User:Raul654/archive24

Hi Mark :)

Hello Mark, I've had an unpleasant time working with SandyGeorgia, so I would like to work with you before things get annoying. So I nominated Number 1's for FAC three weeks ago, and it had no opposes and 1 support. Unfortunately, because so few people visit the review page, I couldn't get anymore. The article then failed, even though it din't have an oppose, something I didn't agree with. Anyway, since that was unfortunate and not because it wasn't good enough, I would like to nominate another article. I would like to nominate Daydream for FAC. I know that a failed article should wait 2 weeks, but I realized an editor as well. Can you grant me permission to nominate Daydream sooner, since my last nomination failed from not enough support and not becuase it had oppose or wans't good enough? Anyways, thanks for your time, please let me know. Thanks!? :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• User talk:SandyGeorgia#Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) FAC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, is there a reason you aren't responding?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it got lost in the talk page clutter here. I skimmed the article and don't see anything obviously flawed with it. So go ahead and nominate it. Raul654 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Mark! I appreciate it :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to change Grace Sherwood TFA photo

Although not caught at FAC or TFA request, the TFA image for this is non-free as it is of a statue erected after a certain date in America (from what I can figure out it'd be free in the UK - DRATS! as this was a really neat photo). There are absolutely NO free images that directly apply here. I deleted the pics from Commons and uploaded here with FURs. The two PD ones are of the Salem trials, which slightly preceded hers. I guess you can select one of the two Salem pics I've added (in cultural background and allegations sections) or not use one at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2010

Do you think the image could be made a bit larger? It is a short blurb and the image is horizontally oriented, so there might be room to do so ... Probably have a couple of weeks' gap once my current FAC clears that page but I've got four or five half done projects the first of which should hit FAC in maybe ten days. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

October 31

Raul, there are copyvio concerns in today's Grace Sherwood; I'm most unpleased. Can you pull it? There's one mention on ANI, and more on the article's talk page. I don't think we should leave it up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of FAs waiting for TFA? (In order to find suggestions for a replacement). → ROUX ₪ 11:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the article more closely now, and some sections are very close to cut and paste-- tagging it was unavoidable. We need to change the TFA. I'm checking TFA/R talk and archives now to see what else was suggested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the queue, there's nothing there that is explicitly Halloweenish. Haven't looked at requested archives. → ROUX ₪ 11:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made Raul aware; will wait to see what he wants to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've pulled the article from the main page. Now I'll be going back to bed. Raul654 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that the first time you had to pull an FA off the main page? It was ultra-disappointing not having a Halloweenish TFA this year. 142.110.227.191 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not the first time, but it's been quite a while since the last time. Raul654 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as not having a halloween-themed TFA this year - we did, for half a day. I decided to pick a storm TFA because we have an overabundance of them, and I figured its authors wouldn't be too upset if one of theirs got the short shrift. Raul654 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition to FAR instructions - exceptions for extreme cases

• Addition to FAR instructions - exceptions for extreme cases - please discuss at WT:FAR. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sandy removed it, and I agree with her reasoning. Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I think the community should weigh in at WT:FAR. Specifically, I think this is something that should be spelled out in more detail, as to when exceptions should (or should not) be made to the rule about attempts-to-engage-at-FA-talkpages. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Got some good positive feedback about this at WT:FAR, will defer to community discussion about it. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Selection of Today's Featured Article (TFA)

Request For Comment: Can the English Wikipedia's selection process for TFA article's for its homepage be improved to allow a greater selection of non-Anglosphere articles compared to the number of Anglosphere articles currently being utilized. HarryZilber (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Raul's talk page is not the place for an RFC on this: please move it to WT:TFAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and better yet wait a week or two, we're kinda busy right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion

Hi Raul654.... First I wanted to commend you for your significant contribution to WP's works by coordinating the selection of the TFAs on the English WP. You may have covered this topic previously, however I wasn't able to find it searching your archives, although this thread related to 'White bias' is somewhat along a similar vein. My suggestion below isn't related to the technical F/A selection criteria, which is fairly well laid out and valid, but I'm querying if WP (in this case meaning you and/or your assistants, if you have any) can update its selection process to include a greater selection of non-Anglo-Saxon topics.

Not having done the requisite stats (shame on me), I'll posit some fictitious numbers for the point of illustration –there are, for the TFAs, perhaps:

• Category 'A': 5-10% of the Today's Featured Articles of a general scientific or technical nature or topic, such as a moth genus, a notable cosmic star system, a computer game or an aspect of medical science —all well and good....
• Category 'B': 70-75% of the TFAs related to subjects of Anglo-Saxon origin, such as U.S., British, etc.. politicians, military leaders and battles, or historical events, locations and other personalities within the Anglo-Saxon group of nations (i.e., the Anglosphere of the U.S., U.K, English-speaking Commonwealth countries, etceteras....), and
• Category 'C': 15-20% of the TFAs related to subjects of non-Anglosphere origin, which are also outside of Category 'A'.

Since the Today's Featured Article on the English Wikipedia is (IMHO) likely one of the most important aspects of WP's collective works by reason of it having such a significant impact on our readership, I'm suggesting that to further our goal of helping the world to share in the sum of all knowledge, its categories shift to a more equal percentage of 'B' and 'C' type TFAs. I believe the net effect would be to engender a greater world view that would be less Anglo-Saxon-centric. I base this personal opinion on the fact that I've gained great amounts of knowledge from reading the TFA articles that have been presented daily, however if you look at the plausible percentages offered above for the three categories, it appears that the increases in knowledge I've gained are largely related to Anglosphere topics.

There's an abundance of well written non-Anglo-Saxon articles within the English Wikipedia; however for whatever reasons they don't appear to be nominated with a frequency as great as the Anglosphere articles, which I believe does a disservice to great numbers of lay readers looking at the English homepage daily. Putting aside any suggestions of deliberate or unconscious bias, can we improve on the TFAs as a matter of policy, such as categorizing the TFA nominations and then selecting a more equal ratio of 'B' and 'C' category articles? I'd like to tap your opinions/comments on such a proposal prior to raising it on another venue. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Raul has only a limited number of articles to choose from; if you have something in mind you'd like to see, go to WP:TFAR and nominate it. You have these to choose from; the "abundance of well written non-Anglo-Saxon articles" is nowhere near as abundant as you seem to think, and Raul generally does a pretty good job in balancing the articles we feature. – iridescent 18:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Raul can only choose from the featured articles he has. It's up to everyone else, including, well, you Harryzilber, to write them so he has a greater choice. So head for the library, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC

Agreed that Raul's doing a pretty good job, but I believe the category stats speak for themselves. The fact that there are more Anglospheric Featured Articles than non-Anglospheric articles to choose from is not a surprise, since most contributors are usually going to write on topics they're most comfortable or knowledgeable with, and likely most, or many editors on the English WP are not very knowledgeable on non-Anglospheric subjects. What I'm looking for is more systemic that suggesting I or another editor head to the library and put noses to the grindstone: what mechanisms can be created to enhance the selection of non-Anglospheric articles to choose from for the TFA pick list?

In a regular commercial reference work, the Britannica for example, there's likely a managing editor who reviews the overall encyclopaedia content and then says: "Hey! We need more Asian/African/Uzebisanian/, etc... content. Get more of those types of editors into our organization, and also assign Bennings, Keetch and Clarke to work on them as well....". We being a non-profit don't have that option, so we need to be more creative on how to achieve a better balance of articles for the TFA. HarryZilber (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please move this to WT:TFAR; I do not intend to respond until the discussion is moved to the appropriate place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can let Raul654 make that call when he's back online, since its his page. HarryZilber (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an abundance of well written non-Anglo-Saxon articles within the English Wikipedia; however for whatever reasons they don't appear to be nominated with a frequency as great as the Anglosphere articles - I think you are massively overestimating the abundance of well-written non-anglophile articles. The fact is there just aren't all that many of them that are featured, and until and unless someone comes up with a solution, there's not a whole lot I can do about it. Raul654 (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Point taken; the obvious solution would appear to be a project that enhances the quality of non-anglophile articles so that there would be many more of them for you to choose from when selecting TFAs. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Such a thing already exists Raul654 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC

Hi Raul. Could you close this nom please? I commented, and I think someone else ought to close it. Given Sandy's wikibreak and other stuff, that leaves you! Thanks, 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy got it. Raul654 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from a noob.

Just a note of thanks for including me in your list of Lawmakers. I hope that the idea my random prose is being scanned for deep philosophical insights/cheap jokes isn't going to deter me from coming out with more. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Please ignore the above. I need to read more closely - it wasn't you that added my 'Law'. Doh! I need to think before typing. Nice list though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's cool. Raul654 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Heads up

Nothing that I can think of-- have a great trip and Thanksgiving! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems in FA Waisale Serevi

Hi Raul.

Long time, eh?

Anyway, I popped in and spotted this article in the FA queue. It's in a poor state. I've left a note at the rugby union wikiproject page, but it's not a very active wikiproject.

Sadly, I'm not so active myself at the moment, so I can't offer to fix it myself, although I made a start.

TRM has suggested you drop it from the queue if it's not fixed swiftly. I think there's a fair amount of merit in that suggestion.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. Let me know here, my talk or by email (it's enabled) what you think. --Dweller (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see the article is protected, which on this occasion is probably a bad idea. --Dweller (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Thanks for posting the thread and for doing the deed—I appreciate the opportunity to help the community in this way. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood FAR

Raul, because of your travel plans, could you peek into my comments at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1 before you go? First, it's an IAR at FAR to begin with by virtue of being at FAR so soon after promotion and mainpage day[1]; second, it's already been IARd and self-reverted once.[2] [3] I want to make sure we have your views on such cases before your travel. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I trust your judgement - I'm fine with moving it to FARC. Raul654 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm not sure if you're aware, but your talk page is unreadable in classic skin (It appears as green text on a slightly-lighter green background) Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it since most people use the "normal" version. This should be because I removed the |} of my welcoming message. I'll try to fix it tommorrow. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 08:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I still use classic, which makes me a teeeeeeeny teeeeeeny tiny minority here ;) (I started editing way back when when classic was the default skin. When monobook came along, I *HATED* it. Still do, with a passion. Vector, the standard skin everyone uses today, is an improvement, but I still like the simplicity of classic) Raul654 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done, was one of those colors which I didn't know what they do. Regards Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 08:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MUCH better. Raul654 (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pedro

In case I am threatened, warned, and/or blocked, I'm going to note here that, per WP:TALK guidelines, I removed a rude comment from administrator User:Pedro left on my talk page at [4] without a response strictly because he did the exact same action on his own talk page when reprimanded by you, a Wikipedia bureaucrat.[5] His edit summary said at the very least that your comment was "foolish." If he thinks a bureaucrat or his valid reprimand is "foolish" and that Pedro "simply supported the candidate as a level headed fellow and per nom", there is no response I can make to what the administrator is treating this all as a game.

Administrators must be held to a higher standard. These games of continual passive aggression by administrators should never be acceptable under any circumstance. I will not escalate this to anywhere such as WP:ANI as I have seen enough situations far worse than this that led to nothing but a gigantic waste of time. The current discussion on WP:BN is plenty proof of that. I'm going to go edit some articles until he gets one of his friends to block me. Vodello (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Temper tantrums like this from Pedro earlier today on this page, almost two full weeks after this was long over, is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't care if he removed it later to act like it never happened. If he cannot keep his temper and check and continues to insult a Wikipedia bureaucrat by continually acting condescending toward him over matters long closed, quite honestly he must resign his position. WP:ABF indeed. I'm sick of this bullshit tiptoeing around WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, especially from an admin that knows better. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I closure

I think that was a good call, especially as I was in the process of doing that myself, and got an edit conflict with you.

(Though you used a niftier template than the "archive top and bottom" ones I was : ) - jc37 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I can cope with having my judgement or competence questioned - that is indeed why one goes to ANI for feedback, but I was a bit taken back by the vitriol. THanks for or your fair-minded comments.--Scott Mac 01:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one bad decision is evidence of incompetence. We all make mistakes. Just try not to do it again. Raul654 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I needed to restore the closure. - jc37 01:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Stephen re-opened it, but I think his decision was a big mistake. I'd give 2-to-1 odds that if that thread stays open another 12 hours, Malleus will get a civility block and the drama will only increase further, for no useful purpose. (Since WMC and Hipocrite are now unlocked) Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with the close, obviously. If we bury our mistakes that quickly, we have little chance of learning from them. But given that it's been closed twice now, I'll not resurrect it again. Scott, is there some informal venue where we can discuss why you think I assumed bad faith? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the damn thing from my watchlist. I think what I've done is transparent to fair-minded people (even if they don't think it was at all wise) and I've no need to add anything more. If people doubt my objectivity, so be it.--Scott Mac 01:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you need a 2 week vacation from here. Some of the series of comments on that discussion got so utterly nasty that I wonder if some of these users actually bother to edit the encyclopedia or think this is a venue for teenage girl-like gossip. If there were only a way to outlaw "deliberate passive aggressive bullshit in order to drive productivity down to zero" we'd have a lot more good articles instead of stubs that at this rate will never be expanded. In baseball alone, most articles should look like Billy Pierce. Out of 38,250 articles assigned to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, 88 are rated GA+, and just 26 have been featured articles. That is just about 0.3%.

Today we spent hours of editors' time discussing bad blocks on prolific drama mongers, with the inevitable result of the inmates cut loose to once again rule the asylum. Jimbo Wales proclaimed that this is exactly how Wikipedia would work on November 23rd, 2007, and it has only gotten worse since then. As long as the founder of the site continues to openly encourage this behavior, I don't see how the project can ever get to even 10% as efficient as it should be.

Your vacation is well-deserved. Hopefully by the time you return I won't have been ganged up on by passive-aggressive wikilawyers that don't give a good god damn about building an encyclopedia and more about thinking of new ways to gleefully tiptoe around WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL with each new baiting comment against another editor, some of these users of which are armed to the teeth with tools they have no business even being allowed to have access to.

C'est la vie. C'est foutu. Je suis claqué. Peace out. Vodello (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, folks - I have an early flight tomorrow, so I'm headed off to bed. Hopefully I'll get some useful pictures while I am at SC2010 (Tianhe-I could definitely use a picture). While I am away, try to keep this place from burning to the ground. Raul654 (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever seen the film, The Great Waldo Pepper? The future of Wikipedia reminds me of a particular chilling scene from that movie. I truly wish I could help keep the project up and running while you are away, Raul, but with the fucked up caste system assigned by Jimmy Wales three years ago and all the soap opera actors vomiting gasoline and flammable vitriol all over the place these days, it's only a matter of time before someone mistakenly drops a lit match and quickly burns to death what could have been the greatest project in the history of the world wide web. I only hope that when Wikipedia dies that the excellent articles on forgotten heroes of the past such as Billy Pierce are saved by someone with at least some sense of responsibility. I write articles because players like that deserve to be remembered with definitive articles. It makes me sick to my stomach to think all of this content could very well be gone by 2014 because of some over-glorification of deletionists and their barnstar-worthy ability to click an undo or delete button to destroy hours upon hours of work in an instant. The project will cry out for help, begging for them to not let it burn, but they will just gawk and do nothing, staring until the project simply disappears from existence forever. Vodello (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Bring Us Together" video

Jappalang mentioned on my talk page that you are the go to guy on video concerns. The Nixon Library, which has been very nice to me on my visits there, is sending me a DVD showing the 1969 Inaugural Parade, taken by people working for the Senate, so demonstrably PD (I will run it through OTRS once I have something uploaded). They say there is a very good clip that shows the kid with the "Bring Us Together" sign. Do you have advice on how to get from DVD (I use a MacBook Pro) to video clip, what program I should get, etc. I am all thumbs about such things. No hurry, I will be gone until the end of the month, shortly after you return and no doubt the DVD will arrive in my absence. Talk page stalkers feel free to weigh in if you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ripping DVDs is no simple task, I'll say that much. I'm fairly technical and I've botched it a number of times by picking the wrong settings, etc. The best app I've found for MacOS (or any other OS for that matter) is HandBrake. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. This seems worth the effort. Another possibility is to mail a copy to someone who knows how to do it, should I enquire at the Village Pump or something? I could either make a copy or get the FedEx store to do it for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, might be a good idea. Once you rip the DVD, you'll have a giant MPEG, and then you'll need something to chop it up, like Final Cut. I'm assuming you don't want to upload the whole thing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Nixon Library people did not say, but I have the impression it is a long video. At first, I was going to use a home video of the parade shot by Haldeman. The PD status there was arguable, though the Nixon people were prepared to present their view it was PD on an email to OTRS. It is not high quality, though, and it's rather fuzzy and jerky. However, apparently they kept looking and came up with the Senate video.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What to do with the Persondata article

Hello. I was trying to find information on what "Persondata" was and came across the Persondata article, which has been deleted multiple times. I wrote on the talk page about how there seems to be a problem - the article has been deleted multiple times, but there seems to be a legitimate issue where people can't find information.

I see you deleted the article once so I thought I would leave you a message - if you have input on what we could do to solve this please visit the Persondata talk page and leave a note. Thanks! --Culix (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it for the same reason that kingboyk deleted it, and that it was unanimously deleted at RFD - because cross name-space redirects are proscribed. Raul654 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming TFA

I see Ben Gascoigne is headed for the main page, which is great. If I think the main page blurb needs tweaking, should I raise this with you, just go ahead and tweak at the link above, or something else? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and tweak the blurb. Once you are finished, check the blurb against the formatting suggestions listed at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests. Raul654 (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Per my comment to Floquenbeam here, PLEASE don't let the Ben Gascoigne main page blurb go up without some version of the mention of his wife that I inserted. It would be an unfortunate omission. More than happy to lose "famous", per comment at other talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added back a sentence about his wife. Raul654 (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and a much better one too. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit I did on the Circumcision of Jesus article

I didn't take full note of the "according to tradition" text nearby the text I deleted. Thanks for reverting that edit of mine. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Raul654 (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Elk

Hi Raul...I thought I could get the Elk article up to date as far as formatting and refs in time for it to be mainpaged on 12/5...but no way I can see this happening. I didn't know it was going to be mainpaged on Sunday till just Thursday...I'm scrambling, but can't get it cleaned up...it needs a week of work yet as most of the refs are 2.5 years old...many are dead or not formatted and there is a lot of confusion...I suggest perhaps in 10 days??? I have by far the most refs to the article, but I can't get it up to speed in time...this may cause you a rush to replace it with another...--MONGO 04:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bump it back a few days. Raul654 (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You da man...thanks!--MONGO 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 5, 2010

Oh thanks, I meant to add {{editprotected}} sorry. The page is technically not protected, but since tomorrow's mainpage is cascade protected I am unable to edit it. Anyway thank you. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So it is fully cascade protected. Got it. Raul654 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Although they're utterly unrelated topics, is it really a good idea to have Louis Lambert and Daniel Lambert as TFA on successive days? It will look a bit confusing for the following couple of days, when the blurb-ends will read "Recently featured: John Lennon – Daniel Lambert – Louis Lambert". – iridescent 15:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I confess I did it on purpose. My impish side got the better of me. I don't really see any harm. If people are so confused, they should click the links. Raul654 (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon- Main page FA for Dec 8

Hi Raul - I didn't notice this before, but see now that there's no obvious tie-in to Dec 8 in the blurb that's being posted on the main page for December 8. I strongly suggest you either include the full dates of his birth and death (9 October 1940 - 8 December 1980) in the first line or add the date to the last line: "...but was murdered on December 8, three weeks after its release." Tvoz/talk 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. Wish us luck tomorrow - hope we don't get too bombed! Tvoz/talk 17:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Want reply

Want reply:[6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

re there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Elk

Raul, I don't want to keep going on about it, but your comment "Regarding the elk/wapiti thing, I not a british english speaker, so it's not something I would have caught. But removing alternate names from a the main page blurb is standard procedure" just makes no sense at at all. You edited the extract to remove the second sentence "In the deer family (Cervidae), only the larger moose (Alces alces), which is called an "elk" in Europe ...." so you can hardly claim to be unaware, nor did you need to catch it, but just not to mess up the existing text. Equally clearly, it was not a problem caused by an "alternate name" (and in fact there was one of those left in - wapiti), but by an alternate animal using exactly the same name - elk. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have elk and moose confused. They are different animals...not even in the same subfamily. Or are we talking about elk, the bird as that was left out of the blurb also...Raul...shame on you! Also, need we add the Irish Elk, which though extinct, wasn't actually either an elk or a moose... we need to include all this level of information in the blurbs, thereby guaranteeing mass panic/confusion which will in turn ensure the FA of the day isn't missed due to all the excitement...You managed to confuse almost everyone!?!--MONGO 03:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, just the Europeans of course. But clearly you don't think that matters, Mongo. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think it matters, actually and for the record, sorry things turned out as they did. Perhaps it was an oversight, but my impression is simply that Raul had but so much space in a blurb to cover the major points in an article.--MONGO 12:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As my comments made clear from the start, there was material lower down which was far more dispensable. This was in fact a very rare case of an FA where almost the whole of the (frankly rather over-short) lead could be fitted in. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, if half the time that's been spent on this discussion had been spent perusing the list of Featured Articles that haven't yet run, looking for similar difficulties, we'd be a lot better off.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Hello, I was curious about something. When you scheduled The Simpsons Game for today, were you aware that December 17 is also the day The Simpsons premiered on way back in 1989 (I didn't see a request for it at TFAR)? If so, bravo. If not, it's a weird coincidence. Either way, thanks for scheduling it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

New Featured Sound

A sound file uploaded by you has been promoted to featured sound status. Your sound file, Image:Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate a sound file, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Thank you for your contribution! BencherliteTalk 16:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

Regarding an FSC

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Moonlight Sonata.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:Moonlight Sonata.ogg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this one for you. I might, in the morning, nominate this at Featured Sounds too. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Pearl Harbor path.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pearl Harbor path.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year and all that

I was wondering if you could hook me up with some low-fat cookie recipes. I figured you might have access to some, even if it's pretty clear you've never eaten any. Anyway, give my regards to the University of Ohio. --72.160.78.176 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Circumcision of Jesus

The DYK project (nominate) 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

FAR stuff

Hi Raul - I sent you an e-mail a week or so ago; not sure if you have gotten around to reading it yet... :) Also, WP:Featured article review/History of the Philippines/archive1 could stand to be closed if you have a few minutes - it's past its two weeks at FARC with nothing happening, but I can't close it as I'm the one that nominated it. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving, so I haven't had the time or energy to do anything online in over a week. Things should settle down for me after this coming Sunday. Can it wait until then? I'll close the FAR in the meantime. Raul654 (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the e-mail can wait, it's nothing life or death. Thanks for closing the FAR, and good luck with your move. Dana boomer (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Raul654. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 07:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Pornography listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Pornography. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Pornography redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for improvements to Surrender of Japan article

Thanks for the clarifications in the Surrender of Japan article! The info about the coded transmissions is very helpful.

I'd like to develop some kind of timeline to make the chronology easier to follow; the prose jumps around too much for me, and so much happened in such a short time.—mjb (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

JOHN MICHEL CELLO-BACH AVE MARIA.ogg promoted to featured sound!

A sound file uploaded by you has been promoted to featured sound status. Your sound file, Image:JOHN MICHEL CELLO-BACH AVE MARIA.ogg was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate a sound file, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

10th anniversary

Hi Raul, I know you're busy at the moment but when you come back, you might want to look at WT:TFAR for the latest suggestions about TFA for the 10th anniversary. Mine, for example, is to run 10 current FAs that have already run on the mainpage (thus IAR-ing two of the normal rules, in a good cause), chosen to highlight the range of Wikipedia's best work. Other ideas are of course available. Hope the move is going / went well. Bencherlite^Talk 08:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article questions

Hi Raul, I gather you're the person to speak to about featured articles. I have a couple of queries for you which I'd be grateful if you could answer:

1) I'm looking at translating a featured article from another language into English. Would it carry over its featured article status, or would the English version need to go through a fresh featured article candidate review?

2) I've been working on an article (ZX81) to commemorate a 30th anniversary event on 5 March this year, and I intend to submit it as a featured article candidate in the next few days. How far in advance can I nominate a featured article for a particular date? Prioryman (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

• Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
• Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
• Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
• Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

---

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Truman poker chips.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Truman poker chips.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly ^hi! 08:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ruby-shooting-oswald.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ruby-shooting-oswald.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly ^hi! 08:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Facebook directory

Wikipedia:Facebook directory, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Facebook directory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Facebook directory during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Hardwick

The article Michael Hardwick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BIO1E

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Calgary Hitmen as tomorrow's TFA

Well, surprise to me! Honestly, I don't think the prose quality is fully up to today's FA standards, so if you can push its appearance back a day or two, that would allow me to spend a bit more time polishing the text. Otherwise, I'll see what I can do before it goes live later tonight. Thanks, Resolute 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated. Resolute 21:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured article question -- FYI

Someone said at Village Pump policy "The entire process of selecting which articles will display on the main page is managed by a single Wikipedian, User:Raul654, and has been for almost 6 years now. He takes input from the community, and sometimes even listens to it, and also IIRC has an occasional assistant who helps out, like when he's on vacation or something. But it's pretty much a one-person show. --Jayron32 10:10 pm, 5 January 2011, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−7)"

I asked for an explanation of this at the Pump, although I will also run through the TFA pages to see if there is an answer there.[7] --Kleopatra (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to apologize for asking. I will read the back story, and I will figure out what is going on. However, I know nothing about you, and the support of you in response to my question was creepy, and no anonymous encounter in cyber-space deserves for that to happen. So, I am sorry I asked the question and that it was about you, as you did nothing to me to earn such a strange reaction from others in response to a simple question. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The back story goes something like this - back in late 2003, I suggested putting featured articles on the main page. Early in 2004, we switched the main page from it's previous all-text layout to a four pane layout close to what we have today (FA, ITN, DYK, and OTD; FP was added later). For the first couple days, it was insanity -- the featured article was being changed on an hourly basis. I stepped up, declared that it would be changed no more than once every 24 hours, and started doing it myself manually. (The queuing system was added later by Mav.) I also took over management of FA promotions and demotions, and maintained the full FA list. Since then, I've added delegates like Sandy and Karanacs to share they workload, and they've been invaluable. As for the response on the village pump, I'm gratified by the response. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional backstory is that several years ago, the TFA requests page was routinely running to hundreds of requests, and Raul's talk page was inundated. It was amply demonstated that the community couldn't handle the mainpage scheduling, with frequent squabbles, conflicts of interest, and a generally unwieldly mess. We (generally, Wehwalt and me, but many others as well) began working to reform WP:TFA/R to a community process that would work better to feed requests to Raul, and that has been successful, IMO. Wiki's problems are legendary, but Raul's management of the Featured Article process and mainpage scheduling of the TFA is not one of those problems, which is why folks are so quick to defend him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't get scared off by your first experience here. You are very welcome to participate in the TFA/R process.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow's anniversary TFC

Hi. Just wanted to point out that tomorrow's "The Featured Content" features a link to a disambig page The Four Seasons. It should instead link to The Four Seasons (Vivaldi). Just as an additional note, I think you (and any others involved in the Main Page) would greatly benefit from installing User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js into your skin so that links like these can be spotted much more easily. Regards. Zunaid 07:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I use classic so it wouldn't do me any good. Raul654 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm posting this here so you can see it, but why don't you post one of the 'best' featured topics, like the Solar System, Guadalcanal Campaign, or Mary Wollstonecraft? I'm not criticizing your decision, just curious as to why you would put up a topic of limited interest and no academic value vs. the truly popular solar system, a major campaign in WWII learned about by many in the world, or a noted 18th-century author. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for something different from the other two, but your point is well taken. I'll make the switch. Raul654 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Raul! This promises to be a fun day :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Should be fun :) Raul654 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I replaced the Guadalcanal link with one to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Guadalcanal Campaign. Hope that's fine with you – otherwise readers would have never seen the whole topic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw. No objections here. Raul654 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'll stop bothering you then :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 21, 2011

Hi! Or the 21 January you could insert the article 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash? Then, the anniversary events. Greetings! Kobrabones (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the list of cutaneous conditions

Regarding consideration for article of the day, I left you a message a while back, but wanted to follow-up regarding the list of cutaneous conditions. I realized lists are generally not considered for the article of the day; however, I wanted to know if you would make an exception for this list. I think the prose and content of the list are excellent, and exemplify some of the best content on Wikipedia. If you would be willing to make an exception to the nomination process and allow consideration of this list, I would be forever greatful. Also, if you would allow this, perhaps you could connect me with someone who has guided a lot of previous articles through the process in order to help me with the nomination? Regardless, thank you for all your work on Wikipedia. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As part of Wikipedia's 10th anniversary tomorrow (Jan 15), I'm running an experiment on the main page wherein I've picked a featured list, topic, and sound to run together simultaneously. Nergal asked me if I plan on doing this again. Here is my answer to him. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's great. So we can see how tomorrow goes, and perhaps I can check back in with you in a couple months? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Anniversary and ITN

Much confusion is ensuing; please comment at Talk:Main Page#Changes for 0:00 UTC Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

External jump on Featured sound

You must be tired-- good job! Today's featured sound has an external jump that takes the reader outside of Wiki! "Performed by John Harrison and the Wichita State University Chamber Players ... " links out to a website for John Harrison. Those are against MOS, and we want to keep readers on Wiki, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Titoxd removed it, but I restored it. My reasoning in here. In short - I want to give credit to John Harrison, who peformed it (and uploaded it, after I walked him through the process). If given the choice of no link, a red link (user:Whyameye), or an external link, I prefer an external link. Raul654 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK-- you may spend all day answering questions like this :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Blast! I just changed it to accomodate Sandy. Excuse me, I'll rollback myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You can give credit in many ways Raul, but this way is not a good one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone comes up with a more palatable solution than no link or a red link, I'm all ears. Raul654 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you make the rules, so 'nuff said. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus Faturoum. He's already credited on the file page, so why are we putting a URL to his site on the Main Page? When has any editor ever gotten credit for their uploads aside from their name on the file description page? I don't see why we are making an exception here. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite clearly because Raul is personally involved, not a good reason. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've created a userpage for him, with a link to his University webpage, and linked to that newly created userpage from the main page blurb. Hopefully that should satisfy everyone. Raul654 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't satisfy me. Why is this a special case? As Dream out loud pointed out above, all other contributors get is their name on the file description page. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC) OK, perhaps that's the least worst option now, Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The featured picture (which is the closest analogue to a featured sound) has a credit every day. That seems like a reasonable approach to me. Raul654 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Having just listened to John's recording I'd have to say that it's pretty good, and he certainly deserves to be credited in the same way that any other contributor would. Which of course precludes external links. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For you...

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work on the main page... My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For all your hard work, you deserve at least two barnstars. Remember (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work on the main page... Remember (talk)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I never expected to support the notion of other Featured content being displayed on the Main page, but you took an intractible problem and launched a gutsy and innovative solution for an anniversary date. Regardless of how it's ultimately received, kudos for the creativity and always hearing different parts of the community, no matter the punches you take in the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lists on the mainpage

Now then, I love the idea that someone somewhere thinks that some featured lists actually cut the mustard. But did you (or any of your helpers) let the featured list community know that we'd be featuring a list on the mainpage, so we could update it to the current standards? I maybe out of line but perhaps I missed the notification that this was going to happen. After all, if you're going to experiment with what appears on the mainpage, at least give the relevant projects a few weeks notice to ensure we exemplify what's best. Frankly, the idea is brilliant, the execution is lacking. Pity. I now see a link at WT:FLC posted by User:Dabomb87 two days ago. If we want to exemplify brilliance, we could have used a proper calling notice. Perhaps see you in 2021, this is a missed opportunity and another chance for others to dig at lists. The list you're featuring could use a review, but it's too late now. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But did you (or any of your helpers) let the featured list community know that we'd be featuring a list on the mainpage, so we could update it to the current standards? - yes. Raul654 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So did you get feedback to ensure that the list you placed there was reviewed? Did you ask the FL directors to be part of the process? Do you realise you have a list on the mainpage which fails the FL standards? Did you bother reading it, checking if (for example) the tables sorted correctly? This is the most fundamental anniversary of the project and you failed to ensure the featured list was revisited. Unbelievable. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on the topic at Talk:Main_Page#10th_Anniversary_FA. Some people expressed reservations at my original choice for featured topic, so I changed it. Moons of Saturn was specifically suggested by Makeemlighter as a good featured list. It looked OK to me, so I used it. Nobody else complained about it or raised the issue. It's a pity that, despite multiple notices several days in advance, you didn't see them or participate in the discussion. But your failure to act on these notifications is not my fault. Raul654 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought Dabomb87 knew? He's an FLC director, and the should have WP:FL watchlisted, as he updates it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, where was FL directly notified this list would be suddenly featured on the mainpage? For goodness sake, there's a [dead link] on the featured list.... I may be expecting too much, but for the anniversary, I would have thought you would have talked to the people running the various sections of Wikipedia directly. Our "failure to act" is your failure to notify. Nice touch. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted notifications on the page of every single featured content subject [8][9][10]. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that the people who are active in these areas - including especially the directors - would see the notice. Dabomb87 certainly had no trouble spotting it, and posted a secondary notice on the FLC page. And, at his suggestion, I changed my original FL choice from Timeline of Chemistry to Moons of Saturn. You had plenty of notification. Raul654 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that the message(s) didn't make it through in time. A shame we're showcasing "dead links" and incorrectly sorting tables, and a shame lists finally get a chance to shine but be wrecked by a lack of direct notification (which Raul, you can do, given the significance of this anniversary). I'm devastated. We get enough grief from the rest of Wikipedia but now we're demonstrating to the world we can't even throw a list together. Bugger. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit hypercritical of the Moons of Saturn article. It looks fine to me. There's one dead link out of 60. That's hardly the end of the world. Raul654 (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypercritical? (Of course, I see you reviewing FLCs frequently...!) On the 10th anniversary, and the first time you dare feature a list on mainpage? No way. It was supposed to be our chance to get it right, make it perfect. Why not directly tell us a week in advance that this list was the one you'd be featuring for the anniversary to give us a chance to shine it up and correct all the issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't get a week of notice because I didn't decide until Jan 11th that I was going to do something for the anniversary, and I didn't decide what that something was until the 12th. As soon as I decided, I notified everyone. In short - everyone else knew what was going down as soon as I did.

As far as notifying "us" "directly" - I don't know who "us" is or how much more directly I can notify you than this and this and this. Raul654 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. If it was that important (i.e. Wikipedia's 10th anniversary) you'd "get on the phone" and contact editors directly. Clearly it isn't that important. It's a done deal. I'll curb my enthusiasm for ensuring that, given the chance, we'd all have worked to make sure the list on the main page was perfect. The edit history suggests no-one particularly gave a damn, or it was perfect. Either way, we have no say, no comeback, you notified a bunch of talkpages, and that was job done for you. On the most important mainpage day of Wikipedia's history. That's a fail for me. Of course, that's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just quietly fix whatever it is that you think is wrong? Nothing on the main page, or anywhere else, will ever be "perfect". Anyone who's had a TFA knows that for a significant amount of time readers will be seeing a vandalised version anyway. "Perfect" is quite simply unachievable. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your belief that individual editors (Which?) should have been notified is bizarre. This is the thanks Raul gets for compiling something special? Sheesh.

You did a good job, Raul. Some people can't be pleased. —David Levy 02:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: The deadlink is fixed and I'm working on the sortability; should be finished before too long. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And fixed. If there's anything else that needs to be done, let me know on my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed that everyone else here is tooled up with all sorts of rights that I don't have, so I'll quietly edge away from any further discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall you didn't want any of those trinkets :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggest

In 2011 we have "On 15 January 2011, we will be featuring ... list/article/sound on the mainpage", and notify all major contributors and all major projects and all major featured content directors. With specifics. The anniversary is important, Wikipedia is all over the BBC (for example), so we should work together to ensure we do the best we can. That means notifications to key people, not vague messages on talk pages. We missed a trick, and FL will be (once again) vilified for presenting inadequately mature work. Give us a week, tell us what's being featured, no problem. But I saw nothing. I heard nothing. I'm all ears, but I can't watch all of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning on doing this on every anniversary, but I'm open to having a discussion about doing it on a semi-regular basis. Look up further in this page, in the Regarding the list of cutaneous conditions section. Raul654 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered about the repeats, I'm concerned with the showcase. We have a list that could be better (if we'd been directly informed) on the mainpage. We want lists on the mainpage. I hope it's a success, but if it fails because we didn't have a direct opportunity to fix the things that are wrong with it, it's because we weren't directly involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

TRM, dude! How's the new gym coming ? Honestly, you're shooting yourself in the foot here :) I looked at the list and thought, wow, FL has come a long ways since the days when I used to criticize it, and I thought you'd be proud to be on the mainpage-- I was proud of it! You are being hypercritical of the list-- the rest of us don't know the FLC standards as you do, and most, like me, probably thought it was great. I wouldn't have known it wasn't up to your standards if you hadn't put up this fuss :) And FAs go on the main page *all* the time with deadlinks and other trivial issues (sometimes even worse, like plagiarism :)-- it's really not a big deal, and I thought you showcased better than fine. Also, I didn't participate much in the mainpage discussions because I was busy elsewhere with an ITN, but I saw Dabomb87 in there somewhere, so knew someone was on it. Posting to WP:FL really is enough notice-- main participants have to be following there. I also think you're being hypersensitive-- the List was fine, but by calling attention to its minor problems, and going after Raul so hard when he probably worked his arse off to make this happen, you're not advancing the cause of having other types of featured content on the mainpage. Do you want it to look like a big hassle? Really, the minor problems probably weren't noticed by anyone else, and Dabomb87 fixed them quickly. You done good; chill and enjoy it-- it's fine! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Getting FLs on the Main Page was once an idea once reserved for the basement of WP:PEREN, and to see it actually happen was a great achievement for the FL community. Obviously this is Wikipedia, and we should always strive for improvement, but at the same time we should step back sometimes and marvel at what a bunch of mostly ordinary, mostly anonymous people from around the world have done in their spare time. And all things considered, let's be thankful that the list's most glaring issues were a dead link (now fixed) and sortability (somewhat fixed, though we still need to work on it). At least it's well-written, comprehensive, neutral and verified against high-quality sources; that's more than I can say for most of the other stuff on here. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above, in the cold light of day. I was astonished that we finally managed to get a list on the mainpage, all I wanted was for it to be spot on. It's no doubt my own failing that I didn't even know this was happening, which considering the amount of time I spend here, is odd, so that produced my hypersensitive reaction. Apologies to all, thanks to Dabomb87 (of course) for fixing some of the issues. I'll head quietly away now. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that I agree with SandyGeorgia, and I think you, Raul, did a great job in a no-win situation. Thanks for all your hard work on doing something special for the 10 year anniversary. Remember (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Echoing. It looks great. Its a nice testament to the good parts of wiki. Ceoil 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainpage appearance

Raul, do you want me to list Guadalcanal Campaign at WP:FA and on its talk page as having appeared on the mainpage? What about the rest of the FAs in the Featured Topic? No hurry to answer, I just want to put this here while I'm thinking of it, since the mainpage bot won't pick it up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said a peep :) Unless someone objects, I'll list Guadalcanal Campaign at WP:FA as having been on the main page, but not the other articles in the Featured Topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No, don't list it. I'm going to feature it on the main page at some point. (I turned down the guadalcanal request at the requests page because it came so soon on the heels of the featured topic appearing there). Raul654 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mathias Rust.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mathias Rust.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alex Spade (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

February 6, 2011

I saw the discussion on the talk page of User talk:EricCable. It seems reasonable to allow a page to be featured twice if a significant date arises. February 6, 2011 is perhaps one of those significant dates. It is the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, and that seems pretty significant.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to do unusual things for really special/unusual occasions (like featuring the candidates on the day of the '08 presidential election, or featuring topics/lists/sounds for Wikipedia's 10th anniversary) but the 100th anniversary of the birth of an ex-president just doesn't strike me as being in the same ballpark. Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'm over it. The World will remember Ronald Reagan a thousand years after it has long forgotten all of us. Eric Cable  |  Talk  11:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador role

Hey Mark. I just wanted to invite you to consider becoming an Online Ambassador this term. Cheers --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know do runs the 'One This Day' section of the main page?

Hi Raul,
Since you run the Featured Article section I'm guessing you may know who runs the On This Day section. Not including the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on it's 25th anniversary is an epic fail in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to chew the person out, I just figure there's a page where people can suggest things for the section just like FA. Thanks. Eric Cable  |  Talk  11:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No single individual runs WP:OTD. However, standard procedure there, as I understand it, is not to include an article in poor condition or with valid maintenance tags, regardless of the significance of the individual or event. The Challenger disaster article has an overall lack of references and a clean-up tag, so won't be appearing at OTD this year. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 12:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add fixing that article to my to-do list.-- Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What Bencherlite said. OTD is unique among the main page sections in that it is essentially preprogrammed -- everything that appears there is scheduled in well in advance, although as a given date approaches people tend to fiddle with the blurbs. No single person is in charge. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fool

I saw factully inacurate material, and i changed it. Simply because you are to bigoted to permit other view pionts hardly makes those viewpionts vandalism. I admit that i am not very skillfull in editing, but i always post a link to the source. It hardly constitutes vandalism simply because you disagree with it. Furthermore, if anyone is vandalzing these pages is it you. Putting knowingly incorrect materiel on these pages, for instance, saying that Meyer stoped teaching to promote creationism is in stark contrast to the fact that he himself denies that he did this. Meyer promotes intelligent design, which is inherently sperate from creationism ,which Meyer condemns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgang Dan (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Hitt

I removed this section from the article as it appeared to me to be an obvious BLP violation [11]. I was then very surprised to find that you'd added it only an hour before. Such accusations need much more solid sources than hearsay in a podcast and some website of uncertain providence. Are there mainstream media reports to verify any of this, or indicate that it is notable? Frankly, I'm a bit taken aback at having to tell someone of your experience that serious BLP allegations need serious sourcing.--Scott Mac 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact of Stern's conviction for Katz's contract killing is quite easy to verify, ala this and this and this. The plan to murder Hitt, which was the reason da Silva flipped, was immaterial to the Katz murder case so in all probability it is not going to be in any of the trial transcripts (which are not available on the internet, at any rate). I doubt any secondary source names Hitt by name (if they do exist, they probably say that Stern planned to murder some "tenant activists" without naming them) so I'm OK taking it out. But there's no doubt that it's true and notable. Raul654 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Scott asked me for a sanity check on this. I have to say I'm rather surprised (and dismayed) that someone of your long experience felt this was an appropriate thing to add to the article. The sourcing is shaky but it also distorts the article's balance by being there. It seems to make allegations against a third party who doesn't have an article. It needs to stay out. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Stern is not the subject of the article. All you've got is the fact (if it is that) that Jack Hitt was his tenant, and that Hitt made some remarks on his podcast (years later) claiming that John Moscow was alleged to reported that Stern had been planning something. None of that is verifiable, and unless Hitt's allegations and hearsay are being reported in independent reliable sources, those allegations are not notable. Really, how could you think for a minute this belonged in a BLP. It is quite unthinkable.--Scott Mac 01:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

History of the Jets

Hey Mark, I will need you to deal with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the New York Jets/archive2 eventually. Sandy has recused herself from Wehwalt's nominations, and Karanacs has not been on-wiki in quite some time. I will probably ping you again when it ripens a bit. Have a good one! --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably ready for a look-see, if you have time this weekend. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleship/archive1 as well. It's been around for a while and I reviewed it. Uncertain when Sandy is coming back. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Karumba. Ok, I'll take a look sometime today or tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just pinging you on the Jets. Sandy is back-ish so she can probably handle Minas Geraes. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

All done. Sorry for the delay. Raul654 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Video games

Hi Raul, would you consider not putting any more video games on the main page for a while? We seem to have an awful lot of them, and they feed into the perception of Wikipedia as a project for very young men. That might be unfair to the video-game contingent, and I accept it might not even be accurate, but perception ends up shaping reality. There's a good article in today's Independent about the gender issue on WP, [12] and I think the main page is a good place to make Wikipedia seem more welcoming to women—and to men of all ages too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet Raul is still dealing cards from the same deck. Even if he palms the knaves, that doesn't give him any more queens to play. And I'd hate to call that a good article, it is an opinion column by someone who knows little about Wikipedia and cares less.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I found that article really spot on. :) It's not only men who do it, mind you, so I'll grant that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, with several arguments going on around the Wiki, including on Jimbo's talk page, I won't argue with you, (so there! :) ) Seriously I think this would have minimal positive effect, those who criticize Wikipedia will do so anyway, and it will irritate some of our best FA writers who happen to choose to write about boys toys.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Dali Elephants.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dali Elephants.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Userbox awarded because of User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie

User:Lanthanum-138/Keeps a WP Movie. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

JOHN MICHEL CELLO-J S BACH CELLO SUITE 1 in G Prelude.ogg promoted to featured sound!

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, File:JOHN MICHEL CELLO-J S BACH CELLO SUITE 1 in G Prelude.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 00:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Figured I'd send a copy of the good news your way! Sven Manguard Wha? 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking the Count

Yes, I find the new version a rather big improvement, actually. The version I uploaded is from the university gallery which actually holds the painting in its collection. The previous version was from an arts text. It's just my opinion, but I believe the new version is a big improvement. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, when I upload an image that's the same as an existing image, I carefully place one next to the other, and look them over for some time. I make no assumptions, except how the images appear in their faithfulness to the original (in this case an original I've eyeballed). I don't take replacing images here lightly. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Stanford Archive answers

Hi there-- In the past I have had limited luck finding the original documents from which these links were culled. Do you think you could put a direct link to each one at the top of each list? Also, I started to make a list of the special characters that got translated into odd character strings. You are welcome to do a find/replace on the lists if you want, or we can just add to it as a reference list. I think we can get this from halfway done to over 90% done by end of year. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Each archive subpage is a mix of numerous packets. It would be excessively difficult to pin down a complete list for each. However, one very effective way of searching is use Google's site: mechanism to search the archive. For example, in Wikipedia:Stanford Archive answers/5 there's an answer called "The Alans". Here is the search I used to find it on the archive: : The modern Ossetians claim descent from this tribe. Like the Vandals, they were known for wreaking havoc in Spain and North Africa. Their kings, called Kundajiqs, included Askhkadar. Raul654 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm catching up from a travel break, will try to get to this today: [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hrm... so that's three conflicting requests for the 24th -- To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World, HMS Indefatigable (1909), and Rinaldo. Blegh. Don't know how I'm going to untie that Gordian knot. I'll schedule through the 23rd for now and let it sit for a few days. Raul654 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

maybe one of them could go up the 23rd? I dunno ... that's why you get the big bucks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rinaldo has just been promoted to FAC. However, although 24 February is the tercentenary of the opera's premiere I have, after all, decided not to request that date for TFA. The warship article is a centenary, and it's the nominator's first shot at TFA, so I would support that article having the date. I should, however, be grateful if Rinaldo could be scheduled as soon as possible after 24 Feb - preferably the very next day (the article presently requesting 25th has a lot of opposition). I hope this helps to solve your quandary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interupt. Just thought I'd make a suggestion. The 175th anniversary of the Battle of the Alamo begins on 23 February which would make To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World a good candidate for that day. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul, for scheduling the Rinaldo on 25 February. That is fine. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Guide

Not sure if you have been following the wikiguide discussion but one of the topics were as to getting more women on to Wikipedia. I recommended that we put more woman appealing in the featured article. Big Roger (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I support having appealing ladies on the front page. I might even look at it, then.TCO (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jenna Jamison not withstanding, we don't exactly have a lot of featured biographies of women. And I don't think that a cosmetic change like that is going to encourage more women to edit. Raul654 (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FSC directors

Hi Raul, as we did with featured list candidates in ?2007, there is a solid proposal to create a directorate for featured sounds. I am alerting you to this because of your close involvement in what appears on the main page, and because you kindly agreed to officially endorse the first directors of FLC. In the interests of cohesiveness in featured content processes, I'd be inclined to ask for your endorsement again when the time comes (that is, if consensus continues to build). Tony (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Could we do something about the playback of media on this site? Simple videos are just gawdawful here for the majority of browsers. the decison to use an open source format (not just open sourc content, but the format, not having open source format in addtion to industry standard, but only OGG) has really hamstrung us. Any crappy blogger can embed a video better than what we do. We're like 10 years behind the times. And the lack of video (compare us to a lot of the web) is a sign, that the mechanism does not serve well.

Just whining since you all are big and powerful. And since the images work pretty well. But playback of media is a problem. And then when people tell me to get a non-IE browser...I could care less about ME watching a video. I care about my readers. The vast majority of normal users who surf the rest of the net without issues.TCO (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Musa Qala

Just a heads up, the article now has a clean-up tag and several {{citation needed}} tags; and concerns have been raised on the talk page as to whether it is still worthy of featured status. The author, Marskell (talk · contribs) has been inactive since August of last year, so I am not able to contact them to see if they can clear it up. Of course it is your decision whether or not to pull it from the main page, but I thought I would let you know there seem to be concerns about it. Regards, wackywace 10:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone else who might clean it up; why would a revert to the featured version not work, since it likely deteriorated in Marskell's absence, but was also likely excellent as passed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just had a look, and a good deal of the tagging is utterly ridiculous and gratuitous.

British officers[who?] expressed satisfaction that Musa Qala had been recaptured without damage to the town itself[citation needed]. Taliban fighters were believed to have merged back into the local rural population after the defeat, their traditional dress providing simple cover[citation needed]

Someone didn't check subsequent citations and seems to be of the notion that every sentence must be cited, and and a "who" on British officers? I'm going to investigate a revert after I figure out who's done this (have some ideas on that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One new IP did most of the work/damage; unclear to me yet why that happened while on the mainpage, but I reverted and am now looking at what good edits can be recovered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I reverted to the version just before the IP started, and then compared it to the last Marskell last edited (very few changes-- the article did not deteriorate), and this is a comparison of the featured version to now. The changes over time were mostly cosmetic: date delinking, citation cleanup, infobox, very few prose changes, so I do not think the gratuitious tagging was in order, and have requested feedback on talk (the IP left none). I don't understand where the vandal watchers were or why this happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Posted an alert to MilHist, going to sleep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• This IP opposed the FAC; this IP did the tagging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • IPs second edit, in December; few edits other than Musa Qala. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lemur evolution article name

As the talk page of Lemur evolutionary history stated, there was a lengthy debate over the name of the article during FAC. Both then and now, I'm not particularly partial to either "Lemur evolutionary history" or "Evolutionary history of lemurs." But I have to agree with Ucucha, who changed the wording of the lead sentence shortly after the move, that "evolutionary history of the lemur" doesn't make much sense since there are many species. Likewise, I would not favor names such as "evolutionary history of the gastropod" or "evolutionary history of the ape", but would consider supporting a name such as "evolutionary history of the chimpanzee." Anyway, your comments on the talk page would be welcome. Otherwise, I should note that I may be making some changes to the article tonight. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of lemurs is fine with me - that seems to be consistent with our other naming schemes for these articles. Raul654 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to put Featured Lists on mainpage

FYI, discussion above (on that page) and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
		I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition. It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal. Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.) Thanks again for such a strong showing of support, and I hope to see you at featured sounds in the future. Sven Manguard Wha? Adam Cuerden (talk) (X! · talk)

FL on mainpage

Hi Raul, thanks for your comment at Talk:Main page about the FL proposal. However, I am slightly confused at your viewpoint, as our technical details are virtually identical to those of the FS proposal you supported. Would you be kind enough to let me know that major differences between the proposals that you think would make the mainpage look stupid with FLs but not with FSs? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't oppose the featured lists proposal, per se. I oppose the caveat that was brought up in the first sentence of the proposal, describing the recently concluded featured sounds proposal - alongside a second featured picture on Saturdays and Sundays. Having two featured pics in one day would be very bad. I'd be perfectly fine having featured lists and featured sounds on the main page, one per day, every day. Raul654 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That was the same proposal as the FS guys. "The basic proposal is that a second featured pictures section is added to the main page. On Saturdays and Sundays, this will become a Featured sound section instead. I've run this past Howcheng, who manages Picture of the Day, and he fully supports this." We just said we'd take Wednesdays. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I didn't read the featured sounds proposal carefully enough, because I think that would look awful. Like I said, I'd be fine giving you and the featured sounds guys your own dedicated spot on the main page every day, but I'm adamantly opposed to having redundant sections on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be redundant? There would be a second FP there four days a week, a FS two days a week, and a FL one day a week. I'm pretty disappointed you'd now torpedo this FL mainpage chance because you didn't read the FS proposal carefully enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe I should clarify my position and clear the air here a bit -- I'm fine with putting featured lists, sounds, and pictures on the main page. I'm opposed to having redundant sections on the main page -- having more than one featured list, sound, or pic at the same time. (Which, as currently proposed, would be 4 days per week) I think these proposals have not been presented in a way that made it clear that they would create redundant sections like this, because I didn't notice that part of the featured sound proposal until just now (even though I supported it!), with mockups that don't represent what the main page will look like all of the time the majority of the time.

What I think the main page should look like is a 2x3+1 panel, with the bottom three panes going to featured lists, sounds, and pictures, and that it should look like that every day of the week. That should satisfy everyone - in fact, it goes a bit further in giving the featured lists and sounds 7 days of exposure per week instead of 1 or 2. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, once the 160 featured sounds have been used (in under 6 months, if it's one a day), what would you want to happen to the page layout then? I think one of the whole points behind the FS proposal is that sounds would only be featured two days per week, because there aren't that many. Bencherlite^Talk 18:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I think putting sounds on the main page will stimulate more interest in them, causing more nominations. There are a lot of good sounds on commons. I know this because I uploaded hundreds [thousands?] of them.
2. I don't think repeating featured sounds once every six months is such a terrible thing. It probably won't even be noticed. Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that there are also (IIRC) less featured lists than articles, we could have one panel that rotates through lists and sounds with a fixed schedule (either alternating, or Mo/Wed/Fr vs. Tue/Thur/Sat/Sun, depending on how many of each there are). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recollection is inaccurate, Stephan. At the time of writing, 1989 featured lists, only 1 of which has appeared on the main page. Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page totals 1,338. Bencherlite^Talk 18:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I have not checked the data, so take this FWIW, but the last time I checked, FLs were about a third of FAs. I suspect they are growing faster, since they are a bit easier to generate: I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, I came up with the no-repeats rule for FA. It's not written in stone. It's not a holy writ from on high. If you violate it, you will not be struck down by a bolt of lightening. It's a custom, a handy rule that I made for myself to keep the main page from getting stale. But re-running featured content on the main page is not a mortal sin. It's OK to do it when circumstances dictate. Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We're going to enter a Catch-22 now. FS has the community consensus to be on the mainpage next to a second FP. You're calling the proposal you supported "stupid" and telling FL to propose a "sensible" layout. Are we really going to stop FL from doing exactly what FS has an almost unanimous community consensus to do? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a catch 22. The solution is very simple - HAT the current discussion, and put up a new omnibus proposal, to use a 2x3+1 layout, with featured lists, sounds, and pics on the main page once per day, every day. Make sure to mention that it modifies the previous propsosal by doing away with the two-FPs-at-once thing that I didn't notice (and, I'm betting, lots of other people missed too). I'll do it myself, if you want. Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you missed it, you cannot assume that the community missed it. It was there in plain text in the second paragraph of the proposal, shown in the mockups and received almost unanimous support. It's not up to you to cap the proposal. It's not your proposal, not your main page, not your consensus. You have to let this run. We've put a hell of a lot of work into this, and you cannot suddenly show up and say "oh, missed that bit... oppose .... stupid" - that's really unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's likely that many !voters were supporting the inclusion without considering the design (I didn't look at design, but raised my concerns about design early on at FL [14]); I agree we should move forward by hatting that and now re-focusing on design, considering the general notion is now supported. (after two edit conflicts) TRM, nothing is to be gained by forestalling a robust discussion of how best to design this: that the content will be included is now clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) so between Sandy and Raul, you wish to overturn community consensus to include the featured sounds on the mainpage? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(after three ecs). No, please don't mischaracterize. And yes, any editor can "show up and say ... "; see Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus can change. It's likely that Raul's earlier support was a factor in subsequent !votes; now let's move into a productive discussion of the design, or poor design may emerge as an after-the-fact issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm not trying to mischaracterise anything. Raul has said he'll cap the discussion because the proposal is "stupid". This is not consensus. It's borderline ownership issues. The design is exactly the same as proposed in the community-accepted FS proposal. You and Raul both seem keen to characterise the community (they probably didn't read it, they probably based their vote on Raul's) and I don't think that's fair, or consensus-based or reasonable in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that Raul may mean the layout is "stupid", not the proposal to include the content. And I don't think that is ownership, from the single person on Wiki who has the best track record wrt the main page. I hope you'll recognize that he is in your court, and trying to accomplish the change in the best way possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if Raul mis-read/didn't read/overlooked elements of the FS proposal, but that received near unanimous support. You and he now wish to revoke that consensus. I recognise Raul wants nothing but the best for Wikipedia, but revoking the results of the FS proposal and nullifying the FL proposal as a unilateral decision is a bridge too far. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(multiple ec) It is a bit soon to invoke the "consensus can change" argument when the previous well-advertised discussion about FSs/more FPs has only just finished, and a little lacking in evidence to suggest that either other people failed to read the proposal properly (as Raul now admits) or they were swayed by Raul's endorsement. Does Raul have a design mock-up ready to show us for his proposal? Bencherlite^Talk 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this post gives us some indication of where a very involved editor stands on the mock-up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And his proposal was nearly universally supported. The FL one is technically identical. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, all he's saying is that we can have FL on the left or the right, with FP on the other side. That's not a mock-up of a Raul proposal. Bencherlite^Talk 19:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rambling Man: You keep stating (both here and in the proposal) that the previous proposal called for the featured sound to appear alongside a second featured picture. In fact, it called for the featured sound to appear on weekends instead of a second featured picture (which would occupy the same space on weekdays). Whether or not that actually occurs (and I'm not terribly fond of the idea), I want to make sure that this detail is clear. —David Levy 18:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The coding will support all of the permutations. The proposal for FL was identical to that of FS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to confirm that you understand that the previous proposal called for a second featured picture to appear on days on which the featured sound doesn't appear, not for the two to appear "alongside" each other. In other words, there would be a featured picture and featured sound on Saturdays and Sundays, with two featured pictures appearing on weekdays. At no point would two featured pictures and a featured sound appear simultaneously. —David Levy 19:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they could. The mockup and the coding support that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't what was proposed/approved. You keep stating that it was. —David Levy 19:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The FS proposal technical wording said these permutations were possible. The mockup shows it. The wording of the proposal (second para) didn't say that. Agreed. But we're working on the same technical proposal as the FS one which gained significant support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The mockup clearly depicts a featured sound accompanied by a single featured picture. Both the mockup's embedded wording and the proposal indicate that such a setup would be used on weekends (with a second featured picture taking the featured sound's place on weekdays). You, conversely, have continually claimed that there is agreement to include a featured sound alongside a second featured picture (i.e. to include two featured pictures and a featured sound simultaneously). This is false. —David Levy 19:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That mockup (clearly) shows that it is below the DYK and OTD sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your point being...? —David Levy 19:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough. All I did was claim the same as the proposal and the mockup. And the coding which would support both. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you've repeatedly claimed that the proposal and mock-up included an idea directly contradicting what actually was stated.

I'm not suggesting that the new proposal is incompatible with the previous one. I'm merely clarifying a relatively minor detail. —David Levy 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and as Sandy and Raul have suggested, perhaps many/most of those who supported the FS proposal didn't read the proposal, they looked at the mockup. I wonder which one would evoke the emotional response required to support or oppose the proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So, how 'bout if we all back off and give Raul time to work on his mockup? He's not "revoking" anything; he's looking at how to design it. I'll shut up and you go to the gym, TRM :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should let the community decide. And yeah, I'll go mash some imaginary bad guys....! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposed mockup would look like this:
|----------|
| FA | ITN|
|----------|
|DYK | OTD |
|----------|
|FS | FL |
------------
| FP |
------------
Basically, inserting featured sounds and featured lists between the existing did-you-know/on-this-day and featured pictures. (I'd also be fine with FL on the left side and FS on the right) This layout is simple, it gives featured lists and sounds seven days per week of exposure instead of 1 or 2, and it has the added benefit that it keeps the main page static (e.g, it doesn't change which sections appear on any given day). FP substantially benefits from having a double-wide pane, so it makes sense to keep it there. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Typo? OTN = OTD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it stood for "Old Time News"? ;) —WFC— 19:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheeky. Controversial. True. Do consider that our ITN is about twice or three times quicker than Wikinews though...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely a fan of this proposal. It allows us to have a dedicated space for everyday of the week, while allowing FP to have space to post panoramas to their heart's content any day they'd like to. It avoids having administrators having to switch the boxes twice a week, and it's just all around awesome. Fantastic idea, Raul. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I like Raul's idea too, but I'll note that under no circumstance would administrators need to "switch the boxes twice a week." Conditional code would take care of that automatically. —David Levy 19:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that my mistake David. Nomader ^(Talk) 20:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Yep, but as lists are generally considered lower class than articles, I suggested we start slow, get it perfect, then expand from there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "perfect" on Wikipedia, and you're already in good enough shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, is that you again? I thought... Nope, we're in good shape, but not good enough for one a day shape. I am continually reminded that most "lists are lame", "FLs are easier than FAs" etc etc, and all I ever wanted for our community was to be utter comprehensive and excellent in the things we proposed for main-page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's me :) The initial days of FLC are long behind us, and as I've said elsewhere, you're certainly as worthy of mainpage coverage as some other processes there (most of which I've had significant problems with). FAs weren't "perfect" when they went on the mainpage, no TFA is "perfect", and sometimes articles are improved while on the mainpage. You have enough participants in the process to deal with it. There's no point in redesigning the mainpage twice. Now, return the favor of having my support, and commit to reviewing one FAC a week. Otherwise, I'll charge you in chocolate, or breathe on you-- my typos are contagious, donchaknow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, if I had to review 2 FACs a week, I'd do it to get you to see it from our perspective! For the FS proposal to go on for well over a week unopposed and then for the FL proposal to be scuttled in three hours (despite being identical) is a little hard to swallow. It would be nice if someone said sorry. But yeah, I'll do your FACs...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am completely confused, and probably having a dumber-than-usual day; how is seven days per week coverage of FLs "scuttled"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have objected to the FS proposal if I had caught it then. Believe me - no one is sorrier than I that I didn't catch it sooner. I'm sorry that I brought it up with your FL proposal. I *do not* want to torpedo the proposal -- I want to change it to make it better. Raul654 (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All right, I've reviewed the talk page, and now I understand TRM's comment. I didn't realize the Featured Sounds discussion had closed, and thought I was weighing in on the big picture (design), not Lists specifically. My apologies for the confusion. And I certainly didn't bother to read the layout discussion wrt Sounds and Pictures, as I didn't even focus on this issue at all until Lists came into the picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of this proposal of Raul's, to be honest. Unlike the FS and FL proposals, which work within the existing page length, Raul's new version of the main page is rather longer. There were complaints in the 2008 main page redesign discussions that the existing main page (let alone some of the alternatives) were too long. Furthermore, it would push FPs even lower down the front page, something that the FP crowd are unlikely to be happy about. It would also give FSs and FLs a frequency of exposure that neither project wants (FS because it doesn't have the material, FL because although it has the material it wants to take things slowly). Bencherlite^Talk 20:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen Courcelles's proposal? It's not ideal to me, but it does address the redundancy issue which is my primary objection. I could live with it. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it. It would do away with the results of the community-agreed propsal to use the existing FP space for two pictures per day (5 days per week) not one, to help with the TFP backlog, and it would want FLs to be on the main page five times more frequently than those closest to the FL project currently want. Apart from those minor issues ... (!) Bencherlite^Talk 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It would do away with the results of the community-agreed propsal to use the existing FP space for two pictures per day (5 days per week) not one - perhaps if that proposal had actually stated that more clearly, rather than using a mockup that omitted what the main page would look like 5 days out of 7, the results would have been slightly different. WFC's comment there makes it clear I'm not the only one who supported it only to find out about the fine print later. Raul654 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are currently 155 featured sounds, which, thanks to some being long, symphonic works, equals 235 files. There is also a backlog of featured pictures over a year long.

The basic proposal is that a second featured pictures section is added to the main page. On Saturdays and Sundays, this will become a Featured sound section instead. I've run this past Howcheng, who manages Picture of the Day, and he fully supports this.

How is that not clear enough? It mentions both FPs and FSs repeatedly in the first four sentences of the proposal. The first featured item to be mentioned after the word "proposal" is "pictures", not "sounds". Admitting that you basically just looked at the pretty picture instead of reading even the introduction to the proposal is, well... And from a rough count over 60 people participated in that discussion. 2/60 != majority misled. Bencherlite^Talk 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on Raul, this "small print" stuff is nonsense. If you supported something mistakenly, fine, but don't imply some kind of cover-up with "small print" speak. It was bold as brass, second paragraph of the FS proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Make that three: I didn't bother to read the proposed layout, because I don't pay much attention to Pictures or Sounds. I only clued in to the discussion when Lists got involved, and even then, only because I saw TRMs posts on user pages I watchlist, and raised the design issues. Had I paid attention (I admit, I didn't) and realized that two daily pictures were being proposed, I would have opposed. My bad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Is there anyone running the FA process who can be bothered to read five sentences in two short paragraphs at the top of a discussion before expressing an opinion (there or somewhere else), or who can do so without getting confused as to what those sentences say? Bencherlite^Talk 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's nice-- I'll be sure to breathe on you someday, too. Mainpage design isn't my area or my concern: why would you expect me to read it? I got involved to SUPPORT FLs on the mainpage, so have at me if you care to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And while we're at it, I think the way that RFC was conducted was sloppy. The notion of including content on the mainpage should have been separate from how it's accomplished (and there IS an indication of that in the original message), and then when FLs wanted to get on board, the entire design should have been rolled into one design proposal (as I raised early on at FL). It reminds of the ill-fated RFC on ArbCom voting years ago, that didn't envision unforeseen circumstances in the way the voting and composition was changed. A well-designed RFC generates better results: two issues at once, confused with the design issue, isn't an optimal way for it to have been put forward. And simultaneously, we have a new proposal to scuttle ITN: where does all that leave any design proposal? Now, all of that should be moot: we have agreement that one set of content should go on the mainpage (FP and FS), followed by a new proposal for another set of content (FL), so obviously, design concerns change. How about knocking off the sarcasm and collaborating to make it all happen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And your support is welcome, don't get me wrong. As I read your contributions at Wikipedia talk:FLC#General discussion, your initial position was support for FLs on the main page provided that Raul chose them ("I will oppose inclusion of Featured Lists if they circumvent entirely Raul's competent management of the mainpage"). You asked where the FL space would come from. When TRM said in reply "Ah, okay, well that's easy, we never proposed to take over an FA spot. Not for a moment. We always said we'd share the second FP space on Wednesdays only." (emphasis added), you replied " If you're proposing to share the FP space, no need to involve the TFA slot or Raul then", giving the impression to a casual reader that you might have picked up on the point about a second FP space. If you didn't, then so be it. Bencherlite^Talk 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't, and I did miss that, since I wasn't focusing on the FP/FS issue. I initially and mistakenly thought that FL was asking for part of FAs space so suggested getting Raul involved, and I never read the FP/FS proposal, and obviously I glossed over the FP/FS design issues. I was traveling through 14 Feb and still catching up, until I saw TRM's posts about FL popping on my watchlist. My mistake, in hindight, was to not have then gone and read the FP/FS proposal thoroughly and questioned then why they were leaving out FL, and to insist that discussion hold up until an integrated approach was taken. Can't fix that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to the design, FS and FL did enjoy a good working relationship (thanks to User:Adam Cuerden) whereby the technical solution which received almost unanimous sanction from the community was pretty much identical to that proposed for FLs. If main page proposals passed Raul et al by (or if he didn't read them correctly etc), that's a real shame. There's no lack of faith other than this sudden knee-jerk reaction, this clear and unambiguous u-turn that we're now seeing. How did the FS proposal sit at the main page talkpage without any of this debate, only for (once again) lists to take it in the neck? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've explained how that happened in my case, for which I'm "taking it in the neck" from Bencherlite. OK, so I raised this early on at FLC, so an alternate question is why Pictures and Sounds left Lists out of the equation to begin with, and why the whole proposal wasn't shelved at that time to get everyone on board in a design that made sense. Plenty of fault to go 'round here, and pointing fingers isn't going to solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, finger pointing doesn't solve anything, but (1) FS proposal got near-universal approval (2) FL proposal was near identical (3) Raul (and Sandy) stepped in to say lists can stay but this proposal isn't good enough, despite it being near identical to the FS proposal. The amount of work that's gone into these proposals is large, just for a couple of spanners to be thrown in from left-field. I feel like saying "it's not fair" but I won't. It isn't fair. And once more, FLs suffer. FS have a consensus to do what they've suggested. Odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand now why you're offended, but I hope you recognize that "scuttling" FLs was the farthest from what I intended-- I was always addressing the design issues, not realizing that the FP/FS proposal was closed. I don't see how striking my Oppose now will fix that, since there are design issues, and IMO, the design flaw is because FP and FS left FL out from the get-go, so we need to re-address that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. And I don't expect you to strike your oppose. But the very bottom line here is that we must allow the community to decide. Raul's (and your) suggestion to prematurely cap a debate on just a couple of opinions was pure wrong. If the consensus agrees that the FL proposal (like the FS proposal) has merit, you (and Raul) must abide by that. That's why the FS proposal ran for a week, and why the FL proposal will continue to run. To prevent this would be embarrassing and contrary to the fundamentals of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To that aim, how about if we stop yapping here, and continue the discussion over there? Most of what we're discussing here (some of which involved misunderstanding) is hopefully cleared up now, and splitting the discussion isn't good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, so no more here. But please, no more suggestions we should prematurely close the current proposal discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, that was a misunderstanding. I hadn't realized that the FP/FS discussion had closed, and thought we would be capping that discussion as well, and starting over on a fully integrated approach to all three-- FP/FS and FL. Water under the bridge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Inline credit requirement for image disputed

About two years ago, you said that the release for this image required that inline credit be given to the photographer whenever and wherever we reused it.

An anonymous IP feels rather emphatically that this is not only not necessary but wrong, and while we've been discussing we've also been reverting each other. Perhaps you could shed some light on the situation? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They turned off my OTRS account about a month ago for inactivity so I don't have access to that ticket now. (Nor do I feel like asking my access back right now - I'm simply don't have the time or energy to do much on OTRS these days.) I'm searching my memory here, but I cannot remember if Ed requested inline credit, if he required, or perhaps that I offered it. Raul654 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone else with active OTRS access could take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

2x3+1

Terrible layout of the FS box notwithstanding, was this the sort of thing you were getting at the other day? —WFC— 10:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, pretty much (maybe with a little more balancing so DYK and OTD line up and FS/FL). Raul654 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

FAR closing

Hi Raul - WP:Featured article review/Technopark, Kerala/archive1 can probably be closed, but I have contributed to the discussion and so can't do it myself. Would you have a few minutes to do this? Also, have you given any thought to my e-mail about the possibility of appointing another FAR delegate? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping? Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

---

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Main page: WT:BLP § Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Further information: WT:BLP § Relevancy for ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (WP:EGRS)

Resolve arguments about differences between guidelines. Add "ethnicity, gender," to BLP, matching all other guidelines.

To avoid repeating myself ad infinitum:

• All categorization is required to be both notable and relevant.
• Certain quibblers have noted that ethnicity and gender are not specifically listed in WP:BLP.
• WP:BLP is a "policy", while Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization of people (WP:COP), Wikipedia:Category names, WP:EGRS, and Wikipedia:Overcategorization (especially WP:OC#EGRS) are "guidelines".
• Certain quibblers argue that policy trumps guidelines for these special cases.
• Thus, (non-notable or irrelevant) ethnicity and gender might be allowed for living people, but removed for the dead, undead, or incorporeal.
• This is difficult to enforce or implement (and was certainly never the intent of the policy).

We're in need of a neutral closer after the usual 7 days. This is day 2. You've been helpful with oversight of category space in the past. Are you available?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure - poke me at the appropriate time and I'll close it. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks in advance!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In about 3 hours, 7 days will have passed (01:06 UTC), or 8 days counting the original section above it. I'm not sure how far in advance you'd like to be poked. It's likely to take awhile to read, as the same 4-5 editors make repeated objections to every support !vote, to the process, to the previous discussions, etc. The discord has discouraged other editors from participating. Yet I was trying to keep the question very simple!

To my surprise, although support for "ethnicity" is running 2:1, folks seem evenly split on "gender" -- although that's a much longer standing restriction going back to 2003'ish. One of the important things to be decided upon closing is whether to count the many WP:CFD decisions and existing guidelines as supporting gender, continue the gender discussion separately for another 7 days, or just give it a break for now.

Thanks again, and best wishes.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well into the 9th (or 10th) day, no comments for the better part of the past 24 hours.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've closed it as no-consensus for gender and consensus for ethnicity. Raul654 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The tally (I think) is 22 support and 14 oppose (as well as several who said they weren't sure what the proposal meant, like Lt. Powers and SlimVirgin). Despite what W.A.S. says above, surely that's not 2 to 1? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Even forgetting about the incorrect vote count, and the concern that counting heads without addressing the arguments seems a poor closing rationale for something as important as a BLP policy change, I feel that letting W.A.S. (the proposer of the change) select the closing admin smells bad. This is especially true when canvassing by W.A.S. (of you and many other editors) was seen as having tainted the discussion. Raul, I hope you will reconsider your choice to close this discussion. Please reopen it and let someone who appears more neutral close it instead. --Avenue (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your close is being questioned

Despite not approaching you directly (unless perhaps these editors have emailed you) there are two editors contesting you close on the talk page. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#No_valid_consensus. I thought you should be aware of this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your closure

Raul: Please revert your closure of the BLP discussion. Your closure was apparently made based on suggestions here on your Talk page by the proposer of the change. In fact, in your closing comment, you repeated his erroneous statistic of 2:1, rather than 21:14, which was the correct count. Questions:

1. Did you count the !votes, or just rely on the numbers given above by the proposer?
2. In your closing comment, you have no discussion of the merits of the proposal, and you simply rely on the !vote count: how is that consistent with WP:Vote, which requires decisions to be made based on strength of argument, not on vote count?
3. What do you think about the ramifications that this proposal will have on the 100s of ethnicity-based lists in Wikipedia?
4. What do you think about the two compromises proposed in in the discussion: (a) apply it only to Categories (not lists); and (2) modify the self-identification requirement? I notice you didnt mention them in your closing statement.

Thanks in advance for your replies to these questions. --Noleander (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I skimmed the discussion before closing and did a rough count (I think I pegged it at 21 to 12, which is why I said about 2:1 in my closing comment). I didn't offer any comment on the merits of the proposal because I don't really have any - it's not a subject I have a strong opinion on. I'm pretty sure that's why I was asked to close it. But I'm not really in the mood for a big bruhaha over this, so I'm self-reverting and I'll let someone else deal with this. Raul654 (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Avenue (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO this shows some rather bad decision making all around Raul. Had you read the discussion you would easily have been prepared for the contention that followed your close. That you so readily succumb to pressure now gives the impression that you did not look at the discussion very thoroughly, and you are now second guessing yourself. Please do not step in a hornets nest unless you are prepared to fend off the hornets. Also, admins should not back out of defending their decisions because they are "not in the mood" to discuss them. Once you use your role of authority to act upon something like this you either defend your action or recant because you've been convinced that you made a mistake. This is now a setback to the discussion. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not step in a hornets nest unless you are prepared to fend off the hornets. - that's the point, I didn't realize I was being invited into step into a hornet's nest, nor do I have any desire to get sucked into one over which I have no strong feelings. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

Hi Raul. I'm not familiar with the TFA process, so if I'm in the wrong place, I apologise. The lead sentence of today's FA has been changed from

L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986) was an American pulp fiction author turned religious leader who founded the Church of Scientology.

to

L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986) was an American pulp fiction author and religious leader who founded the Church of Scientology."

per this discussion on the article's talk page. Would it be possible to edit the main page summary to reflect this change? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Relay request from principal editor on Grand Coulee article.

Please see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. I was just about to post it here.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

John Michael Wright and images

Hi, Raul.

I'm delighted that you've chosen John Michael Wright (which I wrote) for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 21, 2011. I have a question about images though - and I'm not sure where to raise it, so I'm bringing it here. Please redirect me if this is the wrong place.

There are no extant images of Wright himself. However, it seems a shame to have an article about a famous portrait painter go without illustration. There are lots of possibilities Commons:Category:John Michael Wright (although not a few of them would have the added advantage of pissing off the NPG). I suppose I'm not directly asking to use one, because the downside is that the image would be by Wright of someone else - and that might confuse the reader. I'm just wondering if this is worth some discussion - or if there's already a good policy that governs this.

The "blurb" mentions Wright's patrons Charles II and James II, and we've got great pictures of both, which might be used with a "(pictured)" inserted. Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts - or indeed redirection

PS. Another suggestion would be to use an image of a woman as the reader is less likely to mistake it for Wright..--Scott Mac 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FA co-nom

Hi - Re [15] would you have any problem listing user:Modernist as a co-nominator for The Swimming Hole? He/she/it has undone this change (the bot would have undone it anyway), but I've let h/s/i know how to do this in a way that will "stick" (edit the WP:FA2009 page). If anyone's miffed about virtual gold stars I'm all for unmiffing them, unless this miffs someone else. Hence, this question here. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

He's done yeoman's work on that article - I'm fine with him getting credit for it. Raul654 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiohead TFA blurb

Hi Raul, I was hoping to edit the TFA blurb for Radiohead a bit, since I feel it needs some work. I received a notice on my talk page instructing me to go to the TFA requests page to suggest alterations, but instructions on how to actually alter blurs are unclear. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The blurb is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 25, 2011. Go there and edit it. You're not an admin, so you might not be able to (I think it gets cascade protected starting 24 hours before it hits the main page). If that's the case, drop a note here with your suggested changes and I or someone else will be able shortly to fix the blurb. Raul654 (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have editing privileges to access it, so here's my revision:

'''[[Radiohead]]''' are an English [[alternative rock]] band from [[Abingdon, Oxfordshire]], formed in 1985. The band consists of [[Thom Yorke]] (vocals, guitars, piano), [[Jonny Greenwood]] (guitars, keyboards, other instruments), [[Ed O'Brien]] (guitars, backing vocals), [[Colin Greenwood]] (bass, synthesizers) and [[Phil Selway]] (drums, percussion). Radiohead released their first [[single (music)|single]], "[[Creep (Radiohead song)|Creep]]", in 1992. The song was initially unsuccessful, but it became a worldwide hit several months after the release of their debut album, ''[[Pablo Honey]]'' (1993). Radiohead's third album, ''[[OK Computer]]'' (1997), propelled them to greater international fame. Featuring an expansive sound and themes of [[social alienation|modern alienation]], ''OK Computer'' is often acclaimed as a landmark record of the 1990s. ''[[Kid A]]'' (2000) and ''[[Amnesiac]]'' (2001) marked an evolution in Radiohead's musical style, as the group incorporated experimental [[electronic music]], [[Krautrock]] and [[jazz]] influences. Radiohead's work has appeared in a large number of listener polls and critics' lists. While the band's earlier albums were influential on British rock and pop music, musicians in a wide variety of genres have been influenced by their later work. ('''[[Radiohead|more...]]''')

Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done; it's slightly longer than the previous version but a character count shows that it's still within the 1,200 characters "rule of thumb" for TFA blurbs, so I made the change. Bencherlite^Talk 11:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dablink

Hi! You deleted the page Dablink while back, probably because it redirected to the wrong place. However, having no page for it doesn't make it too easy for someone who doesn't know what one is (like me until 10 minutes ago) to find out. OK to recreate it as a redirect to Template:Dablink? Or will you fix in some other way? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You have me confused with someone else. Raul654 (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Used the box, got this output:

"05:25, 8 March 2007 Raul654 (talk | contribs) deleted "Dablink" ‎ (content was: '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Template messages/General' (and the only contributor was 'George100'))".

Is it OK with you if I recreate the redirect, to the right place this time? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation–evolution controversy

Indeed. I should have read the whole article before editing the intro. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1 April

Hi Raul. I pitched in on WP:TFAR with Cock Lane ghost, will you be using it on 1 April? I have some spare time, if it's going to be TFA then I'd like to spend some of that fixing a few minor issues. If not then I can fix those things at a later date. Parrot of Doom 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for taking care of this so quickly. I'll work through my concerns tomorrow (31st), shouldn't take long. Malleus may want to expand the blurb slightly. Parrot of Doom 23:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All done. Parrot of Doom 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Free music

Wikipedia:WikiProject Free music, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Free music and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Free music during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 22:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Fanny scratching"

Oh, dear... we're definitely going to get letters about that... -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Where our April Fools FA is concerned, I consider the number of confused letters to be a metric of success. Raul654 (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And it's begun. I probably should have been more direct before, but you are aware of the British English meaning of "fanny", right? -- tariqabjotu 01:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that I am. Raul654 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. Hrmm. How offensive is it to a brit's ears? Raul654 (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not very offensive at all, just a word used to describe a part of the female anatomy. Unlike similar words, I've never heard anyone call another person a fanny. It just doesn't work, not even here in the mother country of the English language. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I was under the impression, it was equivalent to "pussy". -- tariqabjotu 01:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In any event, can we all agree that mentioning the eleven-year-old in relation to that fanny scratching pushes an already vulgar double entendre over the line? -- tariqabjotu 01:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't join your lynch mob. Malleus Fatuorum

"Pussy" is a cat as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to err on the side of caution here and drop the last part of the final sentence in the blurb. Raul654 (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a very great shame, and plays into the hands of the prudes. Wasn't it true? What else shall we censor? Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a pretty low-rent sense of humor and I'm not thrilled about removing it either. But if it's going to cause a drama storm - and from looking at talk:Main page, that's exactly what seems to be happening - then it's probably more trouble than it's worth. Raul654 (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There is that. I still don't agree though; people need to be challenged, not pandered to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much the only one keeping up the complaining about that article, but the joke is really just stupid beyond measure. It's not like my workplace's front desk will be dispensing dirty jokes tomorrow because it's April 1; it strikes me as irresponsible that the main page is carrying one like it should be no big deal. Wikipedia has a broad audience; the guy in charge of the main page should be more considerate of that than I'm seeing here. Townlake (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If the number of page views is a metric of success, then our April Fools jokes are a smashing success. They are consistently among the most popular articles we run each year. And I've never made it a secret that I take a pragmatic approach to the main page. Raul654 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Townlake (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's neither "dirty" nor a "joke" Townlake, it's a very short summary of a real historical event couched in terms that might persuade people to read and learn about it. Are you really demanding that editors should be shot for that? Or that the entire project ought to be written in a way that doesn't offend you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Townlake (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

File:John Fugh.jpg

Hi Raul, I see this was submitted through OTRS - is there any chance you could tell em who submitted this through OTRS? I've been trying to search for portraits of generals, and I'm looking for places to contact. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my OTRS account got turned off for inactivity. I don't remember who submitted it. Raul654 (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'll ask at an OTRS noticeboard. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Today's Featured article vandalism?????

Today's featured article, Cock Lane Ghost, seems to have been vandalized by someone who wrote [[Cock lane ghost|Fanny scratching]] in the opening sentence. Thought you might want to be alerted :) --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy April fool's day :D (see above). Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 00:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it appears I've been trolled :) I was amazed for a few minutes there that a vandal could get past all those page protections. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been complaints on IRC that the main page is too vulgar for British English speakers. "Fanny" is benign in the U.S. but certainly not in British English.[16] -- ke4roh (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Then those not already aware of that have learned something. Good result. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

scheduling swap request

Hello, and happy April Fools Day. For the featured articles scheduled in the next few days, could we please make a swap? William Henry Harrison is currently set for tomorrow, but April 4, the anniversary of his death, would be very fitting. As the first U.S. President to die in office, and after such a short tenure, that was the most significant date in his presidency.

The book, Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, currently set for April 4, is not associated with any date, and could run tomorrow. Jonathunder (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I know you're not the one who requested it, but for future reference please be aware that requests in the non-specific date slot can be scheduled for any date. Raul654 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas was specifically requested for April 4 because that is the author's birthday, so Jonathunder isn't really correct that it has no date relation to April 4. William Henry Harrison had also been requested for April 4, but Wehwalt pointed out that you have been opposed to running articles about people on their date of death, so the requestor moved it to the non-specific date slot. Personally, I would prefer William Henry Harrison to run on April 4 (the way you have it now), though I don't know if the person who requested Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas might be annoyed that you switched it since she had wanted it to run on the author's birthday. Calathan (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Doh - I forgot that Singing was a date-specific request. Hold on, I'll ask Figureskatingfan if she's OK with the switch. If she's OK with it, I'll leave it as it is; otherwise I'll switch it back. Raul654 (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul, I'm ok with the switch. I mean, I prefer that Singin' remain on the 4th, since it is the great Maya Angelou's birthday, but it's obviously important to Jonathunder that his article go up on that date. We celebrate birthdays over several days in my family, anyway. ;) Christine (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just In Case Anyone Asks

Putting this here as you are FA coordinator.

I decided to create a joke nomination for April Fool's Day at a sudden inspiration a few hours ago. I am not adding it to the official list myself (nay, even the URL has it at "archivex" as I set it), so if it shows up there I'll let you determine what to do with it. I'll manually remove the tag, which I placed on the article itself (not the talk page - and hopefully no bots try to update it later), on April 2 unless someone else does it first. Any concerns, let me know here and I'll keep an eye here. =) CycloneGU (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Raul654 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a featured article

I think that the article called "Jesus" showuld be a featured article one day because he has influenced a lot of people on Earth. People need to also know about Jesus, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.15.105 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Jesus is not a featured article. Featured articles are nominated and vetted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Raul654 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)