming and laborious activities, to which people frequently – two or three times a week – suggest adding even more work. If someone else wants to do it (your suggestion) themselves, or better yet, program a bot to do it – they are welcome to. But I will not be doing this. Raul654 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems fairly simple to have a bot monitor the log and archive and tag newly-added entries automatically. I'll see if I can find someone to write one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, Night Gyr, but several others have already looked into how to coordinate some of this work to take some of the load off of Raul. A lot of it got stalled because of the holidays, but last I knew, at least Yomangani (talk · contribs), Dr pda (talk · contribs) and maybe Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) - or maybe Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) - were looking into this issue. I agree with Raul about how labor intensive the FA process is, and that he shouldn't have to do another step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that could really use a bot for is the fa-by-email – currently Faraaz (user:Frazzydee) and I do it manually (mostly), a holdover from when it wasn't protected. We feared that a well timed vandalism could go out in the emailing. Now that that is a non-consideration, and automation is really called for. Raul654 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: linking categories

Thanks Mark – you're everywhere! --Bungopolis 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Paulins Kill FAC

• Just wondering...how much longer? —ExplorerCDT 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Move protection of the front page featured article?

Thanks to the reasoning in the essay you wrote about protection of the front page featured articles, I've been unprotecting them where I see them protected. Today's featured article The Adventures of Tintin is a special case though; I found that it is move protected, but not edit protected. I'm not sure what to make of this but I'm inclined to leave it. Do you think the front page article should be routinely protected against moves? ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no objection to move protecting it. If an article has gone through the FA process, it's a fairly good bet that the name is the right one (or at least an acceptable one) and that no move is necessary. Raul654 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been suggesting this for awhile. It's doubtful that an FA would need to be move, and quite certain that none of them would need to be moved so urgently it couldn't await a talkpage discussion. I've also seen a couple of incidents where FA's were moved to a highly unsuitable title on the day they were on the mainpage, which we certainly don't need. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the protection policy already said preemptively move protecting it is OK, but apparently I was wrong. Someone should update it. Raul654 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be automatically move protected. --Foundby 20:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Genesis – Twice a featured article?

An editor is claiming here Talk:Genesis (band)#Isn't this the second time that Genesis has been a featured article? that today's featured article, Genesis has been featured on the front page twice. Can you confirm or rebut this? exolon 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

FA Bot error?

Not sure whitelist is working: question here. Marskell forgot to remove FARCs, someone else did, bot still reduced the count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MoS (writing about fiction)

In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do this

Hello Raul, Can you please check the contribution history run a checkuser on these user accounts. They have apparently been bundled together under one abusive account for convenience's sake. It would be good if you could sort out the issues fairly. user:Clt13 user:Dakshayani user:Radkris user:El elan Please reply here. I will check here. Regards. Sameera Bhat 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DNA reclassification

Hi there. I moved the FA DNA to the chemistry section, since the article concentrates mainly on DNA as a molecule. I hope this is OK. TimVickers 20:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done the opposite with proteasome, which fits in either section, but I suspect more people will look for it under biology since it's typically introduced as a cell biology topic. Hm, we need more chemistry FAs then. Opabinia regalis 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament Building

I'm interested in your promotion of the Scottish Parliament building. I voiced serious and I thought well substantiated objections that the architectural aspects of this article were not yet up to par. Some of these objections were also voiced at the peer review and appear not to have been resolved. I'm intending to edit the article heavily over the weekend on behalf of global traveller afterwhich, there will no doubt, be some horsetrading. The article quality is very high as it stands and I was reluctant to do so but felt compelled object to because of the omissions – IMHO it fails 1b. and you could possibly argue it's going to be unstable for a bit. Wouldn't it be better to let the FAC run for a bit? --Mcginnly | Natter 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to put my point across. I'm not sure why Mcginnly thinks his objections are more valid, than the objections, or indeed support from others, who do/don't seem to think different. I am more than happy for the article to be editted, as long as the current "high quality", concerning the depth and range of facts (that there was when the article was nominated) are not deprecated. Mcginnly knows that I disagree with him, that the article fails 1b – the facts of the building, and related material are as comprehensive as they can be – as about half a dozen other editors attest to. I'm not sure the article is in need of "heavy editting" either Thanks Globaltraveller 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We've now resolved our differences and the article's in good shape. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please restore GPS FA discussion

Please restore Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Global Positioning System/archive1. I understand you probably thought you were performing garbage cleaning, but I believe that the FA nomination had followed the correct procedure and had a discussion. Thehe GPS talk page needed to be changed to a facfailed tag; not simply deleted. This article is aiming for FA status, and I had proposed this new tag to the group and was awaiting an answer (I'm not expecting an outsider to read the whole talk page to find it; this is just FYI). I would sincerely appreciate your restoring your deletion, so that the history of discussion is preserved. - Davandron | Talk 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it needs to be listed on the featured article candidates page in order to be a proper nomination. It never was (and, consequently, it never failed and should not be replaced with a FAC failed tag). Raul654 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but it was on the nominations page December 9th, 2006. However, GPS editors quickly noted in the FA discussion that it wasn't ready as we were in the middle of a major content change. The original nominator then removed it from the nominations page.

Its ok; I actually came here to say nevermind. We'll just submit a new nomination when we feel its ready. But please consider not deleting this kind of background info in future trash keeping. - Davandron | Talk 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I didn't realized it had been nominated. I was going based on the failed archive (in which that nomination does not appear). I'll restore it and put it into the archive (like it should have been).

They want to indicate it as facfailed on the talk page, but there were no comments – it was withdrawn with only a nom, so facfailed doesn't seem right. I responded on article talk. (Bot is stalled again.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank Klepacki

Oops, I accidentally removed the fair use justification.

I edited that because someone pointed out that it wasn't the "cover" (just used on the inside), so the album cover license wasn't correct. I had asked Klepacki if he'd let me use these photos in Wikipedia (he consented) so I changed it to the free-copyright label used with his other pictures. He sells the compact discs himself so there are no issues with an intermediary record company. --Zeality 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Betelgeuse incident FAC insertion fix

Thanks BScar23625 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hippocrates now

Thank you kindly for your congratulations. And thanks for all of the work you do to make the whole FAC process work! -- Rmrfstar 05:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oldest still active

Just to say i have moved this conversation to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Oldest still active. Simply south 15:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge FA

Wikipedia:Featured articles; since Art, architecture, and archaeology are in one section, I was thinking you can put Awards and decorations in Royalty, nobility, and heraldry . I know you are quite busy, but maybe if you give the go ahead some other admin can do it for you. --Parker007 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Klepacki Picture

It's an insert and he's released it (e-mailed me) to be used on WP without copyright. --Zeality 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:WikiFanatic

No problems, at least as far as I'm concerned. :-) Had I remembered that 1ne used to go by that name, I'd have asked him beforehand and, had he said no (which, it seems, he would have), I would have denied the request. At the time, though, I only remembered 1ne → Sushigeek, forgetting about the previous use of the username WikiFanatic. Hopefully, the other user will understand the situation. Although we might advise him to talk to 1ne, see if they can reach some kind of compromise concerning the username. Redux 12:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The source of Mark name.png

Raul, I asked User:Howcheng to temporarily undelete Mark name.png so that I could upload it to Wikimedia Commons. (Currently there is only a scaled-down version.) Looking at the image page, however, I noticed that there is no source provided. Would you please post here what the source is? Then I could provide a diff link from the image description page on Commons. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum: if you could explicitly state here that it is licensed under the GFDL (as it is on the image description page) I would also appreciate that. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did it myself in Inkscape. And yes, it's GFDL. Raul654 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Halloween Main page image

I noticed that this image File:Halloween cover.jpg is not locked. Couldn't someone upload an inappropriate image in its place? Dmoon1 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but the FA on the Main Page has a factual error. The article should say "one of the most successful independent films", not "the most successful." This issue has already been brought up on the article's talk page. Would it be possible to change this on the Main Page? Thanks. Dmoon1 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Myspace

You added blogs\.myspace\.com as requested by Jimbo. However, there are valid reasons for citing blogs and valid reasons for citing Myspace. For example, I work with film articles, and a number of them have directors reporting production information (descriptive points, which are permissible from primary sources) to fans, and that information has been cited in the respective film articles. Is there a reason why all URLs from that site are blocked, as some URLs are perfectly valid for usage? —Erik (talk • contrib) – 05:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Myspace as a whole isn't blocked – just the recently added blog sections. Raul654 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are film directors that are currently using their Myspace blogs to share production information with their fans. Per WP:RS, blogs are acceptable if the authors are credible in the field. I think that the film directors are the most authoritative for sharing information about their film, which causes me to question the blacklist of all blog.myspace.com URLs. —Erik (talk • contrib) – 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There does exist an en-wiki whitelist (MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist) that overrides the blacklist. It can be used to allow specific blogs. Any en admin can edit it. Raul654 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Switching the date

Hello! Article Flag of Lithuania was identified as FA and will appear on main page in 2007-01-19, as I found it recently. I thought maybe the better date would be next moth: 2007-02-16 because in 1918 02 16 Council of Lithuania reestablished Lithuania`s independence. February 16 is also hosting an official flag`s raising ceremony in Lithuania. So 02-16 would be nice and symbolic day for this article to appear on main page. Is it possible to arrange this? M.K. 06:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair-use issue...

...with File:Nader.jpg, which you uploaded. FYI. Cheers, Tragic Baboon 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirect

Special:DoubleRedirects "Updates for this page are currently disabled. Data here will not presently be refreshed." --Parker007 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure for 'Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests'

Hiya,

As you know some of the requests request for specific dates. I myself plan to request Buffy the Vampire Slayer for March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of its first airing. I agree with the idea that where possible it is nice to have featured articles appearing on the main page on an appropiate date.

Would you like me to reorganise 'Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests' so that the requests that ask for specific dates (maybe about 15%), are ordered into chronological order of the suggested date. This might make it easier for you to browse whilst considering which articles become 'Today's featured article'. I would be happy to do this if you think it might be useful?

Let me know, Thanks – Paxomen 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think? -- Paxomen 23:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster FA

I note that you seem to have scheduled the article on Challenger to be on the main page on the 20th of January. I would just like to reiterate the original request, which was for the 28th of January, and the anniversary of the disaster. It would mean a great deal to have the article featured on this day, and I hope that you'll be able to make the change since you don't seem to have scheduled anything for the 28th yet. Thanks! MLilburne 11:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage Date

You may be interested in this, see.... i'm leaving wikipedia and you should probably go ahead and find someone to put the mainpage date to come templates on the chosen articles, unless you want to do it, goodbye. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate. I hope, with a few days of reflection, that you change your mind. Raul654 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you have half your contributions in 25 months, which were a major collaboraton by tons of users in two wikiprojects afd-ed as listcruft you tend to give up on the place... my life is stressful enough without this as well, but i won't be coming back for now... maybe i'll come back once my personal problems get better, but for now I'm no longer dealing with this. Thanks for helping me out in the beginning, though. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Raul, I hope SmthManly changes his mind (and have posted that on his talk page, too), but if push comes to shove, I can take over that task. I do some FAC cleanup work already, and this would tie in nicely with that. Sandy mentioned to me that SmthManly might be going, and offered to get me up to speed on the updating. Jeffpw 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies, Raul. SmthManly had indicated to me on my talkpage that he would be continuing the tagging of TFAs with the date to come, so I assumed it was being done. I just checked and nothing had been tagged for January 20-22. I have now done this, and will message SmthManly to see if he is continuing this task or not. Jeffpw 10:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Raul, yeah I'll be back... it's fine if you can get it automated, I was actually expecting it to happen one day, but if it's too much trouble or can't be done I'll stay doing it manually, it takes very little effort in fact... still, if it gets automated I'd still like to have something to do if there's anything avasilable. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much – according to David Gerard's law, I expect plenty more work to drop onto your shoulders very soon :) (at the very least, I expect the conversion to this new articlehistory template is going to take a great deal of work, even with a powerful bot) Raul654 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, well count on me cause now that my freaking problems are overwith I can focus on things such as wikipedia as much as i did back in 2005. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

If we were able to make this a featured article by the end of March, could it be the main article on April Fool's Day? The Placebo Effect 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with that. So, I'll [tentatively] say yes. Raul654 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:-O :-D – David Gerard 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please make it so :) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to The source of Mark name.png

Hey, I uploaded Mark name.png as Image:Mark (given name) in script.png. Thanks for helping out. I provided a link diff on the image description page at Commons to show you verifying the source and license. Best wishes, Iamunknown 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First Flagraising misidentifications

Raul, I have long admired the many corrections you have brought to the "Flagraising on Iwo Jima" page. I still believe there are some errors concerning the first flagraising, specifically the misidentification of some of the people in the most famous of Lowery's photos (a slightly cropped version of which is on the page). Ray Jacobs (at the site link below) attempts to set the record straight. Would you look at it and consider altering the page (specifically to include Bradley, Jacobs and Robeson, and to exclude Louis Charlo, who is not in the photos, was not a member of the first patrol)? I am fairly new and would do it myself, but fear someone would innocently revert me in a heartbeat.

If so, there are actually two living Marines who were in the pic -- Lindberg and Jacobs.

Anyway, look at this very convincing page.

http://carol_fus.tripod.com/marines_hero_ray_jacobs.html

Sir Rhosis 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The caption given in our article is identical to the one appearing in Flags of our Fathers (pictoral insert between 184 and 185) and as far as I can tell, that's nearly the universally accepted caption. However, Jacob's page does make a convincing case. I think it would be best if we provide both. I'll change the article as such. Raul654 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BOT – Regarding your recent protection of El Greco

You recently protected[11] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jmax-bot

Hi Mark, There is a bit of an issue with Jmax-bot. The whitelist doesn't appear to be working and Jmax- hasn't been onwiki in a week, so we're back to manual updates and we've received a suggestion to just do without the bot. Since you got a look at the bot code, could you weigh in on the discussion? The lack of response from the owner is worrying. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of FA Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

Hi. I'm posting here regarding your recent promotion of the article The Lord of the Rings (1978 film). I'm sure you've probably had others protest your promoting/failing of FACs before, but here I strongly believe I am justified. Compared to other film FAs, I don't think the article is ready-prose is definitely not "brilliant", a few sections rely too heavily on quotes, lead is too small, etc. During its run on the FAC page, only two users supported it, and while it had been on there for a long time, I think more time to assess the article would have been beneficial. In my objection, I provided several things that could be addressed, but they were ignored. Please don't direct me to FAR-I'm aware of that process, but I would like to know why you ignored my objections and passed this article. Thanks for your time.--Dark Kubrick 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Halloween (film) – TFA on John Carpenter's birthday (Jan 16th) please!

hi, i've been away from wikipedia for a long time but just remembered (after reverting some strange TFA schedule changes that weren't done by you), that the 3 halloween film FAs are still on the requested list. it would be great if the first of them, Halloween (film) could be a TFA on January 16th because this is director John Carpenter's birthday (he'll be 59). (and that will still leave two halloween film FAs to schedule on october 31st if you want!) hope you can help, all the best. cheerio. Zzzzz 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

just saw this was done. thanks a lot! Zzzzz 13:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indicating former FAs ar WP:WBFAN

Hi – I don't know if you watch WP:WBFAN, but per some recent suggestions I've updated the script I've been using to generate it so that former FAs are indicated with rust colored stars. I'm curious if you have any opinion about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea – I like it. Raul654 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 26, 2007

The article is History of saffron but the more link at the end links to Hasekura Tsunenaga. William Avery 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima was apparently black and white. As far as I concern the monochrome may be applied to the photo de facto (IMHO black and white sounds less sonorous). --Brand спойт 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The writing you have there is bad for two reasons. First, "originally monochromatic" and "originally black-and-white" – it's not originally, it *is* black and white. It's never been anything else. Calling it "originally black-and-white" is misleading.

Second, I just checked through the list at category:photographs, and with one exception (A Great Day in Harlem) there's not a single photograph labeled as either monochromatic or black-and-white. It's simply a triviality not worth mentioning – and especially not in the first sentence of the article. Raul654 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've recently read in Flags of Our Fathers: Heroes of Iwo Jima that the photo was subsequently hand-painted. Some digital colourizing may have took place, I'm not currently sure. --Brand спойт 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The negative certainly was not. Copies of it might have been colorized, but that's to be expected with almost any popular black-and-white photo. Raul654 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. Category:Photographs is fascinating. I just added the redirect Migrant Mother to the category, as that is what the article Florence Owens Thompson is really about. Anyone browsing the category would be more likely to recognise Migrant Mother. But now the article appears in the category twice, under two names? There needs to be a link to the category at the bottom of the article. What is best to do? I thought of putting Florence Owens Thompson in Category:People in iconic photographs, but that seemed silly. Maybe suggest a rename, even though that would mean rewriting the article to focus on the photograph, but maybe that would be a good thing. Carcharoth 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions of the photograph should be moved to the 'migrant mother' article. The Thompson article should summarize the migrant mother article, and use a {{main}} link at the top of the section. As far as categories – I'm not sure. I've never been a fan of that particular mediawiki feature (although I do indeed love the photographs category itself) Raul654 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Page move debate

I noticed that you closed this debate as 'no move' ([12]). Could you expand on your closing reason? I'm aware that a move vote was closed early recently per WP:VIE (which has nothing to do with the merits of moving the page or not), but not of any other rejected proposals to move the Main Page. Could you point me to them? --ais523 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

April Fool's Main Page 2007

Hi Raul654. April Fool's Main Page 2007 project affects all five changeable sections on the mainpage. To have an April Fool's featured article appear on the mainpage on April 1st, some of the TFA mainpage rules may need to be bent. Thus, the project may need the approval and agreed upon cooperation from those running the TFA main page section. If would be great if at least one of the TFA administrators agree to be a point person for the TFA aspect of the April Fool's Main Page 2007 project. Mostly, this would involve deciding which TFA mainpage rules could be bent, reviewing proposed TFA mainpage content to ensure it meets TFA mainpage requirements, and ensuring that this content made its way to the mainpage on April 1st. Please respond here. Thanks. -- Jreferee 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian Standard Time

For today's FA (1/23), it fails to mention yesterday's FA (Indian Standard Time). Small error, you guys might want to fix it. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilmington College

Hello. Since I saw this on your "bragsheet", I thought that I would let you know that I have performed a "DAB and split" on the article to Wilmington College (Ohio) and Wilmington College (Delaware). I did a move for one, but had to copy/paste the other, since I am not an admin. If you would like to clean up the history, you can move the selected history entries from the Ohio article to the Delaware one, or if you like, I would happily list the article in the cut/paste repair holding pen and explain what I did so that someone there can clean it up. Also, I am now in the process of cleaning up all the links to the "new" DAB page, so in case you notice those, I'll have them taken care of very soon. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Hi Raul. Not to rush you in the least, but approximately how long is the FAC process? I'm referring specifically to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polar coordinate system, where I have addressed all of the concerns addressed by the editors and have now "converted" all of the people to support. Are three editors' comments enough, should I go look for other editors to comment at the relevant WikiProject, or should I just relax and wait? :-) Thanks again for everything you do for Wikipedia and the Featured Article process! —Mets501 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

cleanup tag removal

Please do not remove the {references} tag from Most lethal battles in world history until the lack of citations is fixed. Cornell Rockey 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Re-Nomination

Hi Raul. I'm getting confused when I am reading about how to nominate an article for FAC. The article in question is Go. It was once a featured article, but was then demoted, I don't know what the exact process is for re-nominating. What should I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

No-confidence motion

In light of your unilateral promotion of Ryulong in borderline contravention of RfA policy and practice, in light of the fact that you apparently discussed the RfA with the candidate before the promotion (as evinced by the discussion at WT:RFA, correct me if I'm wrong), and in light of your partial reliance on your own experience with the candidate, I no longer have confidence in your ability to judge RfA consensus. I therefore respectfully request that you resign your bureaucrat powers. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. As to the claims you make here, as I said on the talk page, the first time I mentioned his RFA to him was to give him 5 minutes advance warning that I was going to promote him. This is simply common courtesy. As far as my reliance on my own experience, the very survey that determined the scope and extent of the position showed that it is a sine qua non of the role of a bureaucrat. Raul654 02:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More?

Check my block log; seems he got through a bit of your range blocks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to track Cplot down with checkusers and range blocks, you're going to have to name some of the recent sockpuppets he's used. "Check my block log" isn't very helpful when most of the blocks are to others. Regardless, I did find a few more. Raul654 07:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot

Hi Raul, just a note that I've started Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Cplot. I've noticed you've had some run-ins with this user, so if you can add any additional information to that page that I haven't addressed, such as some more IP addresses, I'd gladly appreciate it. Thanks in advance. —Pilotguy (ptt) 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a tutorial at the moment. Check my block log and look for any range blocks labeled as being a Cplot range. Raul654 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils request

Hi Raul. I nominated this FA-article for the front page in late November and in light of the current NHL season with the Devils playing so well I would like to request a date in February for them. No other NHL team is featured and I think it would be good for the community so see something hockey related on the front page. Thanks. Sportskido8 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

IP check

Hey, could you please do an IP check here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#AdilBaguirov 2 Thanks.Azerbaijani 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sent you email

It's David Robinson, I've sent you a email, could you check it, looking forward you reply.Rabbitiger

Nnoob's block

Hello. Nnoob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you blocked indefinitely as "sockpuppet" has (if incoherently) requested to be unblocked. I can find no reference to who he is supposed to be a puppet of, and no objectionable contributions, so I'm inclined to unblock this user. Would you like to comment beforehand? Best, Sandstein 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It happened over a month ago – I can't remember the reason for the block. Raul654 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Billbrock

Hey, there -- this user's requesting unblocking following your block on 70.228.0.0/16. I saw you blocked at least one other /16, although I'm well aware that Cplot's been a rather persistent problem, in past weeks. I noticed that your block on 67.167.0.0/16 was anon-only; any chance I could talk you into switching this one over to that, as well? Luna Santin 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have switched it. Raul654 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert

Good ol Stephen...--69.210.129.1 04:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it... Raul654 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Question.

Hi Raul, I don't mean to be annoying, but I didn't get an answer.. Sorry if you're busy, I don't mean to say "hurry up" or anything.. just reminding you.. I'll wait :)

Hi. Can we please have season related featured articles like “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” for example?

User talk:Raul654#ArbCom clerks

Intellipedia

Comments about Intellipedia? Last I heard they were looking at a HTML-based "wiki"...

Permission To Land Section [The Darkness Wikipedia Page]

Hey Raul, just thought I'd leave you a message to say that someone had messed around with the section on Permission to Land part of the darkness page, I tried to put in stuff from the actual album page but it needs defaulting, I left a message on the discussions part of that page, but I thought I would contact you, hope thats alright, anyways keep up the good work.

Link -> The Darkness#Permission To Land

Theming Icon^(Talk) 20:27, 3 November 2006 (GMT)

Featured Article of the Day Guide Request

Raul654 can you make a guide on how to request a Featured Article of the Day, because I can't understand all the tech terms that you use in the forms. Thanks Jeffmister

Iran-Iraq War Abrbitraion

Mark, Mark here. My level of stress is high over this article. My concern is factual information in context. What we have here is one partisan ramrodding his view into the article. Many have noticed a pro-Iranian slant. It's no accident. No one is disputing the actual US actions in this conflict, only the inflationary puffery propaganda as arranged and selectively sourced in the article as it stands now. No one can add context and sources without having it reverted repeatedly and with insults to anyone trying to participate as a "POV Pusher." I'm an Internet crap magnet when it comes to bluntness. It's a family trait. I say what I think, but this is beyond the pale. Look at the evidence and weigh in if you would. Thanks. Marky48

Need you help

Something urgent, and need you help. Could you contact me by mail [email protected]. Need you suggestions.Thank you! --User:rabbitiger

Main page FA request for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Raul, this request has been lingering in the request page for more than 6 months. Sheikh Mujib is the father of nation in Bangladesh, which, with 160 million population is the 7th largest country in the world. So, it will be a good choice for a main page FA. Thanks in advance. --Ragib 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I've put up a request for this article to be on the main page on February 21. It's almost 6 months since this was nominated for the main page (most articles nominated after this have already been out on the main page). So, please do something about this request. Thank you. --Ragib 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Template to link to Today's Featured Article

Would it be possible to have a template that gives just a link (rather than the Main Page section) of Today's Featured Article? I think that would be useful at least for the "Recently featured" links, which could then be done by something like {{TFARecent|Year=2007|Month=January|Day=27}}. --Derlay 01:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the question. Would it be possible to create a template that links to the main page blurb of the current featured article and updates itself automatically? Yes, it would not be hard to create such a template. Would I ever consider using it on the main page? No. The main page 'recently featured' link link to articles, not Wikipedia templates. Raul654 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see I didn't explain clearly enough, so let me try again. What I was thinking about was templates such that, for example, [[Template:TFALink/January 28, 2007]] would contain [[Space Shuttle Challenger disaster]] so that {{TFALink/January 28, 2007}} would expand to a link to Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. These templates could then be used instead of copy-pasting verbatim links in TFA (which seems rather error-prone; Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 28, 2007 has the last two links in wrong order, and there have been a few worse problems this week). --Derlay 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone else wants to do it, sure, but I don't really see the necessity of this. Raul654 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Range block collateral damage

Tyrannosaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to suffer from collateral damage from a range block initiated by you, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to help them out. Might you be able to? Sandstein 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And also Sdedeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sandstein 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They were affected by hard blocks I initially put in place. I've converted these to soft blocks. Raul654 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

TFA

Can I suggest Charles Darwin immune system for February 9? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure – we just had a biology article on the 2nd. Raul654 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles Darwin then, I guess... I wanted an astronomy article, but all the good ones are taken... drag. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scout Association of Hong Kong

Hi. Thanks for promoting this to FA. On its talk page, the "identified" link is red and I don't know how to fix it. Could you fix this? thanks.Rlevse 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gimmebot took care of this. Raul654 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail.

If for whatever reason you do not wish to respond, just let me know. But the silence is just killing me... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm on vacation, a thousand miles from home. I have many hundreds of emails sitting in my inbox, most of them wikipeida-related. I'll be going over them on Saturday after I get home. Raul654 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied by email. Raul654 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

I know we have to submit main page requests on a different page. However, this is not a request. I am not sure whether it is ready for the main page yet. Since I do not want to see the other editors become disappointed, I ask you to quickly look over the article and their proposal for a request on the talk page. Then contact me. I would appreciate it since I want to ready the article for the main page (a very exciting event after coming from GA to FA only a short while ago). Thank you. --Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

T-34 on Feb 5

Oh my goodness: insufficient lead section, unformatted links (external jumps), virtually no inline citations, stubby/list sections, one sentence paragraphs... This belongs at review, not the main page! Marskell 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it is not that far from the article that was promoted last July diff: the lead is short because someone chopped most of it out into an unnecessary "overview" section; the external jumps are in a new "surviving vehicles" section and could easily be fixed; it does have inline citations, just funny Harvard ones, not dinky footnotes (e.g. "Zaloga 1994:5"); sometimes a list is just the best way to present information. But I'm sure some tidying would be good. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at MilHist – but it was me who once again failed to notice the inlines (scanned only the first section, which had none). Sheesh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the new first section was the last few paragraphs of the lead, so not surprising that it had few inline citations! -- ALoan (Talk) 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha ! That would explain it – and would also explain why it got called "Overview". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. - add three different referencing styles to Marskell's list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that MilHist will sort it out. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. They've already been at work, and the referencing is indeed fine. We should start a thread somewhere about "Overview" sections; they're never necessary IMO. Marskell 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving,and I completed the two wayward refs (best I could), so there are only two ref styles now. It's a mystery to me why anyone wouldn't find those inlines distracting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Having come to this discussion late, the article looks fine to me. The lead is suffecient, and there are plenty of inline-citations. Raul654 19:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unsightly space" on Talk:History of saffron

Since you mentioned the problem, perhaps you could implement the fix described at Template talk:WP India. Template is protected. Gimmetrow 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I got it. Raul654 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured and articlehistory

I don't think you have to add the info to the template; GimmeBot can go through and do that for you. Not sure if you were just testing, but it seems like more work for you to add the FA to the template rather than just adding the featured tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is more work for me, but with all the changes to the tagging, I'm getting a tad confused too :)

In the future, if Gimmebot can handle it, then I'll let it handle it (automating these things is always a good way to go). Raul654 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Although, in theory, can't Gimmebot do all the tagging (e.g, no more need for the featured template at all)? Raul654 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask Gimmetrow to come have a look, but Gimmebot moves the old fac file to facfile/archiven, updates it in your archive, updates everything on the talk page, and then removes the featured tag. I'm pretty sure all you have to do is move the promoted/faileds to the correct archive, and GimmeBot will do all the rest. You don't even have to tag the talk pages anymore, unless you just like doing it – GimmeBot will remove them. I'll ask Gimmetrow to weigh in here – we could use your input on the rest of that mess on BRPs at the talk page of WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

re: User talk:Connel MacKenzie

Hi,

Thanks for your comments and explanation on my talk page. But I am left with some questions, despite those explanations. Perhaps you can explain how Wikipedians facilitate "ranking" of the current nominees for Main Page FA status? Obviously, you must solicit enormous input from the community, right? Where is that input solicited? Your comments on my talk page don't explain what I was obviously looking for, from the beginning...hopefully I've restated it more clearly now.

Now, if that isn't the case, and you simply force everything (or almost everything) that is nominated as a FA onto the front page, I respectfully disagree.

Please remember to inform me on my real talk page (on Wiktionary) if you decide to leave me another note on my Wikipedia talk page, as I only check it when someone nudges me, now.

--Connel MacKenzie – wikt 00:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Frenulum Clitoridis

The article on the Frenulum Clitoridis needs work BAD. Gringo300 02:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article for Feb. 7th

Hey Raul! You just recently selected Vancouver to be the featured article on February 7th. Obviously it's your perogative to choose as FA Director, but Alison Krauss has been sitting on the request page for a very very long time, and February 7th actually has some level of connection to that article (the day the album that really launched her career, and one of her best selling, was released) while I can't see any for Vancouver. Just mentioning it, thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any better free pictures of her? The one on the article is pretty bad. Raul654 17:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I know it really is pretty bad, unfortunately it's either that or this. I emailed a couple different people about releasing images they'd shot when I was writing the article, didn't get responses. I think that image I used in the infobox of her with the Grammy's is doable though, very LQ so not really taking away from the photographer's value of the photo. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Raul! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Bears

As you may or may not know they are playing in the super bowl tonight. May I suggest you put them on the main page some time soon. Buc 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They'll be on the main page in the "In the News" section soon (either during or immediately after the game) Raul654 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I ment as today's FA Buc 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul

You might want to take another look at the Jonathan Corrigan Wells. There seems to be hostility on both sides. Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a picture of you hanging up on my wall. Thank you for putting that picture on the internet, it always makes me happy.

User:Lir

I dunno. Ask Zoe. Grandmasterka 07:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Page move debate

I noticed that you closed this debate as 'no move' ([13]). Could you expand on your closing reason? I'm aware that a move vote was closed early recently per WP:VIE (which has nothing to do with the merits of moving the page or not), but not of any other rejected proposals to move the Main Page. Could you point me to them? --ais523 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There were two or three seperate move proposals within a week or two – one to move Main Page to Main page, then to Portal:Main page, then to Wikipedia:Main page. All of them were rejected nearly unanimously Raul654 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Hi. I'm a student at Colorado State University. I tried editing Wiktionary recently and it said that my school was blocked. I asked about it on Meta:Babel, and it was pointed out to me that you had unblocked my school, but it was blocked again immediately thereafter. So, it looks like we've been blocked since June. Here's a link to the page we found: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3A129.82.0.0%2F16. We're still discussing it on Meta:Babel, and Connel MacKenzie is aware of the situation, but refused to unblock my school. Would you be able to help? Thank you for any help. Best Username Ever 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to comment? You handled this case, so I would appreciate some sort of feedback. Best Username Ever 00:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually an admin on Wikitionary. IIRC – and this was a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy – my access level was temporarily increased so I could deal with the complaint, and then subsequently lowered.

I don't remember the reason for the original blocking or the unblocking, but I would tend to defer to Connell, since he is familiar with what is going on there and I am not. Raul654 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems to me that he is ignoring me and Cbrown1023, though. He posted a comment asking about why CSU was unblocked at Meta:Babel, and left. Both Cbrown and I have sent him e-mails since that time and he hasn't responded. CSU has 25,000 students, and he refuses to say why the block is justified. Best Username Ever 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I got an e-mail (I think from someone else) last week regarding the creation of an account. I have not heard anything recently, and am not in the habit of checking meta:, though I will do so now (and the gmail spam folder.) --Connel MacKenzie – wikt 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on his wiktionary talk page and ask him. Raul654 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and left him a message here. I live in a dorm, so I can't edit Wiktionary. Best Username Ever 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that after I saw your comment, so I dropped him a pointer Raul654 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Best Username Ever 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

CSU is the "home" of copyright vandal "Primetime"; see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. They indicated they were investigating, but we haven't heard anything since. I don't know how the 'pedia is dealing with it, but we don't have the bandwidth to go case-by-case. Note that this edit [14] the first and only content edit here by "Best Username Ever" looks exactly like Primetime. Robert Ullmann 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone who goes to CSU is named Primetime. Why do you think I'm him? Best Username Ever 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha. OTRS ticket #2006060810014421, asking me to clarify Connel MacKenzie's relationship vis-a-vi Wikipedia/Wiktionary/Wikimedia. Raul654 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reset my e-mail to mailto:[email protected] (instead of using spamgourmet.com; apparently it was mail-bombed, blocked the spam, but didn't notify me that I needed to reset it.) Can you please forward the ticket (or relevant parts, as per your procedure.) --Connel MacKenzie – wikt 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This was last June, so the ticket is long closed. Raul654 02:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation

I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Favi4et

Can you unblock me now. I learned my lesson.Favi4et 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not blocked. Raul654 23:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Grief

I don't know if anyone said this to you, but sorry about all the grief you went through with Ryulong's RfA a bit ago. Regardless of who agrees with who, dealing with Wikidrama is never fun, and you stuck through it, which is nice to see. -- Natalya 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Time between FA and MP

is their a certain amount of time an article should be a FA before appearing on the Main Page? The Placebo Effect 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No – some go up quickly, and some take a while. Article on subjects which are underrepresented on the main page tend to go up more quickly. Raul654 19:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Meetup 3

FYI ... Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --evrik ^(talk) 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

TFA

That would be quite a mess. Then again, I'd probably be able to participate more. Hmm... isn't the three year anniversary of FAs coming up, or at least, TFAs? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The three year anniversary of main page FAs was last month; the three year anniversary of the 4 pane look on the main page is very soon. Raul654 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Feb 22 was the first day. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles were put on the main page in January 2004, back when it was text-based. When the main page switched to the 4 pane look, suddenly they became very high profile (and system shock ensued). Raul654 05:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing this recently here. Before the 4-pane look, I believe that "putting a FA on the main page" meant adding its title to a short list, so the impact was pretty low. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a start :) Raul654 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reality

Hi, is there a particular reason why you decided to unprotect Reality just now? Have a look at the page history for the last few hours following up to your unprotection... if anything I'd suggest upping it to full protection. Thanks – Qxz 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. I'd just re-protected the article against anon and new user vandalism. Was there a valid reason for your unprotection? -- Longhair\^talk 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize it was still such a hot potato after almost two weeks. Yes, protection is warranted. Raul654 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (I have a feeling this is going to be a problem article for quite a while, sadly) – Qxz 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?

Just wondering why you reverted and then unreverted my comment on Talk:Rush Limbaugh? Just a misplaced mouse click? —Doug Bell ^talk 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, misplaced mouse click when viewing my watchlist. I immediately reverted myself. Raul654 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Thanks for the fix. I got edit conflicted with you on the same changes --BozMo talk 19:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Good article. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Noclip 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2

Thank you, i'm glad i'm not alone in thinking that user's comment wasn't acceptable. Just H 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use madness (now more than ever)

Hi. Remember how a few months ago you were giving me advise about fair use for Israeli public figures. Well, now we are at the point that the Knesset image I used for Haim Ramon (the same one used on the Hebrew wiki) was challenged. So I got another one from the MFA, with a fair use permission link. But that was challenged, too (I deleted it in dismay). Apperently, we are now at the point that we are prohibited from displaying images of a living person that merely shows what they look like — whether that person is a (former) Justice Minister or borderline-notable person. But does the policy really have to be so rigid? I don't think it make sense, and so I, ineptly, attempted to callenge it. Am I wasting my time, though? Regards, El_C 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fair use problems are, at their basic level, a conflict between two of our fundamental goals – the goal to produce a Free encyclopedia (Free, with a capital F, in the copyleft sense), and to the goal to produce a comprehensive encyclopedia (that is, one which is maximally informative – including pictures even on topics where no copyleft pictures are available.)

Neither of these goals supersedes the other. This is not a happy situation, and there will be no magic bullet here. That is to say, we are going to have to compromise, to a degree, on both of those goals (if for no other reason than to keep the people in the two camps from killing each other or quitting Wikipedia). To this end, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The reason living people are targeted in particular – as opposed to dead people – is that new pictures of them can be made, and those new pictures could (at least in theory) be put under a creative commons license. I'm not thrilled with it, but at least this strikes me as reasonable (if not slightly austere).

I'm not 100% sure how this policy came about – I think it came from Jimbo, or Jimbo + the board. Either way, it's something a lot of people care deeply about both ways, so I don't think it's going to be particularly easy to change. Raul654 03:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive response. One user established (I believe) that there is no fairuse exception for public figures. We were operating under the assumption that because the sites allowed fair usage, the images could be uploaded as such (i.e. simply to show what the person looks like — it is unlikely to find other grounds to add an image otherwise!), but apperently this is no longer the case (although the Hebrew wiki still has fairuse pictures of MKs, etc.). Yes, I take your points, and also share your frustrations. Best, El_C 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"One user established (I believe) that there is no fairuse exception for public figures" – actually, I think Sandra Day O'Connor said that in a copyright-related US Supreme Court decision. Raul654 00:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And a very bad, anti-people decision it was. Still, I wasn't looking for such an exception so much as hitherto fair usage. El_C 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam filter problem

That same ole spam filter problem is popping up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2005. Thanks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All fixed. Raul654 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ack – was going along fine, and suddenly got a spamblock on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2005 to April 2005. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably saw that already...

But since I can't find it on your talk page, I put it anyway. I came across this page: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/raul654.html ... I won't even lose the time commenting this rant. I don't know if you can do anything against that :/ -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I had seen it. When looking for Hivemind pictures, I don't know if Daniel intentionally seeks out the worst (least flattering) pictures he can find, but if he doesn't then he sure has a knack for picking them accidentally. And for someone who professes so desperately that he wants to be off of Wikipedia, he seems quite intent on making sure that at least his websites can be linked from here. Raul654 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re

[15] Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Say, how much better than an "amen" must my commentary be in order to qualify for a brick? not that I'm trying for one, mind you KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hyprocrisy

If anyone's a hypocrite it's you. But please, for all rational itents and purposes, refrain from attacking me on someone else's user page. ~ UBeR 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" defense, that old gem. I thought that one had gone out of style with the third grade, but apparently I was wrong.

As far as attacking other users, perhaps those who live in glass houses should not throw stones? Physician, heal thyself Raul654 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth contains merit; spurious attacks do not. ~ UBeR 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Movie conversion to OGG

Question on my talk page under "Street Light Interference movie". Thanks! --Doug ^talk 12:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Additional remarks on my Talk. --Doug ^talk 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy?

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 12, 2007 is Make Way for Ducklings. I like the article and learned a lot about a book I have always enjoyed. However, am I the only one that thinks two mentions of the Boston statue in the lead is a bit redundant? Can this be tightened up before it appears on the Main Page? Instead of the current last two sentences: "The book is extremely popular worldwide. The city of Boston, where the story is set, as well as Novodevichy Park, Moscow, have both built small statues based on the story." how about "The book is extremely popular worldwide. Novodevichy Park, Moscow, also has a small statue based on the story, which was presented by the United States as a gift to the children of the Soviet Union." or something similar? Just a thought and congrats on a nice article! Ruhrfisch 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I originally put this on the article's talk page day before yesterday but got no reply in 24 hours, so I posted it at the talk for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 12, 2007 12 hours or so ago, with still no reply, so I posted it here.

Fixed. Raul654 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Ruhrfisch 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock of JDLChicago (talk · contribs)

FYI, JDLChicago (talk · contribs) has requested to have his autoblock lifted. His unblock request indicates that you blocked his IP range as one used by cplot. I have left him a message indicating that I would inform you of his request. Please review it and take whatever action you deem appropriate. Thank you. --BigDT 17:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have unblocked 24.148.87.78 (talk · contribs) for JDLChicago (talk · contribs) and 67.184.120.208 (talk · contribs) for Curthicks (talk · contribs). Please feel free to review, modify, or reverse either of these actions. --BigDT 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Those ranges are used by Cplot. Account registration and anon editing should be disabled; logged-in users should be able to edit. Raul654 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... should I reblock those two IP addresses with anon only? --BigDT 00:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes – I tried but I'm not sure I got them both. Raul654 00:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I have individually blocked both of the two IP addresses that I had unblocked using anon only, account creation blocked, no autoblock. [16]. Please let me know if there is anything else that I should do. --BigDT 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The IPs aren't the problem, the *ranges* are. Raul654 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... would my unblocking of an IP undo the rest of the block on the range? If so, that block doesn't show up in the block log for the IP, so is there a way to know what range was actually blocked? Thanks. --BigDT 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed it now. See [17] and [18] Raul654 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin article at FAC

Hello! Could I earn my barnstar today? A consensus to Support has been reached and there remains no more opposers. All have been dealt with appropriately.-BiancaOfHell 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Houston, Texas

I noticed you archived the Houston FAC. I would like it not to be failed, yet, though, as I think it is one of the better city articles, with good background research and article development, although a lot of picky details left before I support it for FAC (although I think I've only supported one or two FACs, but lots have gone on). I don't follow the technical maneuverings at FAC. Thanks. KP Botany 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see much point keeping it on the FAC, when it's almost unanimously opposed. Raul654 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's 6 oppose, including mine, and 4 supports, including one strong, that's not unanimous or even close. KP Botany 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there are 4 supports (it was a bit difficult to find them given that very large mass of text). Hrm – do you think a reset is in order? Raul654 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a reset is. The city articles are boring to me, but I read this one through while looking for some information on Houston and found it was a FAC--and I voted it down as I always do. But the main editor is working through details, it's generally comprehensive, neutral, well-written (style), readable, attempts to give a world view, but needs some work in this, and could be a top-notch FA--meaning the editors didn't forget to research the subject, it just needs lots of picky details attended to. I'd like to see it given a bit more time, because the city articles aren't particularly well read on FAC (or anywhere, what could be drier than reading about a city), and I think it would make a respectable FA.

Yes, it's impossible to figure out the supports/opposes due to the massive amount of text, usually I make suggestions on the talk page for this reason--Sei Whale got about 55k from me, even though it was well-written and researched to begin with, but it's a beautiful article now.KP Botany 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reset the nom Raul654 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks KP Botany 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBotification

Raul, I noticed you added the promoted to the featured log, but you also have to add the failed to the failed archive for the bot to operate on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops – fixed. Raul654 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship of Facts

I had added a clarification on the Global warming page, clarifying that the planet did not experience constant Global warming throughout the 20th century but that there were periods of decades during which there was Global cooling. The original sentence led the reader to believe that Global warming was a steady and constant effect. You have reverted this clarification – why are you deleting clarifying facts? -- Rameses 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it's redundant with the graph placed next to the text.

For another, it gives both undo weight to the cooling (which really was quite minor) and it is misplaced putting it in the introduction (where such equivocations are out of place). Raul654 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a 0.2 C drop for a 30 year period is minor. In fact, there was Global cooling for 40 years during the 20th century and Global warming for 60 years. Please tell me where in the article you believe this fact should be placed. -- Rameses 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of per-decade fluctionations go in the 'History of warming' section, which summarizes the Temperature record of the past 1000 years article.

As to it being minor – you are exaggerating the significance and duration. In point of fact, there was no drop of 0.2 C that lasted for 30 years or more in the 20th century, and this graph makes that pretty clear. The were a decrease of about 0.1 C for 20 years during the 40s and 50s, but this is only "low" relative to the anomalous spike of 1938–1941. Raul654

If you go to the Wikipedia article on Global cooling, you will find that there was alarm in the 60's and 70's that the Earth would enter an ice age. The article states: "In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945." This is long after your referenced period of the 40s and 50s. The article also states: "At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." I will put the information on the 40 years of cooling where you suggest in the "History of Warming" section. I would appreciate no further censorship of simple facts on your part. -- Rameses 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that predictions of a new global ice-age were generally insubstantive – that is to say, they never made it into peer reviewed literature. A few people made un-reviewed predictions and turned out ot be wrong. This does not mean it was a prevailing scientific prediction. Nor, for that matter, does inaccuractly saying the temperature dropped, when in fact it was only a hiccup a few particularly hot years. Raul654 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to ignore a decade of hot temperatures, I suppose you could just as easily ignore the current one... The world Press during the 60s and 70s were very vocal with the alarm over a new ice age just as they are today... -- Rameses 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

8 consecutive years (1937–1945) of unusually hot temperatures can be written off as an anomaly. 60 consecutive years (1945-present) cannot. And if you take out that 8 year anomaly, it becomes 90 years of rising temperatures. Raul654 22:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about there being 90 years of rising temperatures – there are in fact 44 years in which temperatures fell since 1900(I counted them on this graph). However, I will agree that there has been a generally rising temperature trend since the end of the Little Ice Age as would be expected. -- Rameses 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing individual years as increasing or decreasing relative to the previous year is utterly meaningless – the nature of global warming is increasing temperatures over a period. The longer the period, the less likely it is a fluke, and is instead a serious phenomenon. The 5 year moving average has increased almost monotonically, except for the blip in the late 30s/early 40s, for almost 100 straight years. That is not a fluke. As to the original purpose of this thread, the people who are genuine experts in the field [Talk:Global_warming#Censorship_of_facts_in_the_lead have replied to your comments] exactly what I have said – that it's too much information for the lead, and it belongs in the history of warming section. Raul654 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is so much emphasis, then, put on the fact that 10 of warmest years of the 20th century were were in the past 15 years, or that 2000 was the warmest year on record? ~ UBeR 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Because with a recorded temperature history that goes back 160+ years, and measurable temperatures going back thousands if not millions, the chances of having all of the hottest years within a small period is astoundingly small, unless there is a general warming trend. Raul654 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Full protect on Global Warming?

Isn't this a bit excessive? I don't want to wheel war here, so I will leave it alone. What's going on?--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was excessive. This admin does not quite understand how to resolve edit conflicts. Rather than discussing with the article's editors, he preemptively reverts the edits and locks the article. It's rather amateurish. ~ UBeR 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your actions, abominable

Raul654, your performance as an administrator, arbitrator, and bureaucrat, has shown you to be an incompetent user of Wikipedia. Your overall handling of the conflict between you and I was abhorrent. Your childness and and immaturity has been inappropriate. To go so low as name calling has shown you to be just as fallible as those you shun. You are not an elite. Wikipedia does not endorse elitism. Your education in one area has shown you lack that in other areas; you lack ethics, kindness, civility, and morality. You have failed. You have failed yourself and you have failed Wikipedia.

Your inadequacy in failing to understand how Wikipedia operates and should operate is troubling. Your actions as an elected and selected person to complete special tasks has shone light on how these powers have diluted your sense of rationality, fairness, and understanding. This is something Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about in his inaugural address,

“ A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. ”

And, indeed, his message will show to be true. Despite the apparent biases toward you by your appointed peers, your actions have spoken volumes. Your continued gracelessness will not be tolerated. Lest there be arbitrament, I can only suggest this foolishness cease.

"We have, I fear, confused power with greatness." ~ UBeR 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a troll. You complain to others that they do not know policy when when it is clear you do not know it yourself. Your edits to articles are detrimental, and half are reverted for good cause. You harass others on subjects they are clearly experts in, when you know little or nothing about the subject. In short, you are a troll. If you do not change your behavior, you will no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Raul654 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a troll. All of my edits have been in adherence with Wikipedia's policies. In fact, I enforce them more so than a lot of administrators. All of my edits are in good faith, something you do not assume. You often violate the three revert rule and simply do not take the correct approaches to resolve conflicts. Your actions as administrator are bothersome and incommodious for what Wikipedia strives for. It is time now you got off your high horse. ~ UBeR 09:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Neglected Categories on the main page

Just wondering if there was a particular reason why less than half of the current FA from the following categories have been on the main page.

• Media
• Music
• Royalty, nobility, and heraldry
• Geology, geophysics, and meteorology

Buc 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the composition (by subject) of the FAs that make the main page do not match the composition of those being promoted [per unit time]. We tend to promote pop-culture and hurricane-related FAs at a proportionally higher rate than I am comfortable running on the main page.

The excess in royalty articles is a consequence of the fact that Lord Emsworth wrote so many royalty-related FAs back in 2004–2005, and I simply haven't had time to run them all. Raul654 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A Polite Request

Hello Raul... I know we haven't seen eye to eye in the past, but in light of the fact you said your friends with Geogre, I'm asking could you have a polite word with him? I've apologised to Bishonen for my actions and regret that the situation got out of hand, and don't wish for it to go any further. Everyone seems to have accepted what I said except him, and he keeps leaving messages on my page. I feel like he's hounding me – this isn't a complaint, and I don't want any action taken against him. Bishonen and Giano are good friends of his, and I can see why he would wish to come to their defence. I just want him to leave me alone, have some time off, and continue on Wikipedia with a clear head. In my request, I'm kindly asking if you're able to alleviate the situation and bring it to a conclusion, which given the volatile nature of these events I'm sure we both agree should be brought to just that. Much thanks for anything you may be able to do. LuciferMorgan 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Replied by email). Raul654 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask another favour from Raul, but if you could do it for me I'd be really appreciative. Here, here and here shows Giano is continuing to pursue SandyGeorgia as regards to her comments on my page. All her comments were her kindly asking me to change my approach as regards Wikipedia and giving me some friendly advice. I'll admit I've been a pain in the past, but I don't appreciate such a real good editor like Sandy getting grief as a result of one of my Wikipedia disagreements. I'd like for Giano to immediately stop personally attacking Sandy, and to leave her alone. I don't mind if I have to face some kind of punishment for my prior actions, but Sandy has nothing to do with all this which I feel Giano should realise. Since you seem to be (upon closer thought, and me not being so cloud minded) objective, if you could resolve this matter to a welcome conclusion I'd be happy about that also. All the best. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up on my behalf, Lucifer, but I really encourage you not to worry about it. The best way to make something stop is just to stop engaging it. The more attention it is given, the more we are all drug back into drama which should have ended yesterday. And I am so busy trying to complete updating the FAC archives—very tedious work that requires full focus—that I really do wish it would just wind down. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I echo your sentiment Sandy. LuciferMorgan 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to let the matter drop now. Sandy was not only unwise, but wrong to criticise several respected admins including Raul, Paul August ect ect ect for pointing out to Lucifer that his personal attack on Bishonen was unjustified. Sandy was even more unwise to accuse other editors of moving her post, when in fact she was the one who moved it. More unwise still was repeatedly reverting me with the edit summery "baiting" for merely trying drawing her attention to her erroneous edits. Never mind we all make mistakes, even me sometimes. So storm in a tea cup over. I'm sure she will check her facts and page histories before ranting at other editors again. All's well that ends well. Giano 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Giano continues to go on about Sandy, and hasn't dropped the matter as he puts it. I suggest he stops ranting and looks at his own civilities for a change – I'm fed up of all this, I want it brought to an end, and in short, I want Giano to shut up for once and move on. LuciferMorgan 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Lucifer as long as Sandy keeps portraying herself as little "Miss Perfect" you and she are living in cloud cukoo land. I am quite happy to let the matter drop, when and if I cease reading further remarks from you and Miss S Georgia. Perhaps you both should consider the consequences before launching into attacks in future. Giano 23:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Raul... I wish for the matter to drop, but Giano keeps sending these messages all over other people's talk pages as concerns Sandy and me. Now I know I'm not exactly the most wonderful editor in the world, but you've dealt with Sandy so should know she is nice enough. She doesn't even respond to his baiting, and really shouldn't have to deal with these messages. I want to know what is being done to stop this Raul? Can you please message me on my talk page as to what is being done? Thanks, I appreciate your help in this. LuciferMorgan 09:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Geogre#LM also has further abuse of my name too, and Sandy's in parts. I was warned by Geogre to be blocked, but he can make derogatory comments about me as an admin, and this is since you had a word with him to move on. I can understand he may be still upset about me due to his disagreement with me as concerns FA criteria, but can we all move on once and for all? I keep calling for everyone to move on, but it doesn't happen. LuciferMorgan 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan – firstly, if Geogre's talk page distresses you, may I suggest that you stop reading it? Secondly, please don't use the word "abuse" blithely like that. We are all being civil and polite. Thirdly, "moving on" does not mean that we are unable to discuss what happened. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When I was incivil, I was given a warning for blocking. Now others are also being incivil, it's allowed to continue for no apparent reason. I wish to draw a line under all this, but some seem unwilling to do so. They're not being "polite and civil" towards me at all, and if they have something against me I welcome them to report me to the relevant people on Wikipedia. Discussing is fine, but running down mine and Sandy's Wikipedia contributions isn't – it constitutes a personal attack, of which I was warned against not long ago. If this was me I would've been blocked by now. LuciferMorgan 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 – I am sorry this is spilling out on your talk page.

LuciferMorgan – If you think I, Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Yomangani or Marskell have been impolite or uncivil there, please let us precisely which comments you think are impolite or uncivil. As far as I am aware, no one have been bothering you about this – we are simply discussing what happened. As I said, feel free to avert your eyes.

As for "running down" your contributions, Yomangani, KillerChihuahua and Kirill Lokshin each complained about the tone of your remarks on the FAR. You have apologised to Marskell and Bishonen, but you have not apologised for suggesting that Giano would go running to Bishonen to ask her to block someone he disagreed with, nor have you edited the FAR to withdraw the allegations that you levelled at Bishonen which you have now withdrawn, as Paul August cordially requested some time ago (and, indeed, if you have been reading Geogre's talk page, like it seems you have, I suggested over a day ago that it was the only substantial piece of unfinished business).

I appreciate that it is not nice being discussed by third parties. It is also not nice being abused and falsely accused in a public forum. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to politely ask Raul to intervene and bring an end to the fiasco – please don't try stopping this ALoan. I don't wish to discuss the issue further, as your account of events differ to mine. All I wish is for Raul to politely ask all other parties involved to stop escalating the situation, so please don't try to make this out to be a discussion between me and you ALoan. This is me making a request to Raul, and anything you may be able to do Raul is greatly appreciated – thanks for taking the time to help as well. LuciferMorgan 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, well, if our accounts, surely it makes sense to discuss those points of divergence to reach an understanding – but I won't force you to if you don't want to. I'm not entirely sure what kind of "intervention" you are expecting from Raul654 – I'm not sure I would want to get involved, if I were him, but I welcome his thoughts anyway. I don't see how the "situation", such as it is, is "escalating". Shrug. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation is escalating as Giano keeps being incivil, and frankly, an utter hypocrite. Now, everyone was keen to jump on my back about WP:CIVIL, so how about they practice what they preach and start knocking his door in light of his incivilities eh? No, I thought not. One law for one, and different for someone else. LuciferMorgan 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Lucifer, how can I put this to you gently?....The situation is not escalating, most people have lost interest! If I were being uncivil it would be noted (there are literally hundreds – well tens anyway ) just waiting to jump on me, Cyde will confirm this. I am not being uncivil. It does look like Raul is not going to comment, and I don't blame him. For the record, I am not being an "utter hypocrite", or anything else for that matter. I will overlook these attacks from you and Ms Georgia, because I'm sick of controversy – but please stop trying to jump on the I hate "Giano bandwagon" and assuming a multitude will support you. - when a cause is worth it I fight – frankly this cause is not worth fighting for, as I said somewhere else you and Ms Georgia are welcome to FARC – I wish you joy together. Like many others I also wish you would just turn your attentions to something more productive than chirping like a budgerigar her. Giano 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Have no fear Giano – I have no intention of falling for yours or Geogre's bait in any way, shape or form. LuciferMorgan 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

<phew!> Giano 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb 16 featured article

Hi Raul, could you please change the featured article for Feb 16 from Scooby to Flag of Lithuania? February 16 is an independence day in Lithuania (the day when in 1918 the Act of Independence of Lithuania was signed) and it would be a nice tribute to have it featured on this day. User M.K. asked you that on your talk and you seemed to agree. The prepared text can be found here. Thank you! Renata 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought he requested the 26th, not the 16th (at least that's what I have written down here in my notes). Raul654 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

scratch that Raul654 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Thank you very much. Renata 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Was it a deliberate decision not to run Avatar: The Last Airbender as Today’s Featured Article on the requested date of February 21? I only ask because there was a fairly large discussion about what date to request, and if that one (the anniversary of the show’s first airing) isn’t available we may what to consider requesting a different date.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It might have been because it doesn't seem to have a free use image. Buc 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I considered that, but Feb 1,20,and 22 all have fair use images, so it doesn't seem to be a problem.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam filter again

Re-posting this here so it won't get lost in the shuffle—my work is stalled by spam filter at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2005 to April 2005. Must be time for a break :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By doing a few at a time, I narrowed it down to this one that won't go through:

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/archive 2}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also spamblocked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2005. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Same problem here:

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/archive 1}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Raul654 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellis Paul FAC

Raul, I nominated Ellis Paul for FA 4 days ago, but there has been no feedback (although almost every nomination that has come after has received feedback.) Is that typical? This is making me crazy. Kmzundel 03:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unuall edit"

WP:MH redirects there and also, logically to Military history, which is referred to often enough. Same thing with WP:AR. 68.39.174.238 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your "Second meta-template a success" message at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

I wondered whether you misplaced your message (diff). There's no need to reply; if you put it there on purpose, it's fine with me. By the way, the articlehistory template is great and I assume the same goes for the new template. Thanks! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to put it on the tipline. Thanks for pointing that out. Raul654 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Scooby Doo

I fully understand why it was removed from the main page list. Two T.V shows in as many days would not have been right.

Just wondering if you have plans to reinstate any time soon. Buc 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

clerking

Hi, I noticed you were archive WP:CHU. Thanks for helping out, but we have an archival bot and clerks for that. We make life very easy for the crats, all you have to do is do the actual rename and place {{done}} or {{notdone}}, then the clerks and the bots do the rest :). Cheers, — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm about to do a great many renames, and I needed the done/rejected ones out of the way. Raul654 07:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the requests are archived into separate archives depending on whether they are accepted or rejected – your archiving has dumped them all in one XD Any chance you could rollback, or else do you want me to move all the rejected requests to the rejected archive? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A rollback should be fine. Raul654 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, rolledback archives, thanks. And thanks for all your CHU work (impending and past!) :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All of them are now done except the usurpations:

• Redguard101 → The_Talking_Mac
• Mapkid13 → DGS43825
• Adanadhel → Adanedhel
• Jennn → Jennica
• duanesm → eddybear

The rest can be archived. Raul654 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you want the clerks to go through and annotate the results? Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

MichaelBillington (talk) and I are doing it now. We're using tailored comments noting this conversation to avoid any user rights (or lack thereof) confusion; please see [19] and [20]. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We've finished annotating the results, but the last request was made by an IP, and not the user who's account it affects. At WP:CHU#Process it says "Be sure that you are logged in to the relevant account. For security reasons, bureaucrats will not effect a name change if the request comes from an unauthorized user or an IP address." – you might want to reconsider this request. Anyway, thanks for doing all that, that's one less backlog to worry about. Cheers -- Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser verified the request. Raul654 09:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, neat. I'd forgotten you're both a bureaucrat and a CheckUser :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As an aside (image-related)

I undeleted AlfredNobel.jpg, Rosaparks.jpg, and Africanamericans.png (1). Where's my cookie?! Best, El_C 12:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, Quadzilla99, hereby award you with this Working Man's Barnstar for creating the WikiprojectBanners template. Great job. Thanks. Quadzilla99 11:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Street Light Interference

Check out the article Street Light Interference and see if the videos work properly for you. Let me know. Thanks for help. --Doug ^talk 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Take a look at the article since my videos have been taken out (within 30 minutes) as that being of original research. Would you consider that original research? Take a look at my version, tell me what you think. --Doug ^talk 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, tough one – definitely a borderline case. My gut feeling is that Rspeer is right, that it's original research. Raul654 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussion I have now put on the Street Light Interference article Talk Page under "Videos" through "Electronics". You being an electrical engineer will understand the technical aspects of my reasoning. Based on this I do not believe I am doing orignal research, but basing everything on the book The SLI Effect (1993). Do you think it would be resonable to be able to put these items I speak of back into the article (based on my arguments), since I have good references and am not basing this off my original ideas or concepts. It is all referenced to this scientific study, including the videos. --Doug ^talk 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my discussion to what I just put on Street Light Interference showing my arguements that I believe I am within the guidelines of not being original research and new knowledge (bringing forth a new concept). I would like to be able to put on this article my videos (that have been removed by rspeer / ɹəədsɹ . Could I put these videos back on this article as well as the information concerning the lamp types SLIders do not affect (referenced to the book The SLI Effect); as well as the diagram of a mercury arc lamp? These are just images that show the knowledge that has already been established in the reference source book of 1993. I would also like to be allowed put this article under the categories of Science, Pseudoscience, and Philosophy of science so that others of these interests have access to this information. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 16:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer's reply to my recent comments was that when I put the videos into the article Februrary 11th that I referred to them as a source. Look at that version and you will see I never said any such thing and never listed the videos under "Reference". It is under "Media" above "Reference". The only thing I said was that while SLIders give the explanation that while the effect is not within their mental and physical control, it is predictable. That is obvious since I have 3 videos showing this with eye witnesses too boot. I am just photographing and showing this phenonenon known as Street Light Interference as in the book The SLI Effect published in 1993. Its a "video" since the "effect" can ONLY be shown in a "video". A still picture (i.e. JPG) will not show this phenonenon, only a video.

In your opinion, would it be proper to re-enter in these vidoes (even if some wording referring to these videos is changed to give a more defined NPOV)? I also would like to add back in the diagram of the mercury arc lamp, and the pictures of the bulb types that SLI does not effect (referenced to pages 23 & 23 of the source book). Also since I believe this is related to Science and Pseudoscience I would like to have the article under these categories to distribute the knowledge for any feedback and improvements to the article by others. Also there are additional improvements to the article I would like to make (but since every improvement is removed immediately) I can not make any more. One such additional improvement is the explanation of the electronic term cycling, which I made reference to in the Talk page of the article of my arguments. As you can see I am pretty familiar with electronic terms and can pretty much explain these type items back into laymen's terms. The reason for this is that my background (now retired) is that I worked many years in hardware computer repair of specialized larger computers (not PC's). I also have many years hardware electronic experience in spacecraft electronics (TRW systems in Redondo Beach, CA). I am much more familiar with electronic hardware than computer software, however I usually can figure out how to use most PC software. In other words, my background is in electrical engineering (actually worked more as a hardware technician); however do not have a college degree in that. I will check back on your Talk page here for your answer if it is proper to do these items. Meanwhile you might want to check out my User Page (if you haven't already) and look at the type of articles I have started and make improvements on. --Doug ^talk 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Revoking decision by the Kosovo arbcome (Oct 2006)

Hi Raul, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has now initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. As you are an active member of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were:

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Dmcdevit, the administrator on the Kosovo arbitration committee who initiated the remedies against me has chosen to vote against revoking these. I have, in turn, replied to his argumentation here. Sincere regards Osli73 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Want a good laugh?

See this post on Slashdot:

I'm not sure I'm referring to the same payroll as the above commentator mentions, but widespread speculation and some investigation reveals Wikipedia is part of a US security community effort to acheive total information control. The concerns are fueled by official statements from military sources, including the US Air Force's most recent advertising campaign, that they intend to dominate distribution of online information (control space and cyberspace, as the Air Force suggests). Other concerns are based on investigation of pseudonymic admins who sometimes edit in excess of 24 hours without break. One such administrator, who remains heavily involved in political articles, was found to have been a Cambridge student at the time of the Pam Am flight 103 crash who was later fired by a news agency for misdirecting the news agency's investigation on behalf of MI5.

I generalize all of the sordid details here. Much of this information eventually floats up to threads of a Web site marginally critical of Wikipedia, www.wikipediareview.com. Beware -- a few of the regulars on that site flaunt the fact that they are also extremely active Wikipedia leaders, yet all the while deny who they are. One has repeatedly tried to gain access to w..r.com's exclusive administrative discussions and visitor logs, entering several hundred trivial comments that usually do little to raise doubt about other critics of Wikipedia, and often praise the pedi's policies. He edits Wikipedia Review from an IP assigned to a corporation known to contract wiht the US government to conduct "extraordinary renditions" to countries that practice torture.

lol!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied by email. Raul654 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Law FAC

Objections (by reviewers) considered actionable by the Featured Article Director, I believe are resolved. And now the Support votes have started. Thnx for not removing the FAC prematurely. --Parker007 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

re:dien bien phu

Sorry, I will add page number to the citations now. Regarding capitalisation, the title of the book is literally 'the last valley' as printed on the cover, so I was not sure how true to the cover to be. You can change it if you like. SGGH 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true of the paperback [21], but not of the hardback [22]. In the absence of consistency on their part, I think we can assume it's supposed to be capitalized in the usual way. Raul654 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, have capitalised it now and added page number, will go through and capitalise it on other articles that I've used it on. Cheers SGGH 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and another quick question, when citing the ref, do we state the date of publication for the version of the book from which you are quoting, or the date of first publication, even if it may be by a different publisher and/or edition? SGGH 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in most cases, they won't all that different. I suppose strictly speaking, it should be the version you are using. Raul654 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That last one is a observation made throughout the book by the author, its inclusion in the article is mainly an attempt to make the article more NPOV, because personaly I feel that the article does not give adequate air time to events factoring into French decision making which made the Dien Bien Phu garrison seem a idea not as far fetched as the article suggests. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Username change

Hi Raul654. I placed a request for a user name change on the appropriate page yesterday because I have been experiencing some somewhat significant privacy issues stemming from my old user name. (More detail on the page). You are the bureaucrat who has the most recent user name change, so I am humbly requesting your service as soon as possible regarding this issue, because of the somewhat pressing urgency of the privacy violations involved. Thank you much. Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spamlist 2

Talk:Definition of planet is spamblocked, GimmeBot can't operate on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this something I should learn to fix myself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please unblock?

Hi, would you please unblock my IP address User talk:67.167.244.119? Please review my unblock request on that page.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Sorry, not sure where to put this. You put a block on our small company's IP without any understandable explanation. I think this may have been a mistake. Can you please look into your actions and consider lifting them? Thanks. I am referring to: User talk:208.57.149.253

Thank You

WikiThanks

Because I nominated a couple of articles for FA during this last month, I have noticed the work you do in keeping that list turning over. I can see that it involves some dog work in posting info and archiving, as well as considerable reading. So I'd like to thank you for doing all that: it is much appreciated. So far, I have not noticed a worthy article fail (which would perhaps discourage good editors), and so you clearly have a good eye. It's taken me some time to work out where I want to focus my activities on Wikipedia, and now I think I'll stay around FAC, though at the risk of annoying a few people with my comments, in addition to trying to work articles up to submission level. I've noticed how few people are making the system work there, which is a shame. Once again, your hard work and judgement are highly valued. qp10qp

St. Petersburg, Russia

I have been a real idiot in that FAC. I appologize. (I have written an apology to sandy too) If you feel it must be removed from FAC asap, please feel free to do so. --Parker007 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners

Template:WikiProjectBanners 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. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there

How are you? Haven't seen you on IRC for quite a while! --Cat out 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Hi Raul, I figured, given the statement "The FA Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination" on WP:FA I should bring this issue to you. I've been working heavily on an FAC for Wesley Clark, which seems likely to fail. I've gotten some of the opposers to withdraw, but one is unresponsive and there are few if any actual support votes (new voters likely shying away from the bulky FAC that's been built up). I was wondering what the time period is I'd have to wait before nominating the article again. I think with the rewrites and maybe a touch more work it really is ready (but, as I said, I think the bulky, long, FAC is scaring away new voters as there've been almost none, even oppose votes). Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Any suggestions? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually recommend waiting a minimum of 2-4 weeks after the nom fails before renominating.

banners

I'm sorry for losing my cool, but this is so .. Let me put it this way, I'd rather delete the WikiProjects behind pointless banners than just hide their banners for a huge number of these situations. I don't see this as a real solution to the problem, I see it as ignoring the problem. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And holy crap, there's nothing wrong with putting the word out about resources for editors, WikiProject or Peer review or whatever. This negative image spin on WikiProjects and their banners just seems so.. underhanded. Granted, like I said, I have no problems removing banners of projects that don't help out, etc. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help :) Maîtresse 08:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Enjoy the new username. Raul654 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

I just thought I should leave you a note that I think the features articles you have been choosing for the main page have been fabulous choices of late. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 15:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you. Raul654 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot stalled again

User talk:Jmax-bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this thing more trouble than it's worth? Marskell 12:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about bots, but it seems it's just not being watched closely enough. I wonder if we could give it to Gimmetrow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Jmax- (talk · contribs) shows no contribs since late January; maybe we can have the bot assigned to Dr pda or Gimmetrow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears Jmax bot died in a hard drive crash. Furthermore, I saw someone comment somewhere that the new cascading main page protection seems to cause problems with bots.

As to the former problem, being a naturally cautious person, I had Jmax send me a copy of the bot's code in January when we were considering the idea. I have offered to send it back to him. But it might just be better to have someone else do it. Perhaps schultz, who already has a bot run each day to bold the main page article. I think he's an admin, so it wouldn't be a problem having him update the FA count. Raul654 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup FAC

Just wondering why no decision was made on it since it seems to me everything that has been discussed has been seen to. Also why has the FA # reimained the same? Buc 09:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I just looked and it looks like the last remaining objection was withdrawn today. Assuming this continues, I'll promote it during my next pass. Raul654 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The KLF

Hi Raul. I'm unsure of how one usually goes about this, but the really good article on The KLF has already been requested for the main page a few months back. It won best article in its category ("humanities and culture") at Wikimania 2006, and is a really authorative, engaging read. I'm messaging you because 9th March is the 20th anniversary of the duo's first release, so I was wondering if the article could be on the main page on that specific date? I think it would be rather fitting. What do you think? LuciferMorgan 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Raul654 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how closely you keep track...

...but this has gotten a little interesting, and I figured you should be aware of the probable sock parade. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Would you like me to decrease the limit to 7 days instead of 14? Essjay (Talk) 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. Raul654 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 Done MWHAHAHAH! Another person added to the ranks of obsessive archivers! Essjay (Talk) 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not obsessive – it's just that I get new messsages here so frequently that if I don't archive it often, it gets flooded too quickly. Raul654 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the feeling; I always describe myself as "obsessive" because I archive three or four times a day. ;) Essjay (Talk) 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Just fine"

Hey. Regarding your revert: did you misunderstand what I meant in my edit summary? Anyway, I managed to fix all of em (there were a lot). El_C 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I think I misunderstood your comment. Thanks for the fixes. Raul654 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem; that's what I thought. El_C 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for forwarding

Hi Raul. Just a quick thank you note for forwarding the e-mail. Thanks a bunch. Cheers, Redux 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Music files

Certainly; I'll have a look at them, and thanks for putting them there. I'm about to sign off for the evening so it will be tomorrow or later. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I was just wondering do the newest promoted featured articles go ontop at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2007? Its just a bit too confusing for me. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Their FAC noms do. Raul654 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)