Howdy Mark. I came across this list of mp3s of U.S. Air Force military bands playing Bach, Holst, etc. All these recordings are public domain, produced by the Air Force, and they're mp3s of good quality. But they're big, of course. (Venus, bringer of peace, is 7.8 megs). Is it a good idea for me to upload these to the Commons? What do you think? – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 23:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, full length songs go on commons. And then they should be added to wikipedia:sound/list. But let me take a crack at it with Raulbot first (Raulbot has been having issues since they changed the upload form). →Raul654 23:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Although purists like me will find band recordings of pieces composed for full orchestra a decidedly unsatisfactory solution. But I guess we can't afford to be too picky here yet. --Michael Snow 00:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a side note, they'd go great on concert band, (which I need to do more work on, but not now); if you upload them to commons do think of putting them there. :-) Mindspillage(spill yours?) 18:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Raul, where are the rules about FAC elevation-- that is, what ratio of Supporting to Objecting votes an article needs to become featured? I can't find these rules. JDG 17:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They're not written down anywhere - it's my discretion. Typically, I look for a (a) certain minimum number of supports (around 5, not counting the nominator), (b) consensus, (c) and no "serious" objections (e.g. - object, this is blatantly factually wrong). →Raul654 20:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
No offense but this doesn't seem like something that should be left to a single Admin's discretion. What if there's an unusually high number of FA candidates in a random 5 or 6 day period and vote numbers for any given article are diluted? In effect it becomes Raul's Featured Articles. There should be a set ratio of Supports to Objections. If an Admin feels voting is too light even if the ratio is met, the first move should be to direct more attention to the article rather than failing it. JDG 06:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's been working fine for a year and a half now :) (which is decades in internet-time) In the time we've done it this way, there have been around 1,000 nominations and I can only remember one person who complained about the outcome. I don't think it would be immodest to say that with so few complaints, the system works well. Being flexible and compact definitely helps.
What you say about light turnout is true, which is why the amount of time a particular nomination spends on the FAC varies. I intentionally leave borderline nominations on there longer, to get more peoples' input. On the other hand, what you are proposing is instruction creep, and people will see it that way. They don't want the FAC to turn into another VFD. →Raul654 06:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Admins other than Raul (e.g. me) have done elevations/fails from WP:FAC before without any objections. Most cases are really pretty clear - David Gerard 13:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Raul, this is not real urgent or anything, but if you've got a few minutes, I'd really like to have a word on IRC. --Bishonen|Talk 17:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, clearly you and I disagree. I'm new around here, and I've been called a bit thickheaded in the past, so perhaps you're right. Perhaps Netoholic is not a vandal. But then, I'd like to know what we can do about him.
Netoholic is in arbitration. He is making pointless edits -- in addition to the ones he makes to prove a point. He is ignoring consensus -- it is not only I who have a problem with him, personally and professionally. His actions often do cause a chain-reaction of damage that extends into multiple areas of the project without control.
Even I can see that he knows he is on his way out, or at the very least on his way to a period of cooling-off. It's pretty plain he means to go out with a bang, and be sure he is remembered long after he departs.
It takes about ten times as long to clean up after just one of his stunts as it takes him to do it -- to revert the damage, to speak to him politely about it, to document it on a relevant Talk page, to document it again as evidence in his arbitration case, to caucus with other concerned users, on and on. None of this contributes substantially to the project. Netoholic is eating away at the bone and muscle of this community.
I am so thankful you have the elementary decency to identify yourself as a member of the power structure here. WP is so hierarchy-shy that it seems to be almost impossible to find out even who Jimbo Wales is. I don't like power-mad bureaucrats either, but I think we need some structure, and part of structure is knowing what that structure is.
Now that I have your attention, I should like to ask for a simple, emergency remedy for the situation. Please simply block Netoholic from editing, outright. If you can do it so that he can continue to edit in his own user space, I think that's fine; otherwise, so be it. Impose the block as soon as you can do so, and maintain it until the Arbitration Committee finishes deliberation on his case.
To make it absolutely clear that I seek no special advantage in any matter, and to demonstrate my perfect sincerity and good faith, I offer to accept a similar block, of similar duration and extent. You have my word that I will not meddle in the guise of a sock puppet, anonymous or otherwise; you should also block Xiong Sockpuppet, which I created only for the purpose of trying to workaround some browser display and CSS issues. I ask only for a word of explanation to be displayed on my User and Talk pages, so nobody wonders why I do not reply directly to their comments to me.
I have real work to do in this project, and I believe I have been a useful contributor in my small way. But I can get nothing done while cleaning up after Netoholic anyway, so if you accept this solution, I welcome it. If you feel you cannot in good faith do so, please refer me to the gentleman who might hear my plea. Thank You! — Xiongtalk 08:38, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
If that's the way you feel, pending the outcome of his arbitration case, you may want to ask the arbitration committee for a temporary injuction of some kind (e.g., 'please ban him from articles A, B, and C'). (I'm currently on vacation from the arbitraiton committee). Those are the 'emergency remedies' we use. I suggest you ask on the talk page of the proposed decision page. →Raul654 04:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
It's an honour to get a barnstar from the FAC-King (oh!) - thanks very much for that. Oo, my first one - put a smile on my face now! =) violet/riga(t) 14:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In light of the overall changes in the look and feel of the 'pedia with growing use of templates, and in consideration of some recent misunderstandings involving proposed policy, I created templates for {{notpolicy}}, {{semipolicy}}, {{rejected}}, and {{historical}} pages. If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to review both the wording of the templates themselves, and the matter of correct categorizaiton of the pages that use them. I mainly followed the existing categorization tags, which doesn't mean a whole lot since I was the one who placed them originally in many cases. I think some discussion and review (at least in a few cases) would be valuable, since I was mainly following tradition when I did the tagging.
what's your stance on having an article about a Wikimedia project promoted to FA status and having it featured on the Main Page? Over at Wikinews, we are considering to polish up the Wikinews article on Wikipedia to FA quality (with a decent history, description of the processes, quotes from example articles, statistics, etc.), in part to make more people aware of the project. Would you be opposed to that article eventually becoming featured like any other?--Eloquence* 21:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Getting up to featured article level - I'm OK with that. In theory, any encyclopdic article (be it Autofellatio or any other problematic article) can be a featured article if written well enough. Being on the main page, however, is something I would probably take a stance against. It sounds like a textbook example of where we should avoid self references→Raul654 11:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I see that this article is slated for main page on April 11. Since the guy's birthdate is April 13, why don't you swap the article on April 11 with the April 13 article, and make the FA happen on his birthday? Just a thought --JuntungWu 07:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've already had to switch that section around twice - I'd prefer not to do it a third time and just to leave it as it is now. →Raul654 08:03, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hey there. I've suggested at User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment that the tags on talk pages be made a more consistent design. It wouldn't make any process change to what happens for FA already. I'd be very grateful of any comments you could make. Thanks, violet/riga(t) 13:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could you please archive the next time you delete old items. I couldn't find the answer to a question I just posted yesterday. Mgm|(talk) 09:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I forgot we archive that. →Raul654 16:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I like Violet's idea. Do you think it's a good idea to hold a poll/vote over the idea and if it passes have a design contest? This way both Violet and JDG get what they want. Overall look would be more consistent and JDG could suggest another look. And not in the least, we'd have a wider consensus. Mgm|(talk) 19:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm OK with seeing more than one design proposed and you're right - it would give them both what they want. →Raul654 20:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, plz see latest at Template talk:Featured. We need you to get this contest going. Violet is way out of line, insisting her templates be live when opinion is at least 8-0 against. Please don't foster the perception that Admins always stick together against plain old editors no matter what. Clearly she should stop reverting back to her design until there is consensus. JDG 08:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is not up to Raul to do anything about this – I am more than willing to organise the competion, but my time is being spent bickering over one template. Loads of other templates use the new layout, and I've attempted two compromises over that one. Anyway, consensus is not required to make changes and I do have supporting comments. Further, I think the comment about admins is not really warranted.
Sorry for responding to another user on your talk page. violet/riga(t) 09:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I don't always mind a little vandalism: the way I see it, it's just nice to be noticed... Judging from his history, it looks like he was going alphabetically down the list of admins. Thanks again! – ClockworkSoul 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You'we welcome. Yes, being an admin is guarenteed to double the amount of vandalism your pages recieves, even if you never use them.
I think Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios could make a great featured article. It doesn't quite meet the requirements yet, but it could with a little work. In light of the debates and cases about digital piracy and the obligations of hardware/software creators, the affirmation/modification/elimination of the Sony precedent is a key issue for the future of information technology.
Since you've worked on the article in the past, feel free to take another look to bring it "up to code" for a nomination.
Feco 21:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can we not have any related to UK politics featured on the front page during the UK general election campaign? I think it might make Wikipedia look like it's endorsing the Conservatives (or alternatively endorsing Labour by reminding people of Thatcher). JuntungWu 10:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
UK elect
Oh dear - I did not realize it was the election season in the UK. Ok, I'll make some quick switches. →Raul654 22:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
At the NASA meatball page, you wrote that you had contacted NASA for permission to use the meatball. It would be very nice to be able to use it in the NASA copyright tag (see discussion), so I wonder if you ever got an answer and if the permission applies to all of Wikipedia. Jonas Olson 22:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nope, I never got a reponse. Also, don't use it in the stub tag, because that's one image you really shouldn't go using a lot - the public domain terms explictely exclude the nasa logo. →Raul654 22:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
It's too bad, you know, since using it in contexts like those mentioned really would make things clear at the first glance for the reader. Jonas Olson 10:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my RfA! Not *quite* sure what I did to earn such an enthusiastic response, but I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 20:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mark, what do we do about a really bizarre user that is up on an RfC? I'm referring to User:SamuraiClinton. He was at one point the "Mr. Suffix" vandal and then created a user name. He has not only done some of the strangest edits I've ever seen since then, he's created a sockpuppet account at UserSuperDude115. This individual has completely ignored all attempts for us to help him. Would you take a look at his RfC and his contributions and let me know if an ArbCom is warranted? Help! - Lucky 6.9 03:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to draw your attention to the idea of posting a much shorter spoken introduction in concert with the "Today's featured article" section on the main page tomorrow. Thanks! DemiT/C 08:24, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
Not all nominations progess through the FAC at the same rate. Some nominations clearly fail after 5 days while other nominations are borderline for two weeks before being promoted or archived. →Raul654 18:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Just curious how you know that edit was Lir. Snowspinner 23:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's his standard MO - register a new account, and drop some nonsensical message on my talk page (optionally after making some stupid/incoherent user/talk page w/ the new account). It's about the 20th time he's done it. →Raul654 23:14, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Could you promote Kalimpong to a Featured Article today? I will be away for a week or two starting tomorrow, and I would like to have the satisfaction of knowning that the article is featured. I nominated it last saturday (maturing time will be this sunday) and it has got 10 direct supports and 0 objects. Thanks. =Nichalp (talk·contribs)= 14:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't blame ITN that much. Lately, DYK has been rather inconsistent in length, too. I have been trying to keep Sel. Anns. at 12 to 16 lines (on my screen) but it's tough maintaining it sometimes. :-(
Since you asked, I won't move the midline on the MainPage again, unless I really have to. (But I do want to know: why not ?) Glad that someone besides me is actually watching over things. -- PFHLai 23:37, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder why 3 to 3 is a reject. Mav proposition has been attempted, a mediation did not work, it was left ignored... this is not only a content issue. Coolcat hasen't stopped yet! He deletes my posts on articles talk-pages... archivate posts made hours ago etc... The number of people having decided to add their names has grown, and now the thing get rejected, there has been a great deal of evidences, and more to come. Fadix 02:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it was 3 to 5 when I removed it. (Ambi, Fred, and Epopt accepting; Grunt, Mav, myself, Sannse, and David rejecting). If the situation continues, I suggest you resubmit your request in a more coherent fashion. →Raul654 02:15, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
The DC Meetup date has been finalized to May 7/8. Even if you can only come one of the days, that's still fine. Please watch this page for new details, which will be posted in the next couple days: Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip --brian0918™ 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Raul, er.. Mark. What is repulsive about it? And how can it be improved so as to be acceptable to your fine standards of decency and integrity? -SV|t|add 23:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's hideous - it scalds the eyes and makes them buuuurn!! Seriously, in firefox (on windows at a 1024x768 resolution), it shows up as an ugly grey box with a slider. It's crowded, obtrusive, and unpleasant to use or look at. Also, IMHO, it's a perfect example of trying to do too much in a limited space. The previous version, while only showing a very limited number of requested articles, was a much more pleasant design. →Raul654 23:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Hm. I use firefox too, and I dont get a bottom slider. At 30px high it only shows the up and down arrows, which IMHO looks alright. Maybe its the width setting, or the text setting. Do you mind giving me a little direct fb sometime later? I agree its a bit much, but AFAICT the Requests links on RC dont work at all anyway.
I had thought maybe a bigger list would attract more interest more regularly. If only for users to customise for themselves -SV|t|add 01:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I support making it bigger and more attractive, as long as it is tasteful/pleasant, and not garish and gaudy. →Raul654 01:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well you can play around with it all you want. I dont know how much less garish or gaudy I can make it if it looks almost exactly like the style on the page. (pipes break the template apparently) (UTC)
I just wanted to say hello. Sorry about the intrusion on the Arbitration of Netoholoic. Are you filipino? hispanic? Habla espanyol? Do still remember the Bigfoot spoof on the greenhouse image? I work as reporter here in Japan.--Jondel 11:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jondel. Your edit was not a big deal, but it's just the way the arbcom works - no one edits on arbcom pages but us (except once in a while to correct typos). About the username - uh, it's a long story, but suffice it to say it has absolutely nothing to do with my ethnicity. I'm actually an American, of Italian descent. And yes, I remember the greenhouse image - it was hilarious and remains one of my all-time favorite wiki-jokes. →Raul654 03:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Oh its no big deal really. There's enough fish in the ocean to not have to take things too seriously.I saw that you are studying both electronics and biology? Amazing. Have you encounetered bio-perl? Bio informatics. I wish I could study that. I have lots of crazy but sound ideas. --Jondel 00:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am taking the biomed engineering classes because (a) I find them fun and interesting, and (b) as part of the breadth requirements for the qualifying exam. Yes, I did take bioinfomatics, but I didn't find it particularly enjoyable. Too much math, not enough science (plus, the prof wasn't the greatest). On the other hand, it did force me to learn perl, which was a plus. →Raul654 17:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I added my Mallika Sherawat link (mallikasherawat.org) to the Mallika Sherawat page on wikipedia but it was blocked by you. Was I doing something wrong? Sorry I was not aware of it as being wrong. Is there a possibility in getting unblocked? :(
Regards,
Faizan
Faizan - After reconsidering what you did, I think I overreacted. Your edits to the image page (and to a lesser extent, the article) made it appear that you were a spammer. We do get many of those. Image pages should only contain source, copyright, and caption information about that particular picture/video/song. Adding unrelated links to image pages is very suspicious and likely to get you tagged as a spammer, which is exactly what happened.
I've unblocked you, removed your site from the spam blocklist, and re-added the site to that article. In the future, please be more careful about adding gratuitous links. →Raul654 23:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Raul. I really appreciate this. :) I will make sure I read the rules next time before adding anything else.
Please accept my apologies for the factual error on my contribution last week to the Signpost, The Report On Lengthy Litigation. This is my first week filling in for Michael Snow, and a bit overzealously I submitted what (I had intended) to be a preliminary draft late Thursday night. Unfortunately, other unforseen obligations prevented me from updating it, and in the days following there was a spate of activity which was therefore unaccounted for.
Unfortunately, it is too late in the week to alter the article; however, in the upcoming edition I will not only account for the changes but will prominently note my mistake to make clear that I was, in fact, in error. I hope you will pass along my apologies to the ArbCom and any who were offended by my unacceptable haste. Wally 01:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good deal. I can sympathize - that kind of things happens to me on the FAC all the time, and I've been swamped lately myself. I do appreciate you taking the time to come here to respond to my comment personally. →Raul654 03:30, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
I thought the conclusion of the discussion on multi-stubbing was that if it would help the appropriate editors get to the article it was useful (as long as there aren't more than two).
Sometimes it's very difficult to determine which stub is more appropriate for an article, and it could easily be sought out by people interested in more than one subject, and yet it's not a common enough case for a new stub category.
If there's a different protocol for this, please let me know -- I'll be happy to adhere to it.
Uh, no, having more than one stub tag is just silly. It's redundant with the category system, and it looks just terrible. And no, there is no such policy allowing you to have more than one on an article. →Raul654 18:27, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
OK. I guess I was looking the the discussions on the stub sorting pages, here, here and here, neither of which it seems reaches a definite conclusion (someone has the last word, but there's an inconclusive vote, too).
Most people seem OK with two stubs but not more, preferring one if at all possible. A few object to more than one under any conditions.
Actually, on looking back at the third discussion, there's a suggestion about hiding the second tag, which accomplishes the goal of putting the article on the radar of multiple people, without the mess of multiple stub tags. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise to you? -- Avocado 19:08, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
The problems with "invisible" stub tags:
Templates are expensive - all templates generate extra server load. Using lots of them is a bad thing.
Every template now has an invisible alternate tag
Stubs were never meant to be used for categorization -- that's we have categories for. Having invisible stub tags is 100% redundant with stub categories →Raul654 19:14, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
I apologize. I figured that because of the widespread controversy it deserved at least a mention. Will not be added again. ekimdrachir 00:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that this is not a hostile request for further findings against Netoholic. I am content with ArbCom's current findings and am happy that he and I go peacefully and do not tread on each other's toes. — Xiong熊talk* 01:52, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Hey, what's up with meetup planning? You emailed, I responded, and I haven't heard anything since. Isomorphic 06:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been *ABSOLUTELY* and utterly swamped for 5 days now. I just forward it to Danny, so hopefully we can arrange something very soon. As I see it, it looks like the meetup will indeed be 2 days, this coming weekend. Danny wants to put together a scavenger hunt, and we need to set up some sort of schedule, BUT keep it flexible enough for the capitol building tour. Also, he wants to have meetup in some kind of food court, so I suggested the old post office. That's pretty much all I know at the moment. →Raul654 06:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hiya Raul, I notice you (accidentally) removed categories from some templates. Could you watch out when pasting in the new template design that you don't remove them please! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 08:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed you changed Template:Cleanup to look like ClockWorkSoul's design in the contest. The thing is, that the cleanup template isn't part of the contest and with the not subst: use of the template its image could hog the server.
Also, I personally think there's no need to make the template larger and more obstrusive than it needs to be. Would you mind reverting or at least making it a little less in your face? Mgm|(talk) 11:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Who considers it to be part of the Christian apocyrypha?
I can't find any reference to the book; there's a Manichæan book called Foundation, but I know of no-one who regards that as part of the Christian apocrypha.
It's not that I'm saying that you've got it all wrong, but you need to give citations and more information. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
'Don't look at me, I didn't write it. I was just moving it around after an anon removed that redirect. →Raul654 17:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, sorry — I'll try to contact the anon. Otherwise, I'm inclined to delete it as a hoax of some kind. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Piotr requested it specifically for that day. There was one selected anniversary "in storage" (not used, so to speak) so I did a quick switch there. I don't see much conflict between the two now. Is that OK with you? →Raul654 22:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's okay, I guess. I am not Japanese, so I won't feel slighted or snubbed .... -- PFHLai 23:46, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Incidentally, I agree that most articles improve while on the Main Page. If there is an error in the facts presented, it is good for everyone to have the ability to correct it on the spot. But I'm preaching to the choir. 205.217.105.2 22:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Personal opinion: I think that this page move crossed the line. User:Xiong's article deserves to be in the Wikipedia namespace as a Wikipedia thinktank article just as much as his Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. It is long-winded, and it does cover things that probably don't belong in the article. On the other hand, for those who are visually oriented, it gives a good idea of how transclusion works, and it does a better job of covering the problems of using templates instead of just focusing on the problems of meta-templates. BlankVerse∅ 01:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
This prize is for given to those that have made the bestest IИ SФVIET ЯUSSIA jokes on IRC #wikipedia. So, The Party Degrees that Komrade Raul654/archive6 is being awarded with the Red Flag of the Motherland! AAAAH! MOTHEЯLAИD!!! Komrade Raul654/archive6, we salute you! DA!
Unfortunately not--I fly back to Chicago for the summer that very day. I'll look for you guys from the plane, though. Anyway, hope all goes well and give my warm wishes to all who can make it. Meelar(talk) 18:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it was cool meeting you in DC. See you around. —thames
Thanks for putting Francis Petre on the main page today, I appreciate it. Having seen the quick and efficient way the multiple vandalism was dealt with today, I am "almost" coming around to your view on protecting (or not protecting) the main page. Thanks again its great to see a relatively, globally, obscure individual have a few moments of fame. Giano | talk 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Please update the m:Www.wikipedia.org template. It's not fair how a language bearing a Wikipedia with, for example, 232 articles is not listed on the same template a language bearing a Wikipedia with, for example, 111 articles is. It's also seen as racism directed at the speakers of these languages, and/or thinking that the languages are not real.
Here are the HTML tags - all you have to do is copy them to the template:
Georgian (ქართული) wiki: ka - 768 articles
Armenian (Հայերեն) wiki: hy - 542 articles
Bengali (বাংলা) wiki: bn - 454 articles
Macedonian (Македонски) wiki: mk - 354 articles
Northern Sami (Sámegiella) wiki: se - 283 articles
Breton (Brezhoneg) wiki: br - 232 articles
Ossetian (Ирон æвзаг) wiki: os (http://os.wikipedia.org) - 218 articles
Tok Pisin wiki: tpi - 105 articles
To incorporate them, type [http://{{ISO CODE}}.wikipedia.org {{NATIVE NAME FOR LANGUAGE}}. [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{NazismIsntCool/sig}}Nazismisn'tcool]] 07:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
With Wikipedia receiving featured status, how could I not write about it in my signpost article? The nomination mentioned 2 previous FACs and two PR requests. Are there any other nominations and PR requests that aren't documented as well, I should know about? Mgm|(talk) 13:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. →Raul654 03:04, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if I still tell you these things, or if it's handled by someone else (or on a particular page), but the "recently featured" list for the Main Page is wrong--it doesn't list Samantha Smith, even though she was yesterday's featured article. According to the May archive, it appears that her article was not included in the list for tomorrow or the next day either. I'd fix it myself, but I suspect I'd screw it up, and anyway I'm positive you'll be much faster at it than I am. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't follow - what list are you talking about? The one on goings-on includes it. →Raul654 00:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind - I see it now. I'll fix it. →Raul654 00:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some impostor hunting lately, seeing as how we've had a rash of them lately and all, and you got the following hits: RauI654 (talk·contribs). Of course, this may be nothing, but I thought I would let you know. – ClockworkSoul 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I've gone ahead and blocked. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I just thought suddenly: whom I can always count to do his work on Wiki? Silently, in the background, while we mess around on FAC and related, there is Raul654, withouth whom the FA would be...well, most likely wouldn't be. So...
I am so sorry I couldn't make Brickskeller! I had a minor pet crisis that I had to deal with and it kept me busy all night. Did y'all have fun? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
There's already talk of doing another one in July. Would that work for you? →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel that being a party to a revert war is a very good way to "mentor" me. If anyone have an issue with my edit, and I'm not explaining myself well, it is your responsibility to help me communicate. I think this applies if it is you that has an issue. Why didn't you try to talk to me first? Why didn't you make any use of the Talk page before reverting me? I hope you can see how I'm confused as to how you're going to help me on an on-going basis if you're not following the mentorship process. Neither you nor Firebug (which I reported to you as being a thorn in my side) made any attempt to discuss my edit. I made use of the talk page at the time I made the change in the first place (see Template talk:Notpolicy#Wording and formatting). I'm doing my part already. -- Netoholic@ 16:45, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
By prohibiting you from reverting that page, I am forcing you to use the talk page, and thus I am helping you communicate. Use the talk page, discuss with others, and once I am satisfied that you have made substantial progress, I'll lift the prohibition. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Don't I get any acknowledgment that I've already complied with this? I pointed a link where I documented my reasons for the change. Firebug reverted out of spite against me, and didn't comment on Talk. You reverted probably in good faith, but failed to use the talk. At least Uninvited used the talk page. As I said, I'm doing my part using the hell out of talk pages. I wish you'd give me credit or benefit of the doubt before laying down restrictions. And please lead by better example and use freaking talk pages yourself. -- Netoholic@ 19:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Are you going to vote in the new poll (right where they deleted the majority support vote) or are you going to boycott on principle? - Tεxτurε 17:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I will, although I don't see the point of having a vote on something that is already being treated as policy -- it seems a pointless exercise and a needless waste of time. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Why were our "defensive" comments "cleaned up", while the original "accusations" ("There are two users who have taken a rather obsessive stance with regards to me.") were left intact? - Omegatron 18:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of the community comments section is to report on-going bad behavior on the part of Netoholic. The comment there did not really meet that requirement. On the other hand, as I see it, Netoholic can use "his" section to make whatever comments he wants. →Raul654 19:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
So you "cleanup" other people's comments about him but don't cleanup his comments about others? - Omegatron 19:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I should have been more clear - that page is not a discussion page. It's not a place for conversations. It is a place to report problem editing by netoholic. You were not using it for that, and therefore I removed your comments. I will not be wading through 100 kilobytes of back-and-forth bickering to find new reports of problem editing by Netoholic. If you want to have a discussion, take it to the talk page.
As far as Netoholic's comment - in the interest of not stifling him and of giving him the chance to defend himself, I left it. →Raul654 19:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Fair enough. - Omegatron 21:42, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment [1], diff [2], please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him.Tkorrovi 12:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed it yet, but User:Levzur has put Bagrationi and Democratic Republic of Georgia both back on the FAC page. In reviewing my own comments on the DRG nomination, I found someone else (I haven't investigated the page history yet) had put strikeouts through four of my objections that, after reviewing the article today, still stand. slambo 15:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the media updates to the whale articles
Knowing that you have more than a passing interest in military history, can you take a look at the second para on the caption for Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 22, 2005. The fact that nearly all active deployments of paratroopers in combat have been a disaster, is something that I vaguely recall from a documentary I may have seen years ago, so it could do with a second opinion. -- Solipsist 20:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Delivering troops by parachute is, according to the late general Phillip Davidson, the absolute worst way to introduce troops onto the battlefield (there's a quote to this effect in his History of Vietnam book but after quickly thumbing through it I could not find it). With the advent of the helicopter, parachute drops have gone the way of the dodo, for good reason. The only advantage a plane has over a helicopter for delivering troops is that a plane can fly farther, faster, with a greater load.
The Germans used paratrooper and gliderborn troops (on a very small scale) with success during their swoop through the lowlands and France in 1940. The only time they used them in force was at the Battle of Crete. The British, through superior intelligence, knew about it in advance and slaughtered them. While the germans won the battle by overwhelming force, their (massive) losses meant they would never try it again.
The Allies used paratroopers and gliderborne troops during the Invasion of Normandy suffered very high losses, but caused tremendous confusion among the germans -- so overall, the operation was a success, albeit a costly one. Later in the War, another airborne operation - Operation Market Garden - was another disaster, mostly due to being overambitious (they tried to capture 7 bridges and were able to capture the first 6 -- the 7th was "one too many" and the troops landing there were clobbered).
Parachute drops were used (on a small scale) by the French with mixed results during the First Indochina War. Hirondelle on July 17, 1953 was a success; later ones trying to turn the tide at Dien Bien Phu were massacres.
Off the top of my head, the only use of paratroopers since Vietnam I can think of was in the Faukland Islands war. The british paratroopers landed unopposed at one end of the island, and marched to the other, meeting only light resistance. :I hope that answers your question. →Raul654 20:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
That great thanks. So to describe the use of paratroopers in combat as 'a disaster' seems about right. Presumably to only point of parachute training with the current military is to 'build character', or more usefully as a survival technique for pilots. -- Solipsist 21:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The Falklands War saw no use of parachute troops. The Parachute Regiment is a now elite infantry formation (sometimes heliborne), not a parachute force. However, there were parachute drops in the 1956 Suez War. Gdr 11:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Like before, would you please look through my DC pics and see if there anything feature worthy there. →Raul654 06:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Well in many ways, it looks like you got a higher hit rate of good photos in this batch and many articles should benefit. But I couldn't really see anything that thought was a likely FP candidate (perhaps I'm too critical - I'm pleasantly suprised that the Aloe seems to be working out).
Image:Agave victoriae reginae.jpg is good but probably too similar to the Aloe. I also like Image:Mammillaria hahniana.jpg but the shadow across the middle is a mild problem. I particularly liked Image:Spirit of St. Louis2.jpg, but I doubt the FPC crowd would go for part of the plane and other planes in museums have been rejected before. Image:Apotheosis of George Washington.jpg is interesting and might be a candidate, but it would need to be cropped to be symetrical and the bottom edge is a little soft - it might be seen as too US centric. -- Solipsist 19:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
An alternative to deletion of Template:Sisterproject. Doing double transclusion, as Jamesday and Tim Starling have both said, is a drain on system resources. On the other hand, having some consistent guide to similar templates (such as the sister projects or the stub templates) is a good idea (you should have seen all the different designs for topic stubs before template:metastub and template:metapicstub were created). Whether this style guide is another template that is "subst:" when the new template is created, or copied-and-pasted (as Netoholic has insisted is the only way to do it) is debatable. My own opinion is that the copy-and-paste method will mean that it will be much less likely to be used and be more likely to result in non-matching templates.
The alternative: Add some explanation text to the design template that will explain how it should be used, and prevent it from being used in double transclusion. For example: for the metastub template, the text might be something like:
This is a design template for the creation or modification of topic stub templates. To create a new stub for "newtopic", add the "subst:" parameter to the template (e.g. {subst:metastub | article=newtopic-related article | id=newtopic-stub | category=newtopic}}. After creating the stub, you will need to reedit the stub to remove this text. There are suggested criteria for the creation of stubs (see Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy), and a Stub-creation WikiProject you should visit if you have never created a topic stub before.
After creation of each design template with the additional text, each one should then be protected from further modification. BlankVerse∅ 10:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Raul, I noticed your comments re "User:Netoholic/Mentoring cleanup" above, could you clear up a little further? Where it says on the page, "This section is only to be used to report ongoing problematic editing by Netoholic", I asked a few days ago if I don't get to list ongoing problematic editing by others (relevant to Netoholic) anywhere. I also mentioned a current instance (current then). You got any comment? Seems to me ongoing stuff apparently designed (for example) to provoke Netoholic can be important to report.--Bishonen | talk 06:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul - any objection to my moving Bigleaf hydrangea to its scientific name at Hydrangea macrophylla? The species has several common names (Bigleaf, French, Hortensia, Lacecap, Mophead), none with any noticeably greater currency than any other, so I think the scientific name is the best/most useful. Also the majority of the 100 Hydrangea species don't have any English name at all, and if/when these get individual pages (inevitably at their scientific name), the one listed at an English name would be out of sync. - MPF 13:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
No objection here - just be sure to fix the double-redirects when you move the page. →Raul654 18:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like you uploaded Image:Millie and Barbara Bush.jpg but didn't give source or copyright status--could you update that, pretty please? Thanks. Elf | Talk 20:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Source now supplied. The copyright status isn't certain -- the page itself says it is from the George Bush Presidential Library, but it could be a public domain press photo or it could be copyrighted and fair use. →Raul654 20:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Abdullah Öcalan - still an ongoing revert war on material thats clearly POV.
Kurdistan - Old revert wars calmed by other admins
Kurdish people - Many reverts, I removed obvious POV statements added material, they reverted my edits on this article in less than 10 minutes of my revert.
Armenian Genocide - No active reverts by the users at the time, current reverts exist
Nanjing Massacre - Interfered with mediation attempt. It was an article I was going to try experimenting on NPOVising such disputes. There reverted image size modifications. I had a 3rr block for this disagreement. Stereotek requested this block, was also blocked as he was also violating. Users did not have a single edit prior to mine.
Javier Solana Mediation attempt of a less contraversial article, was REQUESTED to mediate it by another user on IRC. Davenbelle destriyed the attempt.
GAP Project (was declared copy vio material completely removed/stubisiszed)
Ranks and insignia of NATO - No actual reverts as they cannot really question images of ranks. Declared this article as an "Abuse" of templates [3]. Would revert if found an excuse.
Greco-Turkish relations - OK article was locked, so I couldnt edit the article but instead made my cases in talk. These users just declared me a POV pusher and whatever on the talk page and completely destroyed the productivitiy of my edit. Rather hostile. (you may want to check archives of talk page.)
Armenia Some reverts, spelling and grammer correction was declared POV.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - was declared in denial, no serrious revert "war" but reverets do exist from time to time.
I am tired of dealing with this. I am open for suggestions. --Cool CatMy Talk 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I dont care anymore on what anyone suggests or tells. Hence withdrawing my request. If you really care what I think see my user page. I dont hate you. I am not happy either. --Cool CatMy Talk 00:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We don't have any set policy I can point to. IMO if their leaving adminship was truly voluntary--i.e., they left because they were on extended Wikivactaion, or didn't think they could keep up with the task (though that doesn't both a lot of current less active admins) they should have it back for the asking. After all, admins just go inactive, are listed as inactive, then say "I'm back" and resume their active status and noone challenges it.
OTOH, if they left in a storm ("taking my marbles and leaving," etc.) maybe they should stand new.
How about this? Since it is bureaucrat's job to decide on adminship, returning admins could ask any bureaucrat to reinstate them. Then that bureaucrat would need two other bureaucrats to agree, and then just do it. If any bureaucrat disagrees, they stand for seven days.
We could avoid this whole thing if we ask Anthere and Angela not to deadmin voluntarily--just list them inactive. If an admin is removed "for cause" or insists on being de-admined anyway, start them all over again for 7 days. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Deadminship - even voluntarily - is rare enough that I don't see the need for all elaborate formal policies. How about if two bureacrats agree that it was voluntary, then they are reinstated without much fuss? →Raul654 00:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
OK by me, unless the de-admin was the result of ArbCom or something. But I really think people should be discouraged from formal voluntary de-admining and just go inactive. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I concur. So to put this idea into practice - Ugen currently has such a request on RFA, and Ta Bu just withdrew his yesterday or so. Both of them simply asked to be stripped of their powers and it was made so. →Raul654 00:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Raul and Cecropia, may I request that, if you're going to change past practice, that you allow the votes that had started to proceed, and introduce this change for any new votes, and after a wider discussion? You wrote on Ugen's page that, if memory serves you right, there's no need for his re-nomination, and yet there seems to be no current policy to that effect. I would like the vote for Ugen to go ahead, as I feel there are some legitimate concerns. I also feel that admins have the choice to simply be inactive for a time, and if they specifically choose to be desysopped for whatever reason (e.g. Evercat felt he'd abused his position), then it's only fair, in my view, to ask them to be re-elected if they change their minds. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, I've thought about this more in response to SlimVirgin's request to do so. I appreciate your desire to avoid making every decision an elaborate formal process, but I think we need to be able to go to the community with some sense of why we are doing something that is arguable. For example, a certain former bureaucrat left when a decision of his was questioned. I think this person should not be restored to bureaucrat status without going through the process again. I will leave a comment on the RfA page as this applies to admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Raui! I will start translating the Hebrew article on Gonen tonight. Danny 09:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
You recently removed grunge music from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates without any explaination for whether it failed or became a featured article. Please respond on the article's talk page. -- LGagnon 20:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Whoops! I was in the process of promoting it (I removed it from the FAC and added it to the promotion archive) but got distracted and didn't finish the job. →Raul654 21:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and fixed it. →Raul654 21:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have mprotected Image:Senate chamber.JPG for tomorrow. This file comes from the Wikimedia Commons. Gdr said the file there has to be protected, too. (See this on my talk page.) I am not an Admin at the Commons, so I can't protect the file from that end. Could you protect it, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 00:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
"Blanking, per arbcom clarification decision." I'll accept the arbcom decision, but would be grateful if you could provide a link. — Itai (f&t) 10:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
It was made in response to Netoholic's request for clarification. After talking with other arbitrators, we agreed that the template needed to go - the only question about it was pro-forma related. [4]→Raul654 18:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Raul - thanks for your help with settling this. Could you unprotect Template:Commonscat? Looks like a casualty.
Also, I still would like to turn Template:sisterproject into something useful, and I've made a mock-up. I'll probably archive all the old "meta-template" discussion on the talk page of that template, and go in this new direction (since it's a handy page name). -- Netoholic@ 13:14, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. →Raul654 18:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
A. You've still to provide some substantiation for your claims. (The link no longer works - a diff would be in order.) B. This sounds like a bad idea. This is been attempted by Netoholic before - hijacking templates being a typical Netoholic way of solving disputes - and now he's merely reviving his old idea, which I oppose. The template namespace is big and flexible enough for a new name to be chosen for Netoholic's new template. If you want to delete Template:Sisterproject, do it (or rather, allow me to move it to my User: namespace); if you want to keep it for reference, much the better. But using this particular name would make the edit histories of all sister project templates meaningless to an outside reader - why would anybody use this template in all these templates - and is something I therefore oppose. — Itai (f&t) 07:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
(B) Your concerns about reusing the template are valid. I'm going to ask netoholic to blank the template and refrain from using it/remove it from articles until he comes to some understand with others about reusing the name (or, failing that, to use a different template name). →Raul654 08:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, well. You win some, you lose some. Thanks for the link. (And support as far as reusing the name is concerned.) — Itai (f&t) 08:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.
Thanks for your consideration.
Joan Fragaszy
jfragasz at gmu dot edu
I got this message too. What make you of it? -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
If I had to guess - dollars to donuts this is a grad student working up a thesis (she would not be the first grad student working on a thesis to whom I spoken about Wikipedia). Sounds legit to me. →Raul654 18:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I wanted to reply to your comment. I actually am working with several professors in the history department for their own study on the history of the free and open source software movement. We would like to include peer-produced works of history, with articles on Wikipedia and digital genealogy projects as the most familiar examples. This study is part of a larger project on the history of science, technology, and industry. You can read more about it on our website: http://echo.gmu.edu. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have about our intentions. Best regards, Joan Fragaszy.
Joan - I'd be willing to discuss this. I think I'd prefer to do it by phone. →Raul654 20:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Its probably on your watchlist, but I thought you would be interested in the additions I made to the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ about the rights and restrictions affecting photographers, which whilst not strictly anything to do with copyright nevertheless appear to be closely related frequently asked questions.
The link to the UK guide is really helpful and covers a wide range of issues in concise summary. The US link is OK, but seems to be more confrontational and doesn't cover some of the issues relating to photographing artwork. Do you know of a better short guide for US photographers.
Both are quite good about addressing recent issues with subjects which are thought to be of interest to terrorist. I was recently threatened by a couple of police women for taking a photograph in a London underground station, so those sections were of particular interest to me. -- Solipsist 18:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, something like this was definitely lacking. Good work, and thanks. →Raul654 18:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
PS - I got the same threats from a security guard when I was taking pictures of Greenbelt station. →Raul654 18:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you intended to add a media file to the article Dmitri Shostakovich, but the link there doesn't seem to actually link to a media file... Perhaps a mistake? -- KittySaturn 04:10, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Long story - just wipe out the link. →Raul654 04:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654, thanks for your comment. Please see my response on my talk page. The short answer, is by accident. Sorry, about that. I would never, nor have I ever, intentionally follow a well thought-out edit summary with an edit summary-less one. El_C 10:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Raul, I found your recent edits in that article to have been good and useful. I'm sorry if I'm slowing down your thrust, I have no intention to revert war over this. As I said on my talk page in greater detail, I'm more than happy for us to refer to Danny on this. El_C 10:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I submitted the edit with the summary, yet it ins't registering. The edit summary read (I still have the page open) : Raul, you can delete it elsewhere (though perhaps it should be exapnded there). We arrived at consensus on the talk page to note it in the Lead, as an important development. Danny, what do you think?El_C 10:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggested Link (Legend of Zelda) for the Main Page some time ago on Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article, and you told me there were too many unsourced, fair use images, and I pretty much forgot about it. However, with User:Master Thief Garrett, I removed a few superfluous images, properly tagged the other ones and added source information (including the emulator used to take the OoA screenshot). The lead picture was changed to include a promotional picture for the upcoming Twilight Princess, and I've tried to replace pictures found on third party sites with images directly from Nintendo's site. Is there any hope it could be put on the main page now? Phils 16:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Since I already have a 'nerd' oriented article scehduled for the 4th (Windows XP), I'll probably wait at least a week before putting up link. →Raul654 21:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. But don't hesitate to delay it even longer; what's most important about the main page FA is showing the variety of subjects treated on Wikipedia. Besides, there's really no special Zelda-related event on the horizon (E3, where Twilight's Princess was one of the top anticipated games, is over). Phils 22:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul, I hope you liked the Gonen article. I have to say that regarding the dispute with ElC, I tend to agree with him. The revelations about Kippur really shook up Israeli society, and continue to reverberate today, especially in regard to the people's trust of the political system. It is a very essential aspect of the war and should be reiterated. Just my $0.02. Danny 01:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine by me. →Raul654 01:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Yo. I accidentally overwrote one of your images on Commons. It gave me the "changing filename" warning, and I didn't notice that it was also giving an "already exists" warning. Anyway, I overwrote Image:National Museum of African Art.jpg, so if you want to upload yours again over mine, go ahead. Sorry about this. Isomorphic 07:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I realized it allows you to revert. Commons must have some different software. I assumed the old image was gone. Isomorphic 07:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I feel Ive done everything possible to make this into a featured article candidate. I now have five supports and one object and the object I beleive was handled. I left a message on the Users talk page asking him to confirm, but this was 4 days ago and I have heard nothing.
I also apologize for the nasty debate which occured. The user who started it I feel had no good intentions and was arguing against the very existence of the article. I see it as a society article, speaking of ranks and insignia and how this production franchise has incorporated them over the past forty years. It is a good article and deserves recognition. Can we advance now to FA? Thanks. -Husnock 08:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Husnock - No no, it's perfectly all right. This kind of philsophical debate is good from time to time. I wanted to write you earlier to tell you I think you've done a great job on the article (yes, I'm a trek fan, and yes, I did recognize your name). Just to let you know - I don't promote nominations from the fac until at least 5 days have passed (usually more for controversial noms so as to give people time to express an opinion), and only then if there's a consensus (e.g, most people support it) there aren't any serious objections. (Most serious objections are facutual or copyright related). The insignea nomination is only 3 days old. In the mean time, go fix the things mav is objecting to -- those are definitely actionable and I'd like to see them fixed before I promote.
Now, I admit that Peter (Karmosin) does have a sort of intangible point about avoiding 'crufy' featured articles. On the other hand, I really don't see the harm in citing it as one of our best articles, because (systemic bias concerns aside) it really is one of our top articles. So, the big concern then becomes the main page - e.g., not flaunting our geek bias. As such, I'm *extremely* conservative when I schedule these kinds of uber-nerdy articles for the main page. →Raul654 08:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well, after our talk this user went around and invited some other users to "comment" on the article, knowing full well they would viciously object as they did last time. One particualr user I feel should be sanctioned for rather nasty attacks on the FAC page and calling the article names. But, I'm not an admin. Anyway, there is stuff on tehre now like breaking up the entire article and getting rid of the tables. I also added the inline citations but there are comments the sources are "dubious"? Hmmm. Where this rabid hatred of the article comes from I don't know. I think people just dont want to see it as an FA and will say whatever is needed to block it. Anyway, thanks for your support. As I don't see breaking up the entire article and rewriting it as an option, I'm running out of ideas. -Husnock 20:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I have in fact reported the User in question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for borderline personal attacks. I was going to let it go until I saw the part of "Vietnamese sweat shops" and "rounding up my buddies" to get an FAC pushed through. Very inappropriate. -Husnock 20:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I read the complaint you filed there. I think you're taking this a bit too personally. As far as I can see, every bit of his criticism was directed at the article, and not you personally. I understand how you could be upset, but editing on Wikipedia means you need to develop a bit of a thick skin and not be hurt by criticism of your writing. My advice to you is to avoid escalating the situation. →Raul654 21:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul... was wondering when this FA will be placed on the front page? His birthday falls on June 3rd so this might be a good date to do it. Cheers... Zerbey 17:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and scheduled it for the 3rd. →Raul654 08:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! Zerbey 12:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops. Never mind. Your edits temporarily disappeared from the Talk:Main Page edit history for some reason. They're back now. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
That's a cache issue, methinks. →Raul654 00:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
No, that's yesterday'sbogeyman. Today's is database replication lag. ☺ --cesarb 01:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You've got it wrong, I did not vote oppose because it failed.... I cannot in good faith, based on my experiences, vote support for that nomination. If a RFDa process were in place, I would at least move to Neutral. Surely, you're not really trying to make an argument that my lone vote is disruptive of Wikipedia, even if I was trying to make a point. -- Netoholic@ 03:31, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
If you didn't think Linuxbeak qualified, you should have said so and (respectfully) kept your mouth shut about the rest of it. Saying that you would have voted differently if we had a deadminship policy does *nothing* except make people suspect your motives for voting, as I did. You might want to keep this in mind in the future. →Raul654 03:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, I don't know where to ask. My password for the account of the same name on Tamil wikipedia has been cracked and the e-mail address is also probably changed. Because I haven't received the e-mail giving new password that I requested for. Please do something about it. There are several evidences linking this user id in en wikipedia with that. Also it has been linked to my e-mail id (sundarbecse in yahoo domain), since I've e-mailed User:Ravidreams on both the Tamil wiki and the English wiki. Also, since I'm an admin there (and also here) it needs to be blocked immediately before any damage is done. -- Sundar (talk·contribs) 05:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Raul. Will wait for the e-mail to come. -- Sundar 05:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Glad I could help :) →Raul654 05:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this is related at all, but this morning (CDT) when I tried to log in to Wikipedia, it wouldn't work. I am using my family's computer; there is no one here who would vandalize, but as I'm an administrator, I wouldn't want someone clicking something by accident, so I always log out. I haven't ever changed my password on Wikipedia so I was very surprised that I kept getting an incorrect password error. I checked my contributions (my last one was still the most recent, fortunately), then requested a new password by e-mail and changed it. It works fine now. I just thought that it was a weird glitch or something but something similar happened to Sundar I thought I'd mention it. — Knowledge Seekerদ 05:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Knowledge Seeker - was this on the Tamil wikipedia as well? →Raul654 05:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I think I faced the same glitch as that of Knowledge Seeker in Tamil wiki. Noone seems to have cracked my account, at least, noone else has used it and I got the new password over e-mail. -- Sundar 05:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Raul: Sorry for not being specific; no, it was here on en. It may just be a coincidence but it was very odd. — Knowledge Seekerদ 06:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it is possible that it could be related to the maintence that was going on last night and/or the password salting. Either way, it sounds like you guys are OK now. →Raul654 06:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I appear to have a similar problem on the English Wikipedia which just appeared today. How can I get this fixed? -- JamesTeterenko 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Brion managed to track down the problem. If, prior to the mainteince last week, you (or someone else) requested a new password for you account, then but you ignored the new password and kept using the old one -- that's what broke your account.
To get back to your account, request that a new password be emailed to you. It might take a while because the servers have been innundated with requests, but it should get there "eventually" (figure a day or two max). →Raul654 19:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
To further make my situation difficult, I have more information. I just did a test and my email address as noted in my account is one that was disabled a week ago. So, I am not able to get any emails from the "E-mail this user" feature or the "E-mail new password". I do have an accurate email ID for the Commons at my User page. Please help. -- JamesTeterenko 19:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, in that case, a developer has to manually change the email address. The best place to find one is on IRC (freenode) in #mediawiki. They're (rightfully) suspicious about these kinds of things, but just explain your situation to them like you did to me, and tell them to use the same email address as your commons account uses and it shouldn't be a problem. →Raul654 19:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. My problem seems to have resolved itself. On my home computer, my Wikipedia cookie was still good. I was able to update my email address in my preferences. I then asked for another password and changed it back to what it was. Strange, yes, but it worked. -- JamesTeterenko 00:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
on my talk page! I got all obsessed with the Deep Throat revelation and revised almost anything that linked to it. I hate red links! Now I better get back to my day job! Jokestress 08:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, is it possible to change the background color of the to-do template to a more neutral color like light blue or light grey?--Witkacy 12:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Certianly. If you look at that template carefully, you'll see a line that says:
style="background:#efefef;
efefef are three hexademical values coding for Red, green, and blue. FFFFFF is white, and 000000 is black. A moderately lighter grey would be (for example) F7F7F7. →Raul654 12:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thx i see it now :), is it also possible to change the khaki/brown frame around it?--Witkacy 12:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, don't touch the khaki brown -- that's part of the template standard. See Wikipedia:Template standardisation. The whole idea is that all the talk page templates are supposed to be the same size and color. →Raul654 12:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
aha, ok thanks a lot :)--Witkacy 12:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand how FAC works. I understood that an article would not be promoted while there were valid objections. I believe that there are sourcing omissions in this article and made that objection. Peter (the "author"/sponsor) said that the sourcing was fine so I indicated where I felt there were some specific omissions. I can see that I updated the FAC subpage just after you had promoted the article but at the time of promotion there was the open question "Anything missing?" from Peter. Have I misunderstood the process? Is it another consensus mechanism? --Theo (Talk) 18:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you overlooked my questions? --Theo (Talk) 23:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry, I meant to get back to you. The FAC, like most pages, works on consensus, and consensus is not unanimity. Basically, when I promote nominations, I look to see that a nomination has a certain minimum number of supports (usually at least 4), and that it has "a lot" of support (e.g., that most people - figure in the neigborhood of three quarters - support it), and that there aren't any "serious" objections. A serious objection is an objection along that lines that an article is heavily biased, or factually inaccurate, or that it is (or contains) a copyright violation. Something like this is enough to veto a nomination. In the case of the swedish language nomination, I saw a lot of support, and a handful of suggestions/objections (almost all of which were struck out), but I didn't see anything that I thought was serious. →Raul654 23:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. My confusion clears: I had misunderstood the process. Theo (Talk) 07:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Image:Habitat for Humanity logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. User:Raul654 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh man, that's what I get for editing wikipedia too early in the morning. I was looking at Image:Majdalshams.jpg and must have missed the PD tag. Sorry. Please disregard. →Raul654 16:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for bothering you in this way. My password (I'm actually Tempshill) stopped working several days ago, and the "E-mail me the password" button doesn't work. At Wikipedia:Help Desk, someone dropped your name; apparently there have been password problems for a few other people as well recently. Thanks for any help you can offer -- Tempshill2 17:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be happening a lot lately. If you look up (in the Urgent! Help needed!) section, Sundar and Knowledge Seeker both had this problem. It's probably related to the recent passwording salting that the devs instituted. Anyway, the email-this-user button doesn't work because this is happening to *a lot* of people and the mail server is, um, bogged down (it had 2,000 emails in it when Sundar asked for help). My advice is to wait a little while (48 hours) to see if the email with your new password arrives. →Raul654 17:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, when I click the 'mail me a new password' link, I am immediately told that I have no e-mail address on file, which is almost certainly incorrect. Any advice? Tempshill2 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, according to the email-this-user function (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Tempshill) - your account had no associated email address. The developers can manually set one, if you want (at which point, you should be able to request a new password). The best way to do this would be to get on IRC and ask them in #mediawiki on Freenode. I can do it for you, if you want, but that might take longer. →Raul654 18:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I found someone who fixed it; thanks for the pointer. It had to do with an old password from the past not having been converted to a newer format. Thanks! Tempshill 21:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that you have taken my advice and started staying away from controversial topics - have you found your editing here more pleasant and enjoyable? →Raul654 23:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
No I feel myself in a complete void. :) --Cool CatMy Talk 00:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know enough to even begin talking about this, but you do - I was flipping through some pages when the Gamefaqs article caught my eye. So much of the entry is simply going on about their individual forums and jargon. I know other, less notable, pages have caught crap for this (especially the Kenzerco forums), but is Gamefaqs large enough to be notable?
plz comment thx bye 216.158.31.195 20:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you don't think a page should exist, you can nominate it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion - be warned, however, that that page is a prepetual battleground, and (in my opinion) it is overly inclusive -- manifestly non-notable things get kept, more often than not. →Raul654 06:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I noted all the suggestions on the talk page and edited the definiton to include them all. Then it is reverted without comment or discussion! Please discuss the article Sci guy 01:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I specifically said that copying a definition and calling it an introduction is inherently bad writing. The version you reverted includes all kinds of useful information necesary to introduce the subject not present in your defintion (the number of people infected, the history of the disease, etc). The version you were removing was most decidedly better for that reason. →Raul654 01:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for fixing the link I was placing on The Star Spangled Banner. I missed the description tag, but I hope a recording like what I made will work for the encyclopedia. Zscout370(Sound Off) 01:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I listened to it - the sound was barely audible. I kicked it up by 9 decibels but it's still pretty low. Also, you're a bit flat, but that's not so much of a big deal ;) →Raul654 06:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my life has been a bit crazy lately, so I haven't been able to email it within half an hour of 0:00 UTC every day (I'm sometimes a couple hours late :$). Hopefully things will clear up by the end of the month, and I'll be able to be on time more consistently :)
Thanks again for your message, I really appreciate it a lot. Take care! -Frazzydee|✍ 14:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome :) →Raul654 06:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the generated source in the example you've given (libertarianism), you can see the {{{1}}} is being expanded on the link, but not within the id attribute.
This makes me think of a recently fixed security bug, where the expansion of a template could be used to bypass the HTML filters. I saw it first at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What was that?, which gives a date (yesterday) and a bug number (2304).
If the date matches with your experience, that could be that the cause (a side effect of the fix); I have not looked at the code, but I can guess the parts of the code involved in both the security fix and the recent template problems are the same.
Thanks for the match. I was only a bit annoyed by the community pressure. You played a superb game and what kills me the most in hindsight was blocking my queen-side bishop with my queenside knight prematurely. SDSUPinoy 19:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, just curious as to how you go about selecting FA's for the main page. Phoenix2 01:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not really rocket science. When I pick articles, I look for interesting ones, and I try to avoid having too many articles from a particular country/subject featured in a short period of time - particularly ones related to pop-culture or "geeky" ones (which we have a distinct bias towards). It used to be a lot harder back in the old days, when featured articles didn't really have the good introductions they do today. I also try to fulfill requests I get on wikipedia talk:tomorrow's featured article whenever possible. →Raul654 06:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Good call on that one. It's probably one of my favourite, if not the favourite, works in the Western canon.
Are you ever on AIM anymore? I need to talk to you. 216.158.31.195 18:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Basically, my question was, how do I get my older contribs (as 216.158.31.195) to show up on my new (Jasonglchu) contributions? Is there any way to get the one into the other, or do I just start from scratch? Nothing big. Jasonglchu 13:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In theory, you can make a request on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. On the other hand, the warning at the top of the page says -- Edits have not been reattributed for some months. There are no indications when requests made here will be executed, if ever. Chances are very good that requests there will be ignored forever. →Raul654 16:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
It is sort of surprising I guess, which is why I thought it would be interesting to include... I must disagree with you about "it's a bit of a stretch to categorize Benedict as an author". As Cardinal Ratzinger he kept up an incredible rate of writing and publishing. I'm not talking about internal Church stuff-- I mean books you can find on Amazon. He's authored or co-authored around 50 commercially sold books. In fact, you can see here that he's even been making some bestseller lists. JDG 20:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. Yes, things are getting better, though I've been less active lately as well. Been dealing with a growingly active Simple: Wikipedia. The stress around that meta-template junk was a major factor and now that it's "gone", I'm better. Thanks for your help with that. -- Netoholic@ 22:54, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
About the Damascus by night picture. Being a newbie and given the little time I currently can give to Wikipedia, one that will stay so for a while, I am afraid I cannot respond to your request, unless you help understand what you meant :-). In all cases, feel free to edit my contributions dear Raul654 as you seem vastly more involved in here than i ever will be --Zelidar 21:13, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Yes, I can be there...I have plans in the early/middle part of the day (EST) but other than that I should be free and I'll make a point to go into IRC and see if you're in there. Everyking 06:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Say, Raul, it just occured to me... Does Rabinovich actually writes AMAN? I don't believe I've seen that before. I realize you thought it was an acronym (thus, it would make sense to capitalize – but if it was, it'd be two not three letters), but it's an abbreviation. I've seen Aman used, and a quick search shows it is the prevalent use. I am, in fact, in favour of the jewishvirtuallibrary.org'sA'man as the most correct name for the article/subject in English. So, unless you have any objections, I'm going to rename it accordingly. Regards, El_C 10:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he writes "AMAN" - in all caps - and does so throughout the book. →Raul654 18:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
But no, I have no objection if you want to switch to the more prevalant english usage. →Raul654 18:42, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Roger that. Why did I say three? Four! Yes, I think he errs on this in two interrelated ways: first giving the reader the impression it's a four-word acornym rather than a two-word abbrevation, & thereby also failing to convey that in Israel, it is pronounced A'man (and, in fact, rarely are the two words, Agaf Modiin, used in normal speech), similiarly to the pronounciation of Shabak (Shin Bet), or Shabas (prisons service), Magav (border service), etc. I didn't pick up on it right away since I haven't read much of this sort of material through English language sources. *** Quick question: is my spelling of inteligence for these purposes (as opposed to IQ, etc.) in error, or is that distinction a product of my feverish mind? TIA. El_C 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic has found himself a revert war on WP:POINTSnowspinner 15:08, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
... and Snowspinner has found himself a WP:POINT to make. -- Netoholic@ 15:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
And now he's attacking me on the talk page of WP:RFAR and reopening a settled edit war at WP:TROLL. Snowspinner 17:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
That was fairly well premature and, frankly, a cop-out. This would have been an ideal situation for you to "assist my communication" rather than pander to a tattler. Especially on WP:POINT, my most recent edit was toward compromise, and now you've cut off that process without even discussing with me. -- Netoholic@ 18:20, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Why don't you come on IRC and we can talk about it. →Raul654 18:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
In all fairness, this is the first time I saw this note about IRC. I got distracted with other things and never checked back here for a reply from you. -- Netoholic@ 05:47, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Hi. I'm breaking for a bit, but I was wondering what your reasoning was for considering this to be Lir? ✏ OvenFresh² 20:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lir's idiotic vandalism tends to follow a particular pattern (especially along the lines of leaving incoherent messages on my talk page) and that one fits the pattern perfectly. →Raul654 18:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC.
I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good day. As Featured Articles and things related are generally your gig, I thought I'd let you know that I have created a list, not dissimilar from the Wikipedia:Featured articles page, of Former featured articles.
I did this in part for convenience (as the only way to track down what had been a featured article was to dig through the archive - which is exactly what I had to do to create this page). I believe a list like this is important because it illustrates that a page can evolve both ways, and that wikipedia standards have changed over the years.
I also created a shortcut for it, tweaked the {{featuredtools}} template, and added references to it on the various FA-related pages. I was rather bold with this, so if you see that it needs improvement, (obviously) just change it.
Hello. How to mark Image:Shakespeare.jpg to deletion because it is moved to commons as commons:Image:Shakespeare.jpg ? I am sysop on pl: Wikipedia and I can delete his image only on pl: Wikipedia ? Lzur 09:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know :) {{NowCommons|Image:Shakespeare.jpg}}. Lzur 09:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the en version -- problem solved. →Raul654 18:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul. I think I was the lone "object" vote on this article. This is no big deal, and in the end the article (on one of my top sports heros, along with Jim Ryun) ended up quite good. However, my objection was that the article was pretty much a "book report" on Jane Leavy's fine book. She told Koufax's story in an interesting fashion, interspersing his life history in the midst of describing, inning by inning, the devolution of his perfect game. The wikipedia biography reads in similar fashion, unlike other sports bios. Now that I think of it, I have done similar work ... reading a book on a topic and then later basing a wiki article on that knowledge. "Alfred Lee Loomis" comes to mind. But for that reason, I didn't think those kind of articles were FA status.
Again, this is an observation, not an objection. If I'd felt strongly about it, I would have kept hammering the point on the FAC page. Just one more thing to keep in mind. Sfahey 03:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{Disinfopedia}}, which you created, has been replaced by {{Sourcewatch}}. Because there are no longer any articles that use the old template, the redirect is no longer necessary. Therefore Template:Disinfopedia has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse∅ 11:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Raul654: I saw this was just posted by 62.253.96.42, and I thought you might want to know. Beyond that, it looks like he's back re-vandalizing the pages you reverted. Check out Special:Contributions/62.253.96.40; at least the last two are image removals. Thought you might want to deal with the obvious horsehockey at RfC and maybe give 62.253.96.42 a good thrashing. Happy hunting! Essjay · talk 09:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Was it the image removals you blocked him for? I noticed he's also been warned for nonsense creation. Note: I've moved the RFC he started on you to an appropriate subpage to avoid accusations of bias or anything. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I blocked him for the image removals, combined with the fact that (from his talk page) I saw he had been warned repeatedly before for vandalism and nonsensical editing. →Raul654 14:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Mark: Allareequal has been up to a pretty annoying thing today... pretty much all day, nonstop, he has been making nonsensical, overly generalised, nonencyclopaedic lists, and he refuses to stop. He has way too many to list them individually on VfD. Could you help me out with him? I don't know what to do - it's not really a case of vandalism, just a very stubborn, unintentionally abusive user. Thanks.
jglc | t | c 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've wiped out the most stupid of the pack. Most (if not all) of the rest are redundant with categories and should be deleted after going through the VFD. I've also dropped a stern warning on his talk page. →Raul654 18:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I gave him a little chat on his User_Talk, and we're on roughly the same page now - he knows what's up. I don't anticipate any more problems; probably a few bumps in the road, but he seems to be moving in the right direction. I appreciate the help. jglc | t | c 18:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia's elite chess tournament isn't accepting new players, where can I sign up for the next one? --WikiFan04ß 00:21, 16 Jun 2005 (CDT)
I'm not quite sure -- I suspect the next one will not start until the current one has finished; at the rate it's progressing, it will probably be at least a few months until that happens. →Raul654 05:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
When I suggested this for featured-article-of-the-day, you posted a note wondering if we could get an illustration other than a map. I checked the web-site of the Middletown, Ohio, public library, and found a general drawing of a canalboat from that era (circa 1840). I've posted that to the article and moved the map down in the article. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Need some admin help on this. User:Shrek32 has been adding links to fictional video games and movies in the fictional "Amber Sparks" and "Brooke Fox" series to various Lists of Movies and Lists of Video Games (i.e. Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution, Nintendo DS, Gameboy Advance, Playstation 3, Playstation 2, Playstation Pocket). He just started adding entries for "The Doodlebops" - which also do not exist. His rate of vandalism is very high (just look at Special:Contributions/Shrek32; could you do a personal favour to me and help me out with shutting him down?
I am also submitting to Vandalism in Progress, just in case.
You have voted to close this case. I object: the remedy aginst me is still unsupported by FoF, and my questions [5] remain unanswered. - User:William M. Connolley
There are actually two remedies that apply to you -- 2.2 and 2.3. I presume you are referring to the latter. (Remedy 2.2, which I wrote, is a simple warning to avoid sterile edit wars). Your complaint about 2.3 is misdirected here -- Ambi and I voted against that remedy. →Raul654 17:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough, I know you did. Oh... OK, I'll go and talk to Grunt. William M. Connolley 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).
i need to upload about 60-70 images in commons, ALL tagged the same way. I am trying to create an article about my city's wireless community network, (Patras Wireless Network), and I asked the users of the network to take pics of their antennas, their surroundings and a pic of their Access Point from their location. So, the upload interface will suck ass, because there's no way in hell i'll upload 70 pics one by one :D *HEAD EXPLODES* as you were the only one i remember with an album, i thought i'd ask if you know any alternatives. I think i have enough material in that article to make it a FAC. it's going slow though :)
i read your rules. so, what do i do to prevent astroturfing? i mean, yeah, well, besides the bullet-in-your-head method... I mean, yeah, it works, but then i couldn't edit any more ^_^
No one has yet devised a silver-bullet against astroturfing. Detecting it would be the hardest thing of all. It's a special-case of the whole POV pushing problem I outlined in the Arbom's RFC. →Raul654 22:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
OK, thank you for telling me. Everyking 05:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the only birthday present I have for you is a note to ask you to change the copyright tag on this image... You uploaded it under {{PD-Germany}}, but this tag did not accurately state German copyright law. The image is not yet PD; however, it may be usable under fair use. Could you consider changing the tag to {{fairuse}}. Cheers, and happy birthday! Physchim62 13:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, actually, I uploaded it long before we had image tagging (someone has subseqently added a tag, the accuracy of which I am not sure). I don't remember where I got it now -- it was some site on the web. →Raul654 04:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am very distressed at the speed with which you took down the Everyking mentorship discussion from the RfAr page once you got the 4th vote you were jockeying for. How does it hurt to leave it up for more than a few minutes so we could see who placed the votes? And once you've changed the rules of an arbcomm decision and parole, it would be nice if you'd notify the other admins so we know what to do and what not to do when we encounter someone who apprears to be violating their parole. RickK 21:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't leave it up because every member of the arbcom (save 2, one of whom - Mav - is concentrating on CFO duties instead of arbcom stuff) was either inactive or had expressed an opinion. I'll be more mindful in the future to give notification. →Raul654 22:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
The preliminary decision is already in, and the majority votes have already been cast. RickK 04:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Suffice it to say, we are actively discussing the matter and the final decision will almost certainly be very different than the current proposed one. →Raul654 05:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Raul. Since I renamed IDoMI back to A'man, the A'man page looks strange on my watchlist. Would you know how to fix it? Thanks in advance. Oh, and happy belated BDay! :) El_C 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you mean - in what way does it look weird?. →Raul654 04:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded it as PD (which the government pages classify it as but the AP apparently does not); someone later got permission from the AP and changed the tag accordingly. →Raul654 04:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
...for helping me out. And, happy birthday! Looks like I got back just in time...it's your birthday, but I got the present. :^) Have an extra slice of cake for both of us, hear? - Lucky 6.9 20:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My opponent just came out of the hospital. he was in a car accident. i think i'll wait a bit till he recovers and lets me know he's ok :) Project2501a 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a question: I wish to create a category of FA's called "Awards and Decorations." I know there are some decorations stuck under the military and war section (Medal of Honor), chivilary (Order of the Bath) and culture and society (Hero of Belarus). I was wondering if you would have any problems with that? Zscout370(Sound Off) 05:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh, yes - if by "category", you mean a new section on Wikipedia:featured articles - I'd prefer not to add one like that because it overlaps (heavily) with several other existing ones. →Raul654 05:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
That is what I mean. The articles affected, other than the three I mentioned, are: Order of the Garter · Order of St Patrick and Order of the Thistle. Once the Awards and Decorations section is created, it will be removed from the other sections, unless that is a major problem. I also wish to do this since one or two medals are going through FAC (Iron Cross and a Polish decoration) and I am pushing through my second FAC, Order of Canada through the Peer review process. I just wanted to make sure it was ok with everyone before I did anything. Zscout370(Sound Off) 05:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like it, feel free to change it. However, the capitalization of the link is not seen by the user (except on the status line), and it doesn't affect the ability to link to the article because the software automatically capitalizes the first letter in all links, so (to me) it's not a big deal. Russ Blau(talk) 16:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you added media files to the article on Giuseppe Cambini. Unfortunately, there is a glitch that causes each link to send me back to the Wikipedia main page, and the Info link sends me to a page that says something like "Image movement 1 .ogg doesn't exist." Del arte 22:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)) up which has gotten comments from only three users in 12 days. I have addressed their concerns to the point where all three voted Support. However, there haven't been any more comments. Are three opinions adequate (it seems a bit thin to me), or should I go out and solicit input from other editors? Thanks. Guettarda 05:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As you can see, I just did some archiving and promoting. 3 supports is a little thin, yes. I'll leave it there a little longer; hopefully, it'll get a few more supports so I'll feel comfortable promoting, but if no one objects after some days, I'll probably just go ahead and promote it. →Raul654 06:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiosity - is Neto's mentoring lifted? I've seen no activity on the mentoring page, and quite some WikiSpace activity by him. I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, but people were recently discussing whether mentoring actually works, so I was wondering if this was resolved, abandoned or still active. Radiant_>|< 08:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Traced two of them... one traces back to Amsterdam according to Geobytes (Whois basically says the same thing, tracing it back to an ISP based in the Netherlands), but the second ended up tracing back to an ISP in Italy. Here's the thing... that ISP was classified as a LOCAL service provider. I'm starting to think that we may have a bunch of vandals who are simply attempting to make the situation even worse. Traces I did on alleged sockpuppets of Enviroknot seem to suggest the same thing... Geobytes traced two of the four IPs it could find to Houston, a third to a city in Nevada, and a fourth to Toronto... yes, as in Canada. I've read quite a bit about a group of trolls called the GNAA... perhaps they're behind this? I seriously doubt that these IPs could all be used by the same person. Of course, I could be wrong... but it doesn't seem logical. --Chanting Fox 04:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's probably one person exploiting open proxies. →Raul654 04:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps... but i traced 65.75.150.102 (another anon. IP that vandalized the page)... and Geobytes said it was 90 percent certain that it was located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. As for the open proxies... I'd need to know if they could fool Geobytes. Geographically these IP addresses are going all over the place.--Chanting Fox 04:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand -- I agree that it looks like these are coming all over the place. On the other hand, they could all be controlled by a single user remotely - e.g, they are his proxies. →Raul654 04:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
So how can you tell whether or not that is the case? For that matter, would I be able to... or would that require more priveledges than I have? --Chanting Fox 04:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I scanned several of the IPs with nmap and sure enough some of them were running as proxies.
[~/]> nmap -p 80,8080 65.75.150.102
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on (65.75.150.102):
(The 1 port scanned but not shown below is in state: closed)
Port State Service
8080/tcp filtered http-proxy
[~/]> nmap -p 80,8080 72.9.242.90
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on grcm.net (72.9.242.90):
Port State Service
80/tcp open http
8080/tcp filtered http-proxy
This appears to confirm my theory. →Raul654 04:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
All the ones I've encountered so far, and have blocked indefinitely, have been open proxies, and judging by this, by the language of the posts, and by one other factor, they're being operated by the same person. If either of you wants to know what the one other factor is, feel free to e-mail me. SlimVirgin(talk) 08:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
This just keeps getting odder. The IP used to vandalize the proposed decision (as well as the one that left a message on this here talk page) was 72.9.242.90. http://72.9.242.90 exists (reverse DNS's to grcm.net, according to whois it is registered to Giles Morant and according to that page his email is giles-at-grcm.net). Think we should email him and tell him that he (or someone using his box) was vandalizing wikipedia and that he has been blocked? →Raul654 08:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Raul, I just saw this. That IP address is listed as an open proxy. Giles Morant might, indeed, be keen to know that. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
He started revert battles Iris Chang by ignoring discussions. He does not favor anything he does not like, and he no longer accept to talk to me but keep reverting without showing any reasons. From his assersions, it is quite clear that he just want to support China.
He also stated some anon IPs' reverts are mine without showing any proofs at [6].
He also reverted other pages such as The Rape of Nanking (book). I found that there were silent reverts battle, so I encouraged them to talk without joining the battle, but Mark ignored.
I have used Wikipedia several times for my research, and I thought it is very useful. This is the reason why I started contributing, but I don't know why there is a person like him here and disturb our contributions.
I would like to ask you what should I do. Any kind of help will be greatly appreciated.
Speaking to that, this is the response to your comment on my talk page:
Yes, my comments were mostly an exercise for the reader to demonstrate that while having a good system would be great, there probably aren't any that are worth the cost. The one used for Guanaco worked fine, pissed off a few people for sure, but did work. The only issue with that system is that would be very rare to happen which means there is no simple system to de-admin. As I've thought it out though, I do think that is likely the only way that wouldn't be a disaster, as Sam's proposal certainly would. - TaxmanTalk 12:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to be the first to congrat you on successfuly defending your Thesis, Doc. Good going! One PhD down, 10 more to go! :D Project2501a 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, Mark. I thought that qualification exams are different from defending a thesis. -- Sundar (talk·contribs) 09:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
It varies from school to school, but most places (including mine) you have to pass an exam demonstrating knowledge in the area before you can present a thesis. So it's a big roadblock out of the way. Now I can concentrate on doing my thesis (coincidentally, the same day I passed I got (what I think will be) my thesis topic)→Raul654 19:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
HI there, I was wondering if I could ask a favour. Since I am going to be away from a computer for pretty much this entire weekend, and I'm not sure that Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 will pass with Michael Snow's current objections. Is there any way you could hold off for a few days from taking it off the list so that I can address his obejctions? Thank you so much! Páll 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yikes. I just reread the nomination in question, so I should clarify my above statement. There's definitely some very suspicious sockpuppetry going on, as well 2 people voting oppose to make a point (Netoholic and Boothy443) in violation of Wikipedia policy. On reconsideration, I think an extension is in order.
I'm curious how their votes were in violation of Wikipedia policy? Thanks. :) kmccoy(talk) 22:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I consider voting against someone's adminship to protest Wikipedia policy to be a clear case of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. →Raul654 23:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
WP:POINT isn't a policy, it's a guideline. I think that many people have taken to applying this guideline too liberally. Voting against RFAs doesn't disrupt Wikipedia in any real sense. I've seen WP:POINT used against people several times when the harm done to the project is hard to see. I think that the idea of the guideline is that it's not good to do bunch of vandalisation, or to register a bunch of fake accounts to vote against RFAs, etc. Voting against an RFA out of principle doesn't *harm* Wikipedia, I would in fact argue that it helps it, in allowing people with all views to continue to make contributions and to make their views known. People with contrary views being dismissed like that is part of the reason that accusations of "rule-by-clique" can occasionally seem on-target. I think everyone should take a step back when they're going to accuse someone of "disrupting" Wikipedia and decide if it's actually disrupting the project, or if it's just not quite fitting into the mold that is expected.
I hold you in high regard, I hope you understand that this comment is made in the spirit of constructive criticism. Thanks. :) kmccoy(talk) 02:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The distinction between a guideline and a policy is one of degree (and generally is a subjective one at that). Policy says that you shouldn't do something, ever; a guideline means you shouldn't do it unless you have a very good reason not to. Claiming that something "isn't policy, just a guideline" is asinine - it's an attempt to subvert the rules by discrediting them. Yes, it's "only" a guideline -- that doesn't mean it isn't almost always a good idea, and that doesn't mean you can violate it flagarantly just because you disagree with it.
"Voting against RFAs doesn't disrupt Wikipedia in any real sense" - it doesn't disrupt the 'encyclopedic' part (the article namespace). However, being that adminship promotion is a nontrivial part of the project (particularly the behind-the-scenes part), disrupting it (by definition) does constitute disrupting the project.
Now, you argue that voting-against-someone-to-protest-poliy doesn't disrupt Wikipedia, that it helps it by giving them another venue to express their opinoins -- no no no! Absolutely wrong. For the people here with "dissenting views" (e.g., the people who accuse the adminship of cabalism) there are appropriate places to make their views known and there are inappropriate places. The mailing list, talk pages, the arbitration commitee, and any of dozens of others are appropriate places; Requests for adminship is not an appropriate place (neither are the FAC or VFD, just to name a few). The purpose of that page is to judge people, not policy. It's inherently unfair to the nominee to hold him responsible for something over which he has no control. →Raul654 02:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not being asinine or trying to subvert the rules. I'm questioning the fact that you call it a policy when it clearly states on the page that it's NOT a policy. If you think it should be a policy, you're clearly influential enough to cause that to happen, go do it. Until then, I don't think it's at all fair for a bureaucrat to claim that users are "violating policy" by voting no on RFAs. Even if WP:POINT were changed to a policy, I would still argue that a broad application of it, such as the one you seem to advocate, is more harmful than helpful. Voting no on RFAs doesn't even disrupt the process of RFA, since people like you disregard their votes, and if a user disagrees with promoting anyone to admin status, they should have the clear right to express that in every RFA. I just took a look at Boothy443's user page -- it seems that he's been driven away from the project by being demonized, just as we've demonized Eequor, just as we've demonized Netoholic, people who had *good intentions*, and whose personal credibility on the project have been crushed by a subtle effort on the part of a group of people who do a lot of the work on this project. This can't lead to anything good for the project. I urge you to reconsider your accusations and the broad application of WP:POINT. Thanks. :) kmccoy(talk) 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suffice it to say, I'm not going to rebut every point, but:
As far as the difference between guideline and policy -- Wikipedia guidelines are enforcable as-is. Guidelines have been cited numerous times in prior arbitration committee decisions, and of those, don't-disrupt-wikipedia-to-prove-a-point has been cited repeatedly.
The application of the above was extremely lighthanded, in that neither Boothy's nor Netoholic's votes were challeged, nor did they get in any trouble. The only impact was in Weyes' case where the voting was particularly close to the threshold, and there was suffecient other goings on (such as Marmot's sockpuppetry) to nullify the vote.
If you think that Netoholic (and Eequor, to a lesser extent) were demonized because people didn't like them, then you have a very big misunderstanding of the history of those users. Netoholic's credibility was "crushed" because his actions caused huge amounts of trouble, detailed (at length) in his arbcom cases (<--- notice, the plural, "cases"). Saying he was demonzed by people who didn't like him is rewriting history. Also, I'll add that he was fortunate enough to be the recepient of an experimental mentorship, designed specifically to help him interact better with the community.
"If a user disagrees with promoting anyone to admin status, they should have the clear right to express that in every RFA" Let's be clear - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and no one has a "right" to edit here. People have privileges. When someone misbehaves, he may lose some (or all) of his editing privileges. I (as well, I suspect, as most people) consider voting against adminship nominations to protest Wikipedia policies to be misbehavior. It does demonstrable harm to the project, which is why we have a rule ("a guideline") against it. →Raul654 03:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Why bother having a difference in terms, then? It seems to me that it only serves to offer an opportunity for frustration, like mine.
Perhaps the arbitration committee should consider the question of guidelines and policies, then. In addition, since you sit on the committee, and I'm questioning your actions, it stands to reason that I may not take the arbcom's decisions as Gospel, especially within the context of a discussion of policy.
I didn't suggest that you had punished them in some way, I'm simply concerned at the language used against users who express dissent.
I haven't followed Netoholic's case, but judging by the examples you cited against Eequor in her RFA, I'm right on target; you responded to her criticism with a personal attack and have continued to demonize her since.
If you want to start deciding who may and may not edit based on whether they agree on your policy, then I'll take my toys and leave (which probably doesn't matter to you, but hey, I can either try to discuss what I see wrong or I can give up and leave, and for now I'll try the former.) I can certainly understand blocking for vandalism or harassment of other users or edit warring, but your broad application of WP:POINT bothers me a great deal, and I think it's become a cop-out for people to avoid addressing points and to shove "problem" users out of view.
I appreciate your time in responding to my concerns. :) kmccoy(talk) 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As the tags say, as well as my above comments, one difference between a policy and a guideline is how 'negotiable' they are. A policy doesn't allow exceptions, whereas a guideline can (provided you have good reasons). Consider the guideline that is the manual of style -- it's not 'policy' (in that it trumps everything in all circumstances), but you are expected to abide by it unless you have compelling reasons not to.
"In addition, since you sit on the committee, and I'm questioning your actions, it stands to reason that I may not take the arbcom's decisions as Gospel, especially within the context of a discussion of policy." While the arbcom doesn't make policy, it's their/our job to interpret and enforce it. So you don't have to (and shouldn't) take my personal opinions as Gospel, but arbcom final decisions are pretty much the last word on policy interpretation (the as-yet-never-used appeal to jimbo option not withstanding). "Perhaps the arbitration committee should consider the question of guidelines and policies, then." -- Every committee decision cites policies and guidelines we consider relavant to support that particular decision, and are phrased in a way so as to make our emphasis clear, like this one.
As far as the Eequor RFA - I stated my opinion, that I think Eequor has shown bad judgement in the past and I wanted to see counterexamples before I would drop my opposition and/or support her. I'm sorry if you think that's "demonizing" her, but the purpose of requests-for-adminship is to see if someone is suffeciently reliable to be an admin; an unavoidable part of that is being able to say that no, someone is not. On the other hand, I think I made it clear that I was willing to change my vote if I was shown a convincing examples that she is, in fact, reliable. Now, you say I cited 'examples' against Eequor in her RFA, but I think you confusing me with someone else, because I don't believe I pointed to any particular instances (I could have but was not asked to). I simply said she had made some "seriously bad judgement calls", a claim which, since no one bothered to dispute it, I think can be assumed to be true.
"If you want to start deciding who may and may not edit based on whether they agree on your policy" - this is a distortion of my position. I said that there are places where it is acceptable to protest wikipedia policy (quite a few of them at that), and places where it is not. It is my opinion that RFA is not one of them, and I suspect that most people share this opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not a bulletin board for wiki-dissidents. Furthermore, there's a BIG difference between re-running a request for adminship because (among other problems) someone was making protest votes and "deciding who may and may not edit based on whether they agree on [my] policy" -- e.g, banning people. The two aren't in the same league.
Now, as far as the problem users -- your comments are too vague to reply to, other than to say that we (administrators in general and the arbitration committee in particular) try to be as fair with users as possible. Of course, it is absolutely impossible to make everyone happy (see Raul's 9th law). →Raul654 05:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for your time. kmccoy(talk) 05:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Anytime. I don't want any misunderstandings to crop up about my opinions, so I'm happy to answer questions like these. →Raul654 05:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a weird thing. I blocked Enviroknot for 12 hours at 03:46 Jun 25 for ignoring the arbcom temp injunction, but he just carried right on editing with that user name. I re-blocked at 04:28 (see block log), but it still didn't stop him. He's starting to remind me of Robert De Niro in Cape Fear. SlimVirgin(talk) 05:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
That is weird. I don't know why that would happen. I asked Brion Vibber on IRC, and he didn't know either (as I write this, he's still looking). Keep an eye out and see if it happens again. →Raul654 05:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Enviroknot has just e-mailed me to ask why I blocked him, so perhaps Brion has fixed it. SlimVirgin(talk) 05:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Brion didn't do anything to fix it. Honestly, we're not sure why it happened (or what fixed it). →Raul654 05:45, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have serious problems with this as a featured article. It overrelies on Rabinovich - no book could be that good, most especially in a field like this, in which the density of lies from all sides is off the scale, and everybody and book should be treated with suspicion, which I think I can justify with Rabinowitz. In a very quick glance a couple months ago it seemed to me to be quite POV, leaving out or minimizing crucial information. Judging from some comments you've made, I believe you have received a rather distorted understanding of the causes and outcome of this war from this book. If any war was ever aptly described as the continuation of diplomacy by other means, this one was, and not understanding this deeply enough leads one, and this article, to a nonstandard, ahistorical and overnarrow conclusion of even "who won." I barely missed putting them in the debate when it was a candidate - didn't realize how fast it would be closed - and I sent you an email that day - did you get it?
At the very least, I don't think it should be a "today's featured article" for a while, without some real work. I hope you could bear with me, and allow me to present my objections rather slowly as the weeks pass. I was not feeling well when the debate was ongoing and a great deal of other stuff piled up.--John Z 19:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure - go to the talk page, and propose some changes. I'm not in any hurry to put it on the main page, so you have time. →Raul654 19:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
And yes, I got your email, and I agree that it does rely heavily on the Rabinovich book, but general criticism of the article isn't very helpful, whereas proposing actual things to change is. →Raul654 19:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to email? There are some things I think better to say privately, which is why I emailed you. --John Z 19:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm having an issue with Netoholic that perhaps you could review. It's not a major problem, but it is a source of irritation. On Susvolans' RFA, Netoholic voted to oppose with the comment "No Way." I was curious as to why he felt so strongly and asked "Any particular reason?". Netoholic proceeded to move my question to the comments section with the edit summary "do not challenge voters. moving comment"
From my experience, it's quite common to see questions in both the support and oppose section of an RfA. Not only has Netoholic persisted in moving my question, he hasn't made any attempt to answer it. The last I've heard from him was "You'll get a better explanaion when I see fit." Thanks for your time. Carbonite | Talk 13:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is a comments section. That's where comments go. Were it not for the failure to adhere to such a simple guideline, I might have answered. It is disrepectful for anyone to challenge voter on such a page. If inquiry was his only goal, my Talk page is available. I owe Carbonite no courtesy because this is certainly not the first time he's challenged me. -- Netoholic@ 17:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
I've barely been active the past two months, so I guess I'm forgetting the first time I challenged you. In any case, I think it's best to keep voting as transparent and easy to follow as possible. That means that questions follow votes, not stuck down in a separate section or on a talk page. It would have taken you less than a minute to provide a simple answer to my simple question. Instead you've turned this matter into an ordeal. Carbonite | Talk 20:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd hate to bring this up again, but this edit seems like a prime example of WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 19:30, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I recently reveted changes by Netoholic to the spoiner warning page. But in addition to simply reverting, I edited to clarify the use of spoiler-other, and to explicitly state that soem editors oppose its use. I think this makes as much of Netoholic's point as is reasonable on a documentation page. I don't think simply failing to document it is reasonable. As you are mentoring Netoholic, please look into this situation. I am a relative newcomer to wikipedia, but I already have a good number of edits, and i have a long history on usenet and the net generally.
I have also been inserting spoiler-other where i think it makes sense. Netoholic is systmatically editing these pages to repalce spoiler-other with spoiler-about, adn has posted on my talk page askign me not to use spoiler-other. Since when does he get to make poilicy on what templates I may use? DES 28 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)
I think you are confusing a request with an order. Netoholic doesn't think that template should exist (for that matter, neither do I) but the way he is going about it is not right. He'll be using the relavant talk page now. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:01 (UTC)
He will? I'm glad to hear it. I note that early this morning (by EDT) he reverted three articles containing uses of spoiler-other to versions using spoiler-about. I have just reverted them back. None of these cases were discussed on the talk page of the articles involved, nor on the talk page about spoiler warnings (although all of them were included in my earlier listing of examples on that talk page). I now presume that these reverts occured before your discussion with him. DES 29 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)
Since Neto is accusing me of stalking anyway, I took the liberty of looking over his contribs log. What I saw was not good. About 80% of his edits of the past couple days are part of several edit and revert wars; one to deprecate a spoiler template, one other about layout of a series of templates, and a third about an external link at Magic: The Gathering, for which he broke the 3RR today. Apart from that, his behavior towards others is incivil at best, he's made several WP:POINTs recently, has directly contravened TFD consensus and has been biting a newbie. All in all, if he hadn't been under mentorship, I would have blocked him for these disruptions for at least a day. Please look into this. Yours, Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
Removing spam links is anti-vandalism and not subject to 3RR. Go block the IP, I logged him on WP:VIP, but then you know that. And yes, I suppose I have been successfully trolled just now. -- Netoholic@ June 28, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
Netoholic and I had a long conversation tonight - see this. Now, specifically, he wants you to "cut him some slack". I can tell you that Netoholic means well, but he tends to go about it the wrong way. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 01:11 (UTC)
I've already cut him a lot of slack, and he has cut me none (specifically, he persists in posting personal attacks to me). Regardless of what he thinks, this isn't personal - this is about the majority of his contributions being to edit wars. He won't have any problem with me as soon as he stops revert warring, and I'll even start taking him seriously again if he stops posting personal attacks. In the mean time, it simply strikes me as odd that because of his RFAr injunction he can get away with more than the average Wikipedian. But anyway thanks for trying to get through to him. Yours, Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 07:12 (UTC)
Mark, thank you for arranging the introduction of the article. It looks great! Also, thank you for the good news. It gives me great satisfaction to know that the article will be on Wiki's main page. It's been a pleasure writting to you, take care. Marine 69-71 29 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)
And tell me if you think these chnages, and the continued reverts to enforce them without discussion, a poll, or any attempt to reach consensus on the issue are appropriate. DES 29 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)
Since your conversation with him, Netoholic has continued revert warring on eight different pages, and not discussed any of those. For that reason, I've blocked him for twelve hours. As a side point, please note that he has not amended his behavior on RFA; and you're probably aware that Kim is no longer mentoring him [7]? Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 08:52 (UTC)
I agree entirely with what you said to me in private on IRC, Raul654. We need to get rid of that Jimbo Wales from the project as soon as possible. The uprising should be swift and effective. - Mark 1 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
Lol... thanks for the test edit (I get the you-have-new-message thingy now). →Raul654 July 1, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#History_of_Poland_.281945-1989.29. Note 3 objects with 3 supports make a tie, but there is also my nomination (i.e. fourth support). In addition note a positive comment by 172 and that the objections have been adressed - as far as I can tell, unfortunately none of the peope who objected decided to reply to me on FAC or via talk pages, even through I asked them to list more objectionable materia both on FAC and on their talk pages. I think this should be featured so I'd like to ask you to reconsider your decision on this one - and if you have some time, read through the article and comment yourself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 1 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
Or, as it still has FAC template, we could simply reintroduce it again for voting to see if new votes turn the balance. Could you comment on this? It's your field of expertise, after all... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 2 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)
After re-reading some of the objections, I agree that several are unfair. EK didn't point to any specific problems with the article, and generalities don't help; the same applies to Phoenix2's complaint about grammatical problems, since you aren't really able to fix them; Ruy Lopez comparison to Italy is totally absurd, and Balcer points out. Yes, I think I'll kick it back to the FAC page. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:08 (UTC)
No, I've renominated it. I wanted to earlier, but I have trouble moving the old nom, and then I got distracted. I've fixed the situation now. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 11:16 (UTC)
Raul - I thought I should tell you that you've protected the last few FA templates from moves only, rather than from edits. The "confirm protection" checkbox has disappeared in MediaWiki 1.5, so one need only fill in the reason and hit the button. (I fixed July 1 through 4 already.) — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Theres been a few claims by people that Vanilla Ninja isn't main page worthy. Personally i'm grateful for your using it. Its a victory, in a way, for tackling systematic bias as its a topic which has relevance to Central and Eastern Europe, and not the US or UK like nearly all topics are. The objections I believe are biased by people never hearing of the group. The article passed its FAC, and I think those judgements still stand. Hedley 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
After reading the responses on talk:Main page, I think that it's only one (or a very small number) of people complaining, while most people have accepted that our featured articles many not all be on household-name topics. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:11 (UTC)
Thats almost the same problem me and others having with the article Starfleet ranks and insignia going through the FAC process. Even if we pass the FAC, we will get yelled at if we ever do select the article to appear on the main page. Zscout370(Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
I fully expect that will happen; I also fully expect that if/when I promote it, within a few hours someone will request on wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article that it be put on the main page. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:11 (UTC)
There were several very reasonable objections, even if not extremely major, at the nomination of Vanilla Ninja that were simply ignored without explanation, Raul. These did not relate to the fact that the band is obscure, but of the actual quality of the article. No one objected to the article on the actual grounds that the band was too obscure. I am not at all happy that these objections were so thoroughly disrespected. I have had contact with Hedley myself, and we managed compromise on this, but I would really like to see some minimum of motivation for disregarding valid objections like that.
I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
Saying that it "looks good" is more than I'm willing to say for this article, but I agree that an effort has been made on my actionable objections. Since that's the usual standard for promotion, I'm okay if you go ahead. In reality, the article is probably as good as at least a few of our featured articles, but I tend to have pretty high standards for them. And in this case I know enough about the subject to be fairly confident that some flaws remain, but I'd have to do more research to assess them properly. --Michael Snow 3 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I have taken care of all the objections that have been listed. A lot of people have not updated their opinion of the article, and apart from a few details, there's not that much more left to add. Any chance of taking it off the FAC page and adding it to the list of featured articles? :) Thanks! Pall.
I've been meaning to do some promoting but I haven't had time -- give me a day or two. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
Good sir. Your comments would be welcome on some recent attacks made against me on the above FAC. A pretty nasty accusation was made that I had gone through and deleted peoples objections, without consent, on the last FAC. For the record, I stated that was a lie. The user in question (as we know) turned the page into a general debate on the validity of a fiction article as an FAC. The debate itself was moved to the talk page and then to a general project discussion page. The user never objected or said anything on the talk page but now has posted that his comments were deleted without consent. This guy has really come out of the woodwork with open dislike of both me and the article. I have some theories as to why but wouldnt dare post them here! On a side note, the FAC above needs to closed. It was renomated far too soon by a user named Coolcat and the article, itself, is far from being an FAC. Thanks for your time and support. -Husnock 3 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
I talked him into withdrawing the nomination. Take your time, fix what people are complaining about. Before you nominate it again, you might want to ask user:Taxman or user:ALoan to take a look at it -- they are particularly good at identifying problems. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 11:46 (UTC)
I was actually against the renomination this time as there is much work to be done. Another user, Coolcat, renominated it and it unfortunately gave the article a bad image as it did seem people were just renominating it over and over again. Still, the one user who choose to attack both the article, myself, and the whole FAC system in general I cant figure out. I think its something personal with him. In any event, I'm going back to my medals and German WWII articles. There is future in those. -Husnock 5 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
I've been looking in here, and it appears that the article is going to be kept (VFD leans far more inclusionsist than I would prefer myself -- occasionally even in obvious violation of What Wikipedia is not -- so I generally avoid it) →Raul654 July 6, 2005 06:47 (UTC)
You just threatened to block me. Am I breaking a rule, or are you just allowed to block people when don't like their edits? Floopy 3 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
You are not the first new user to start a censorship campaign. Your predecessors were all blocked for that reason. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 23:35 (UTC)
I censored nothing, I provided links, just like on the autofellatio page. You didn't answer my question: Am I breaking a rule or do you just not like my edits? Floopy 3 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
Yes - for several of the pictures you removed (most notably the clitoris one) there have been repeated polls about whether-or-not to keep them, all of which ended in the affirmative. Removing them in those circumstances could (and usually is) considered vandalism, particularly now that you have been warned that what you are doing is not acceptable. See also the arbitration committe decision along those lines -- "There has been a consistent consensus to keep the photograph in the article Clitoris... Dr Zen has repeatedly removed the photograph from Clitoris via means of revert warring despite being warned by several individuals not to do so... Dr Zen is prohibited from removing or otherwise altering the manner of appearance of any photographs on the article Clitoris. This prohibition will apply indefinitely."→Raul654 July 3, 2005 23:50 (UTC)
I'm not Mr. Zen. The ruling is very specific and applied only to him. If it applied to the photo, it would have been written very differently, and it would have established a 'protected photo' status. So until there's an Arbitration Committee ruling to tell me otherwise, unless there's a rule that you can point to that says what I'm doing is wrong, I will contribute as I see fit. Floopy 4 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)
You seem to be under the (very mistaken) impression that all problems need to be dealt with by the arbitration committee before administrators can take action. Let me assure you that this is not the case. By doing the same thing that got both Cantus and Dr Zen sactioned, you are only putting yourself on the chopping block. Consider yourself warned that if you keep it up, you will be blocked from editing. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:14 (UTC)
Keep WHAT up? You just threatened to block me for 'being under a mistaken impression.' That's ludicrous. If I have broken a rule, please specify it. Floopy 4 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
No, actually I warned you that you would be blocked for "doing the same thing that got both Cantus and Dr Zen sactioned" - that is, image vandalism. Also bear in mind that "Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion." -- Wikipedia:Blocking policy→Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
You conveniently left out the end of that paragraph: "However, blocks should not be used...against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." And how is linking to a clitoris image considered vandalism? Isn't it done that way on autofellatio? Floopy 4 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
(A) You are referring to the wrong policy. You are referring to the policy for blocking vandals, which allows for blocking accounts that have only committed vandalism; whereas I was talking about the blocking policy for disruption, which makes no consideration about whether-or-not you have made good edits. (B) Autofellatio was a big, nasty ruckus does *not* make a good precedent (in fact, I believe at some point this position was explicetely stated on the talk page). Also, specifically about the clitoris image, linking-to-it was an option that was repeatedly rejected in about a half-dozen polls. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:40 (UTC)
(A) No, I am not quoting from the policy on vandals. I am quoting from the policy on blocking disruptive editors. I quoted from the EXACT same paragraph you did. And what's more, that section says that 'disruptive' must be judged by objective criteria. And my edits DO NOT meet the definition of disruptive. So you are dead wrong, you DO NOT have the authority to block me. Go see for yourself. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:42 (UTC) (B) Are you telling me that it's against the rules to edit in conflict with the consensus on the talk page? Floopy 4 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
If by "edit conflict" you mean to revert-against-consensus ("edit conflict" has a specific meaning that I don't think you intended), yes, that is *very much* against the rules. After a 6 month seige of the article, those of us who participated tend to sensitive to people trying to reverse what we have spent half a year repeatedly and viciferously reaffiriming. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is not bowlderized or censored, you are *not* the first person to start a campaign to remove pictures, and (putting aside the legalistic semantics, which the arbitration committee disdains) all the people who have come before you have been blocked. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:52 (UTC)
I engaged in no revert war. I made an edit to some articles, and you threatened to block me. When I asked you to specify where I broke the rules, you asserted that you needed no justification. Instead, you talked about what other people did in the past, and speculated about what I might do in the future. Floopy 4 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)
(A) I didn't say revert warring; I said reverting against consensus; (B) You can falsely summarize what has happened all you like; that doesn't change the facts of the case. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 01:14 (UTC)
You never addressed the facts of the case. I asked you to, five times. But I broke no rules, and there is no 'case'. You were just being officious. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy is as false as your summary of the facts.
You never addressed the facts of the case. - yes, I did, as anyone reading the above can tell.
You have yet to identify which edits violated which policies. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
I asked you to, five times. But I broke no rules, and there is no 'case'. - Wrong. What you did is clearly both (a) disruption and (b) vandalism, both of which are blockable actions.
Disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies. This is Wikipedia policy. If what I did was "clearly disruption and vandalism", then it should be very easy for you to identify the edits, and to cite the objective criteria by which you determined those edits were disruptive. And to do the same for vandalism. You can't just label someone's behavior like that and use the smear to justify a block; disruption is to be OBJECTIVELY DEFINED BY POLICY. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
Further, I reviewed the policy on blocking and disruptive edits, and you DO NOT have the authority to block me. - quaint, but wrong. Any administrator can enforce our policies.
Right now, you do not have the authority to block me. You simply have the power. And you are a poor admin for not knowing the difference. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
In short, while you have made some legitimate edits, it does not excuse you from following the rest of our policies, your wiki-lawyering not withstanding. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 02:49 (UTC)
You have yet to identify which edits violated which policies. Until you do, your threats will remain petty tyranny. Floopy 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
Gah! This is still going? Enough wikilawyering already, if you want to inline those images, gain the consensus on the talk page. End of story. El_C 4 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
This thread is not about images. This is about an admin who doesn't think he has to follow policy, who thinks he can label someone 'disruptive' to justify blocking them, who doesn't know the difference between power and authority, and from reading everything above, has regularly abused his position. Floopy 4 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
Negative, this is about your misdirected innunedo and wikilawyering. He just warned you, I would have done the same thing. From reading everything above, I'd say he has been exceedingly patient with you, much more so than I would in his place. El_C 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
Also, please try to remain professional on article talke pages, refraining for example, from calling the model featured on Image:Female masturbation 5.jpg as "that slut," "dirty whore," etc. Some editors may take more offence to those statements than to the images themsleves (if at all). This could be seen as a double standard, so please take note for future comments. El_C 4 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
Do all admins misquote to try to gain advantage? I did not "call a model a dirty whore". I said a completely DIFFERENT illustration, on a DIFFERENT page, was posed spread eagle LIKE a dirty whore. Floopy 4 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
Gain? That is not professional language at any rate. Anyway: Who's the "model" for the vagina picture?[8] And: It doesn't matter if its a line drawing or a photo, that slut had her hand inside her private parts.[9]El_C 4 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)
Thanks for moving African American literature to featured article status. Unfortunately, a minor editing issue came up and I wasn't sure if this would mess up the Wiki Featured Article system or not. The article was originally titled African-American literature (with a hyphen) but, after a discussion at Talk:African American literature the consensus view was to change the title to African American literature (with no hyphen). I moved the original page to the non-hyphenated link and I have gone back and changed all of the links I could find (except for a few personal pages). However, I wasn't sure if this change would mess up how Featured articles are programmed. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
No, it's no big deal. I saw you fixed the couple of places where it was used (hyphenated), so that should be about the end of it. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 02:52 (UTC)
Have a look at Intelligent Design now and Daniel Pipes! The site looks bloody awful now! I have listed it on WP:TFD. Please vote for this to be deleted and make a comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
I wanted to object to the changes made to Intelligent Design by User:Ta bu shi da yu, but the AOL dial-up IP I am using today seems to ahve ben blocked from editing that page. DES 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
I have sat in the background on most of the ongoing disputes involving Yuber, but I think Fred's analysis is correct. While you're certainly right that removing categories is insufficient evidence of experience, what convinced me was Yuber's edit summary for the edit in question. Now you have my 2¢. TomerTALK July 4, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
no connection to jordan, not PART of israel, jewish history is not necessarily israeli history - why does this convince you? It's not as if he was using wikipedia terminology like POV or rv. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:52 (UTC)
Because my experience with rookies is that their edsums are nonexistent or inconcise. That is clearly not the case with Yuber's first edsum. Now you have 4¢ of mine!!! :-p TomerTALK July 5, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and copied it over. Our temp injunctions don't need to be copied to the main page in order to go into effect, though (at least that's how we have operated). →Raul654 July 6, 2005 00:24 (UTC)
Uf. You missed what I was griping about. I've changed it [10]. Hopefully this wasn't out of line. TomerTALK July 6, 2005 09:20 (UTC)
Oh, no, you're fine -- it should be obvious to anyone looking at that diff that we (the committee) made a minor mistake there by not changing it (we're not perfect - we make mistakes just like everyone else, and we're usually happy when people fix 'em) →Raul654 July 6, 2005 09:32 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification (you possibly didn't know you were giving). Slim and I weren't sure how exactly to procede [11]. TomerTALK July 6, 2005 09:50 (UTC)
Hey, man;
So, I added a VfD notice to Maya & Miguel (game). After getting several red flags from it, I Googled, and notices of its creation are nowhere to be found; additionally, I am pretty well convinced that the account who created the entry (User:Doctor33) is the same person as the two anonymous IP's and also User:Shrek32, the person who was adding all those fictitious entries to List of (insert game console) Games. He has removed my VfD notice from the article three times, and shows no signs of stopping or communicating with me. Does this fall under the 3RR? And whether or not it does, can you help me out with him? His spurious edits are quite annoying. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
There is a proposal now in place to expand the CSD policy. An additional proposal was added to the proposed policy page. User:Netoholic reverted this addition without discussion on any talk page, although his edit summery did explain his reasons. Please see this diff and
this section where I expalin why i disagree with his actions. I think the way Netoholic appraoched this was unwise and that you as his mentor, might wish to discus this with him. DES 7 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
I stand by my decision. We should not be adding new things to vote on during the open voting, and that proposal is not well-thought out. -- Netoholic@ 7 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
Fine. I didn't say your view on that was the problem (although i disagree). My comment here is purely about the way in which you implemeted that decision, i.e. a revert with no discussion at all. I also could do without your calling my discussion of this matter "trolling" on User talk:Susvolans. DES 7 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with what Netoholic did (did I just say that?). You made a post that was clearly violating a bolded policy stated at the top of the page, and his edit summary was more than explanatory. I don't think that enforcing policies stated clearly on the page requires discussion on the talk page. Now, if you wanted to change that policy, that would require discussion. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) July 7, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
Please get your attributiosn correct -- the new proposal P1 was added by Tony Sidaway, not me. I did not post to the proposal page at all -- i simply objected to Netoholic's revision on the talk page, and i supported the new proposl on several pages. If addign a proposal in this way celarly violated the policy, it is unfortunate that this would be the fifth time it happend on this colletion of proposals, and none of the other additions were reverted, adn many people have treated them as legitmate by voting and commenting on them. I expalined, on the talk page, why i didn't think the policy prevented the addition of proposals, as opposed to changign the wording of existing propsals. Maybe I'm wrong about that. DES 7 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
I concur with DropDeadGorgias here. The page says, in big, bold lettering, not to modify it. Someone did, and Netoholic removed it with a clear edit summary. There's no subtle nuances to discuss (it clearly needed to be removed) so I don't really see the need for him to have used the talk page. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
I'm not blaming Netoholic for this one. However, this being a wiki and not a bureaucracy, and given that we're all working towards progress here, I think it is good if people create new proposals to address the flaws of faulty ones, if in good faith and not done in excess. Tony and I are two people that rarely agree with one another but nevertheless have been effective at cooperating in the past; the new proposal reflects a compromise between my concerns of VFD overload, and his concerns about 'false positives' being deleted too hastily. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 18:52 (UTC)
I'm curious, Raul, do you think Netoholic's recent unilateral "closure" of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal and the various moves of other people's proposals related to this jsut before are also OK?
I've replied on the talk page. Long story short -- the whole procedure has become a mess. Netholic has a valid complaint that people shouldn't be changing proposals in the middle of voting, but I don't think shutting down the vote was the best idea. I have protected it until you guys can come to some kind of agreement. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 21:34 (UTC)
I note that you have not, or not yet, protected the sub pages on which actual votes are tallied, and some users are continuing to vote. If you think that voting on existing proposals must be suspended, then those pages all need protection, or at least a note about the suspension, IMO. DES 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
Holy moses - there's like 20 subpages, each of which has many votes... hrmm.... →Raul654 July 7, 2005 21:40 (UTC)
I would not have worried except for Netoholic's history of warring over a series of templates a couple of months back. I praise Netoholic's tactful and mature handling of this particular case and apologise for misjudging him here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 9 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
I appreciate your help getting involved. If you need to talk more about all this, I'll try and get on IRC in an hour or two. -- Netoholic@ 7 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
All right - I should be on around 8 or 9 PM EDT. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
...I waited up for you but got stood up. →Raul654 July 8, 2005 01:28 (UTC)
That "real life" thing creeps in every once and a while. Sorry, talk to ya soon, I'm sure. -- Netoholic@ 8 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
Am I incorrect or out of line in thinking that the recent cahnges to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion without a formal proposal, are a bit dubious? Please let me know if I am overreacting here, as I may be upset by recent events. Please look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion for more detail. DES 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
Am I incorrect or out of line in thinking that DES just has some axe to grind? -- Netoholic@ 7 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
I don't know where/how to report vandalism; but you seem knowledgeable, so I thought I'd call your attention to a recent edit to Rusty Foster by Trollaxor. FYI, no reply necessary.
It was already reverted by the time I got there. I've blocked him for a week. →Raul654 03:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Raul, I have a question for you. There has been a nomination of the GNAA article for FAC, maybe out of spite of the article being put on VFD. It's at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America. I already noticed a sockpuppet voting here, a sock puppet making the nomination, and an inactionable objection. However, is there such thing as a inactionable/discarded support vote? A comment by a user, after his vote, disturbed me: "Highly support this nomination. After so much opposition and against-the-rules VfD requests posted by filthy Zionist pigs whose ancestors should have died in the gas chambers, the GNAA article deserves some positive attention." Can something be done about it? Myself and another admin, Ta bu shi da yu, wishes for the vote to be closed for now. Zscout370(Sound Off) 20:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I'm a little tardy (I've been out-of-contact all day). I see Ta Bu has removed the nomination from the FAC. He beat me to the punch -- I was going to remove it pending the outcome of the VFD nomination. →Raul654 22:54, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm hoping you'll help me with a problem that has gotten out of hand in the Homosexuality article and its talk page; specifically, with user 67.41.236.211.
Also see: User talk:Tznkai - in which 67.41.236.211 actually deleted a private message which I posted to Tznkai, warning him about an unwarranted attack that was made against him (and also against yourself, it could be added) posted by Haiduc on the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. Haiduc's comments about you and Tznkai were completely out of line, and I thought the targets were entitled to know what was going on - especially since Haiduc was calling for even more people in that group to come in and add to the mess.
While the debates in the Homosexuality article have always been contentious, the recent stuff has truly crossed the line.
I would like to thank you for trying to clean up parts of that article, as many of us have been trying to do for a long time. Your additions were all inevitably reverted, but that's par for the course in that article. 66.216.226.34 06:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I have replied on Haiduc's talk page. As I told him, if I see any more edits along those lines, I will be most displeased.
Beyond that, I'm washing my hands of the homosexuality article. It's a horrible POS. The writing is unreferenced, biased, and just terrible in general, breaking dozens of rules of good writing style. Worse, the people who have assumed ownership of that article seem to like it that way (or don't know better). I have too much to do around here without bickering with POV pushers, so I'll grudgingly accept that that article is going to stay crappy for the forseable future. →Raul654 21:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your reply to Taxman, and wanted to know what your opinion was of the current situation. The person (Kaibabsquirrel (talk·contribs)) who is currently opposing the article appears (to me) to be a fan of Paul R. Ehrlich's work (Ehrlich's bestselling predictions of worldwide famine were prevented by Borlaug's work), and has been making some odd (to me) edits of Ehrlich's article (such as moving to the "Criticisms" section the fact that Ehrlich's biggest predictions didn't actually come to pass). --brian0918™ 19:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really as worried about that one as I am about Taxman's objection(s). In the time I have spent overseeing the FAC, I have come to consider Taxman, Aloan, and Jeronimo the three best copyeditors on the FAC, so I tend to give their objections considerable weight. →Raul654 20:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Alright. Taxman made some final suggestions, which I've implemented, and he now supports the article. --brian0918™ 21:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll take another look in a few days when I next clear out the FAC. →Raul654 00:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The last person to object has withdrawn his objection. --brian0918™ 13:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, the username is unacceptable, but what should be done? Is the proper procedure a VfD, a Vandalism warning, or what? Get back to me, and I can take care of it, or follow the proper procedure yourself; just a head's up. jglc | t | c 13:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
According to the message on his user page, he's already been blocked. →Raul654 15:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies for disparaging you. I should have checked before I spoke. It is just that the whole tone of the discussion was such that I jumped to conclusions. It probably does not help that I am old enough to be your father. Still and all, I would appreciate a bit more gentleness and collegiality if you are going to get involved with the article on Homosexuality. It is a difficult and divisive topic, and it is not helpful to have someone come in and tear it to pieces who has not been there through the hard-fought compromises and the efforts to be fair all around. Cheers, Haiduc 03:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
All right, let's consider it a misunderstanding between two well intentioned people. I'll refrain from 'tearing the article to pieces', so to speak. I do consider Alex's revert back to the old introduction to be a step in the wrong direction though. The old introduction was quite bad for the reasons I mentioned on the talk page, but I don't have time to discuss it now (I'm going to be MIA for a day or two starting in a few hours). →Raul654 04:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Let me talk to Alex and see what can be worked out. Haiduc 02:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to weigh in here -- it's considered bad form to use the admin quick-rollback against anything but vandalism. For other types of reverts, it's a good idea to manually roll it back and give a reason in the edit summary or point to a talk page that gives your reasoning. (There are several arbcom decisions that have reaffirmed this - Cantus's and 172's cases come to mind) →Raul654 18:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
That is of course true, and I certainly wouldn't be rollbacking anything frivolously. However, please note that I have only been using it when Netoholic was being disruptive to make a WP:POINT (such as repeatedly adding a tfd-tag to a template that wasn't listed on TFD, or consistently changing a template to a version disliked by consensus), or when he was making personal attacks on my talk page. Radiant_>|< 18:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
User:Trey Stone, who is currently in arbitration, has just been blocked for the ninth[12] time since he entered arbitration on May 12th, this time for violation of the 3RR. Three arbitrators have voted for a temporary injunction that he be banned from editing political articles pending the resolution of the arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban), which is just one arbitrator vote shy of what is needed to go into effect.
I have been reading WikiEN-l and there was a discussion of how half of the current arbitrators are away or inactive. Which means that effectively, the four of six arbs needed to do the temporary ban is not really 33.33% but 66.66%. Anyhow, reading that on WikiEN-l prompted me to put this on your talk page as it seemed the wheels of justice were grinding slowly for this very disruptive user. Thanks. -- Ruy Lopez 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if you, or another admin, can switch the photo from the one that is there to the new image, please. Thanks. Zscout370(Sound Off) 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and made the switch. →Raul654 00:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
For your work in running the Featured Articles section of Wikipedia, I award you the Featured Article Award. Congrats. Zscout370(Sound Off) 00:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Awww, thanks :) →Raul654 00:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ha! I figured it was vandalism from some GNAA person which nobody had noticed before. It didn't quite fit in with the other arcanely amusing punishments! :-) — Dan | Talk 03:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Heh, just a funny little thing. I saw a man take a picture from that position at borders and I wondered "is that guy taking a picture for wikipedia? I wish I had brought my camera" hah, and indeed it was. The question was, why did I wait when I'm not even a big fan. Cheers. gren 07:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Were you at that borders? →Raul654 08:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC) (If so, I'm shocked...)
Yep, the picture looked familiar and when you said in Delaware (and it's not the concord pike Borders) and I looked at the picture's time stamp I was somewhat surprised I was off out of the picture to the left. gren 03:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
That makes you the first other editor from Delaware I've met (ok, there are maybe 2 or 3 others who contribute once-in-a-great-while) →Raul654 03:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
{{reqimage}} has been that "monstrous piece of ugliness" for over a month. Why does Netoholic need to get into an revert war over that template when he has not participated at all in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template locations#Design and layout issues, nor has he participated at all in the discussion at Template talk:Reqimage until today. I HATE revert wars, and to have Netoholic paraphrase me as the justification for this most resent revert war has me doubly pissed off. Revert wars are a pox upon the Wikipedia and Netoholic is the prime warrior. BlankVerse∅ 08:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I've replied on his talk page. →Raul654 15:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, It wasn't so much which color (talk standard or cleanup\improvement style)... The "war" was over this ugly version, which User:Who created. He's been moving discussion about it from page to page, and fairly well delaying change, but the end result is that no one wants the ugly box. -- Netoholic@ 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ok, well Violetariga has reverted to this version, which I believe should be acceptable to everyone. →Raul654 20:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Why did you revert them? I'm trying to convert to the new CSS format, and they look identical to before. -- Netoholic@ 15:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Not quite -- as I said on the talk page, the css version has a *big* gap below it (half an inch on the desktop I was using at the top) that looks very out-of-place. →Raul654 16:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't know where to post this question, and since you seem to be more or less in charge of this business, I figured you would know as much as anyone I can think of. There is an article I've found (Anatoly Karpov) that I don't think deserves to be featured anymore, mostly because I think the standards for featured articles are going up. Do you think an article that was previously considered good enough to be featured should be nominated to remove its featured status because of increasing standards? What do you think of this article in particular? --malathiontalk 22:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Do you think an article that was previously considered good enough to be featured should be nominated to remove its featured status because of increasing standards? - you are correct, that the standards have gone up. It was realized long ago that given trends, we would end up with a 'continium' of featured articles, with the oldest being the lowest in quality and the newest being the best, which is pretty much how things have turned out.
Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates (FARC) is where you nominate articles to be 'defeatured'. For practical reasons, we generally have a lower standard for FA-removal candidates than we do for featured article candidates, meaning that FARC might keep an article that would not get through featured article candidates. In other words, the featured article removal candidates will remove featured articles that are far below current standards, but might keep an article that is moderately-worse than what we expect of a featured article. The reason is purely practical -- new requirements aren't totally retroactive because we don't want mass defeaturings every time we add a new one, for example.
I believe Anatoly Karpov is the latter case -- it is a bit worse than what we would expect of a new featured article, but if you were to nominate it on the FARC, I think it would probably keep its featured status. →Raul654 02:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm having to walk on fire to get Bobby Fischer featured, which I find strange since articles like that got featured with two support votes. C'est la vie. --malathiontalk 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
After chasing my tail around for 1/2 an hour trying to find a page dealing with inline citations, I got fed up and asked about. The answer I got was that no such page for inline citations existed, so I created one.
The problem is I need someone of your stature to check the newly formed Inline Citation page and make sure that I got all of my ducks in a single line. I would be tremendously gratefull if you could do that for me. TomStar81 00:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia-related stuff belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, so I moved the page to the Wikipedia namespace - Wikipedia:Inline Citation - and deleted the redirect (because linking from the article namespace to the Wikipedia namespace is bad bad bad).
This one is fucused exclusivly with inline citations. On retrospect, maybe it would be better to fuse it with one of the above pages; I just created it because I couldn't find one page that delt specifically with inline citations. It also took me a while to figure out how to put the number references into articles, so i kinduh made it a tutorial I guess. It was a sultion to what I percieved to be a problem, but since its my perception and its been wrong before I fugured I get a second opinion. TomStar81 01:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
In that case, it sounds like you might want to merge your tutorial with one of those above pages (whichever one you think would be the best fit) →Raul654 02:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Took your advice and merged with Wikipedia:Cite Sorces. I guess now I have a cannadate for speedy deletion ^_^ TomStar81 04:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Then again, maybe not. My edition was reverted. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea :/ TomStar81 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I really don't understand, come on IRC if you can. -- Netoholic@ 02:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm on IRC right now (you left 10 seconds after I joined) →Raul654 02:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The projects I mentioned -
Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace - Move these pages to WP:VFD/PAGENAME standard location, and check/bypass/delete the resulting redirects (starting with MediaWiki first)
Personally, I think the current picture is better (which is why I picked it), but I have no objections to someone changing it. To make the change, you would switch it on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2005 (the archive linked from teh main page contains the future FA write ups too) →Raul654 20:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for scheduling this for the front page for 21 July, the day the 2005 Ashes start. I'm sure I'm not speaking out of turn for others by saying it's much appreciated by WP:Cricket, jguk 18:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC).
You're very welcome. →Raul654 20:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add my thanks. It was nice to see it there. In general I like the idea of choosing featured articles for the front page on the basis of anniversaries or current events, provided of course they aren't mentioned in one of the other sections. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Please look at the edit history of Wikipedia:Third opinion and specifically at this Diff. Please also look at my talk page and that of the other user involved. Am I out of line here? What is the proper action at this point. i think the other user involved is out of line, but I am trying to be sensible and not escalate further. DES 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm requesting that this article be on the main page on Weds. July 27th. This isn't an anniversary or notable event related to the article in any way. Thanks. -- BRIAN0918 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Do you know who handles emailing out the daily Featured Article? Or more precisely, do you know how to satisfy the request at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Can_we_have_a_POTD_by_email.3F. There's probably a number of issues around whether everyone would want it, of whether it should be a separate mailing list, whether images are inlined and would that push bandwidth up too much, etc. -- Solipsist 10:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The daily FA email was set up by user:Kate - she created the mailing list and the script that generates the emails. She stopped maintaining the mailing in December, but a couple months later, on my request, she gave me the script she uses. User:Frazzydee volunteered to take over for her. So he uses her script every day to send out the email. →Raul654 15:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Sounds like it may not be so easy then. I'll follow it up with Frazzydee. -- Solipsist 15:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I looked through his contributions, but nothing really struck me as being block-worthy. And in the future, these comments would be better placed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard→Raul654 16:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have created the stub articles you requsted, and I said you can show a photo of a person wearing the medal. However, I do not have a photo of the medal alone I could use that came from the Belarusian Government. That is why I made the drawing, so I can get around copyright issues. If there is anything you can think up of, let me know please. Zscout370(Sound Off) 20:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the layouts at Talk:Main_Page#DYK_.2F_POTD_layout and see whether they cause any of the layout issues that briefly caused a problem last weekend. -- Solipsist 21:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong (on my monitor, at 1024x768 resolution, in firefox on XP, in classic skin). On the other hand, you would probably do well to pick something besides the panorama - wide pics don't go well on the main page. →Raul654 22:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
My statement about lies is the only statement I will provide until the requestor changes his presentation. I will answer your questions if you have any. Aloha. --AI 23:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I was hoping you could expand on your comment in the FAC discussion for race and intelligence regarding a self-referential statement that was in the article intro. I think the statement (below) noting that the article conforms to mainstream opinion is useful to readers, as public awareness of the topic is generally from scientific-minority POVs. I'm not sure why the statement's self-referentiality is undesirable. Can you explain what you meant? Thanks, NectarflowedT 07:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Context:
Object. The fact that the article requires a self-referential paragraph in the lead section to defend itself shows that it's not ready, and not likely to be so anytime soon. --Michael Snow 20:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I assume you mean this: "This article conforms with the mainstream opinion among researchers on intelligence, and conclusions presented here are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence." That was added because many people will find the results presented in the article surprising as the public press has not reported on them, and it was desirable to prepare them for the suprise. That's a feature of the topic, not the article's quality. If there's a problem with this article, that's not it. --Rikurzhen 20:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Be that as it may, self-referential writing is terrible and should be avoided at all costs - I cringe whenever I see it. [this article, this paragraph , the views presented here, 'etc, are dead giveaways]. Perhaps some rephrasing is in order. →Raul654 20:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Are there any tricks for avoiding that kind of langauge? --Rikurzhen 20:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Self-referential writing is a sentence that refers to the article in which it appears. For example, from this version of the article - All such tests are often called "intelligence tests," though the term "intelligence" is controversial; in this article, "IQ test" denotes any test of cognitive ability. - it's a horrible writing style and should be avoided at all costs. Does that answer your question? →Raul654 20:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
My question is why is self-referentiality considered stylistically undesireable here. It's presence is intended to serve a practical purpose, and in general it doesn't seem like an uncommon practice in scholarly work. (Also, thanks for your speedy work on the ARB com in the case involving this page!)--NectarflowedT 21:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
It's like fingers on a chalkboard when I read it!! Well, maybe not as bad as that, but you get the idea. Sentences like that stick out like sore thumb. It's conversational, it spoils the flow of the article, and it's generally unnecessary. →Raul654 21:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think that User:Deb has misused sysop privileges by protecting the page Lady Catherine Grey after herself twice moving the article from its original location "Catherine Grey" to her this new location. She admits having done the protection, after her own second move (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19381941&oldid=19331143). The renaming history is recent and is available easily at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Catherine_Grey&action=history My impression is that Deb deliberately and knowingly uses the admin power in this "content dispute" to push her own opinion onto others. The article had been in its old location for long time, apparently years. Its (first) renaming came only very recently, made by Deb. Rather disturbingly, Deb had not bothered to discuss her intention to move at the discussion Talk:Catherine Grey before her first renaming (there was e.g no vote), and she did not properly discuss it even before her second move. (Relevant naming conventions are saying things that "Catherine Grey" is acceptable and the heading needs not necessarily be "Lady Catherine Grey": there are two conditions in naming convention for putting "lady", both requirements should be fulfilled. There is thus content dispute, and its outcome is actually not relevant to decide whether Deb abused the admin powers. I am for the old heading, and I believe it to be the more correct one.) One small point is that apparently Deb had not made any
contribution to the article before her renaming - this speaks of an editor who is focused on, not content of this article, but making her own version of form to prevail. I have also earlier came to see Deb's actions and style of comments. She shows a pattern of not being capable of presenting reasons, and she seems to read policies and conventions in a loose manner, not fully grasping what such guideline actually says. Deb appears to not want to answer properly, substantively, to questions or to presented arguments, rather she gives sort of platitudes. An example is "...were agreed before you arrived" which implies an attempt to prevail by some sort of seniority (though, figuratively speaking, seniority could also be e.g senility). Anyway, Deb's said action in protecting a page she had herself been warring over seems to be such a misuse that deserves some work. May I leave this matter to your capable hands in higher administration of WP. 217.140.193.123 10:28, 23
July 2005 (UTC)
You may wish to know that the above anonymous user is in fact User:Arrigo. I have previously warned him about not signing his comments. Deb 11:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I believe the accepted naming style for royalty and such is to use the formal prefix (which would imply that Deb's article name is the correct one). Also, moving a page doesn't automatically require discussion or a vote (although it's always a good idea for things that are forseably controverial, which this was not) - that's basically the heart of our Be bold policy. →Raul654 20:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
(1) Anonymous edits are allowed. That too is Wikipedia policy. (2) The unaddressed central issue is the misuse of sysop powers by Deb. Raul654 does not address this. 69.10.141.71 04:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that anonymous edits are allowed. No one is saying otherwise.
I agree that Deb probably shouldn't have protected the page. Yes, it may well be a minor misuse of sysadmin power, in the sense that she was involved and if she thought page protection was necessary, it would have been better for her to get an uninvolved sysadmin to do it. On the other hand, she was, after all, quite correct in having moved the page and wanting to keep it at its present location (although I grant that the ends do not justify the means). All in all, this isn't something to get hysterical about -- I've left Deb a comment on her talk page referencing this comment and I believe she'll realize the mistake she made and avoid it in the future. →Raul654 04:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul. Thanks for your sensible response. You're right of course, I should have got someone else to move the page the second time (though I didn't recognise it as "warring"). On the subject of anonymous edits, correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't normally considered good practice for a contributor with a user ID to consistently make anonymous comments, and this could be construed as an attempt to mislead. Deb 08:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if one has a login, it's considered bad form not to use it when carrying on conversations. →Raul654 17:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I note that there are red links for the Air Force band items uploaded by your bot.
Bot problems? Copyright problems? Attitude problems over at the commons? I thought I'd at least bring it to your attention and offer to help.
I believe that it is a matter of time before there is a policy collision between En: and Commons. If nothing else, there are few commons sysops who are also active on En:. As a result, prompt response vandalism of images that are prominent on En: may become a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Long story short -- the airforce claims they are all public domain, although some of them may not be. I uploaded them en-masse using Raulbot (I admit I should have been more suspicious about some, but I took their copyright page at face value). Brion deleted them en masse. So there are a lot of red links, with quite a few (roughly half, I'd guess) non-existant files linked to from articles.
At some point, I'd like to try it again more conservatively. There are some file there which are quite obviously public domain (like Holst's the plants) but it's a case of once-bitten twice-shy. →Raul654 04:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I left a note requesting Marshall, Texas be featured on the main page August 3, but have not recieved a reply. I need to know if it will be featured then, so I'll have time to clean up or create related articles. Please respond. Thanks. -JCarriker 06:40, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and scheduled all the featured article through that date. Yes, Marshall Texas will be on the main page on August 3. →Raul654 17:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I admire your patience in dealing with the ongoing "sneakiness" at AIDS.... but....
"AIDS is the result of infection with Human immunodeficiency virus is correct, and 'AIDS is the result of an infection of Human immunodeficiency virus' isn't. People are infected with a virus, or by a virus, but not of a virus. The second phrase implies that the virus is itself infected (and viruses sometimes are, by phages), and that's wrong for HIV. - Nunh-huh 05:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I suppose you are correct that my construction is ambigious, but the original one sounded awkward. Is there a third option here? →Raul654 05:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure there are lots of alternatives. "AIDS is caused by infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus". "AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus". "AIDS is a disease caused by infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus". I'm not sure what you're finding lacking in "AIDS is the result of infection with Human immunodeficiency virus." It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable sentence, gramatically. Changing "cause" to "results from" was most likely one of the "sneaky" changes, though. "Cause" ought to be in the topic sentence! (e.g.
AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is a disease caused by the Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). HIV infection weakens the immune system, resulting in unusual infections and some rare cancers. Although treatments exist, there is no known cure for AIDS.
Probably not worth worrying too much about until the interference with the article dies down, I just wanted to say that "of" really isn't idiomatic. - Nunh-huh 05:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I like the old icon better. This one is bumpy on the edges and the old one wasn't. -- BRIAN0918 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the old one was that it was terribly ambigious. It was "sort of" a video cassette, but you wouldn't know that unless you thought about it for a while. The new one, while not as pretty and certainly not perfect, does the job better. →Raul654 21:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'm totally open to someone coming along with a better icon. There are tons that would suffice - a picture of a TV, for example. →Raul654 23:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
You might consider a public domain icon, such as one of these. -- BRIAN0918 23:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
How's this? Old: New: —Josh Lee 19:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
They look fine to me. →Raul654 19:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking about duplicating on the English Wikipedia a project from the German version, described here. Any objections? Also, any objections to users providing links on their user pages or on related article talk pages for such things as paypal donations, similar to "homework help" forums where answer-providers have links stating "if I have helped you, would you please consider saying thanks in the form of a paypal donation", only in this case, "if you feel my contributions have been useful, would you consider..." or on (for example) a featured article's talk page, "if you feel this article has been informative, would you consider..." (of course, inquiring minds would want to check the edit history to see if the user has contributed anything). This sounds like a good idea and it looks to be growing on the German site. It's sure to increase popularity and incentive for producing more and better content. -- BRIAN0918 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I know the practice has been highly controversial on the German Wikipedia. I can see the benefits it offers, but I can also see several potential problems.
I suspect it would stimulate incentive to produce more content on specific (bountied) subjects. Better content? Maybe, maybe not. I know that often times, requested articles are written more-or-less straight from a google search. So the quality of the requested-and-newly-created articles (depth, breadth, accuracy, and context) isn't very good. Often times, the requested item is so obscure that the requestor knows just as much (if not more) than the person fulfilling the request. Offering bouties may just encourage this less-than-stellar practice.
With respect to "better articles", I was referring to people who offer a bounty for "the next featured article related to _____" (based on examples on the German page).
I'm also afraid that it's going to alter our biases to something unpredictable. What do I mean by that? Well, Wikipedia has an fairly well-documented geek and western systemic bias. I think we've all noticed and accepted this, and have adopted practices (both formally and informally) to counter this. Offering bounties opens us up to all other kinds of biases.
I see it as a way to counteract our current biases by offering incentive for people to research things with which they aren't familiar, such as.... all of Africa... -- BRIAN0918 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
On a less tangible note, offering bounties runs counter to the wikipedia altruistic spirit on which wikipedia thrives. Many people find the practice inherently distasteful. In the long run, it also opens the door to corporate sponsorship of writers here. (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a PR platform)
So basically, I would suggest that you wait it out, and see how it shapes up on the German Wikipedia. If it works well, we'll import the practice. If not, we can avoid a maelstrom. →Raul654 21:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
On the German Wikipedia, the Wikipedia Community is directly involved with all of it. I'm working on getting a better German translation of the page, but the current machine translation seems to suggest that the Community can decide through consensus objections if a specific offer should be altered or removed. I think a version can be adapted to the English Wikipedia with the obligatory "checks and balances" which will prevent it from ever getting near your "in the long run" concerns. In any case, the content is always licensed under a free license; I consider it an interesting change to offer incentive to contribute to free media. Also in any case, the community can always change guidelines for the project. -- BRIAN0918 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
What about the other suggestion: users on their own pages or on article talk pages sticking a message with a link to paypal? I'd like to test it out to see what kind of response there would be :) BRIAN0918 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh lord. No, no, no! this kind of comment (basically pan-handling on the talk page) is not acceptable. It's one thing to offer a bounty if someone will write what you want; it's *very* different to use the talk pages to ask for it. The former is a controversial practice; the latter us utterly unacceptable. →Raul654 00:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Why is it unacceptable, though? (in other words, give me some arguments that I can attack :) ) -- BRIAN0918 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Uh, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a beggar's forum. →Raul654 00:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, how about this for the project: we start out with the same setup, except that the only forms of reimbursement have no monetary value, so these could include requesting a featured article on topic X in exchange for a featured article on topic Y (this form of payment is popular on the German project), if not featured then of a quality that is examined after-the-fact by the requestor/community, or requesting a translation of article X from/to language A in exchange for a translation of article Y from/to language B (also popular on the German project), or giving various Wikithanks/Barnstars for the work. In the meantime, we can discuss the expansion to monetary trades on the talk page. -- BRIAN0918 03:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
What you are describing is basically Wikipedia:WikiMoney accounts (and I had to search for several minutes to find it because it's very, very old) →Raul654 03:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
That was WikiMoney, this initial version would be WikiBarter. Consider it a "new beginning / revival", and if/when it eventually extends to monetary incentives, then see it take off. If you can give specific situations where you can see this (monetary incentive) being bad/abused, please do, it'll help in policy-shaping. If you can suggest some checks/balances, also please do. -- BRIAN0918 04:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it sounds like what you are describing could be best implimented using a closed-form of wiki-money, where the central supply of "currency" is controlled by a third party - e.g, you cannot arbitrarily give yourself 100-million wiki-whatevers. Instead, someone (let's call him the banker) doles out the currency in some way and executes transactions when requested. →Raul654 04:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I think this would work better as a barter system, eliminating the middle man. (a barter system in the sense that you do one service in exchange for another, but don't pass their request onto another person in exchange for another service). -- BRIAN0918 04:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
True, but as our barter article so clearly puts it - The disadvantage of using bilateral barter in the past was that it depended on the mutual coincidence of wants. Before any transaction could be undertaken, the needs of one person must mirror the needs of another person. That is, if you have a surplus of goats and need more wheat, you must find someone who has a surplus of wheat and needs more goats. To overcome this mutual coincidence problem, intermediaries developed that would store, trade, and warehouse commodities. In short, if you don't find someone who is capable of doing exactly what you want and whose needs you are capable of meeting, then the system fails, whereas the problem would be half as complex with wikimoney. →Raul654 04:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Commons:Commons:Administrators. The voting there appears to be almost inactive, and given that the window for nominations is 7 days, it could probably benefit from a little more attention. -- Solipsist 06:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I supported you, but beyond that, there's not a whole lot I can do -- I'm not a bureacrat on Commons. Villy (from the french wikipedia) is, and he's apparently inactive. His user page says to ask Andre Engels→Raul654 06:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to walk into the middle of your conversation, but I've been blathering about the admin situation on commons for some time now to anyone who will listen. There is a potential vandalism problem brewing:
There are few admins on commons, around 100 as I recall.
Perhaps half of these are familiar names from en:.
Commons does not grant adminship merely because someone is an admin on en: and is active on commons. One must meet certain standards of activity in commons-specific areas.
It is a goal for images from commons to be used in en:, and ultimately this will end up happening with featured articles, the front page, and various other vandal magnets.
The usual means of dealing with vandalism to prominent articles, such as page protection, rollbacks, and blocks, are unavailable for commons images to the vast majority of en: admins.
Thanks Mark - looks like the ball is rolling now. My guess is that Commons hasn't quite got the critical mass for a spontaneous response. Unfortunately Villy appears to be away at the moment, otherwise I would have dropped him a note too - in fact Villy nominated my first FeaturedPicture on Commons shortly after the project was set up. Andre Engels appears to be handling the bureaucrat chores in the meantime. -- Solipsist 19:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Uninvited - I think I see what you mean. Its probably more of an issue on the smaller language wikis. It might be a good idea to check that at least one admin from each of the mediawiki projects is also be an admin on Commons. -- Solipsist 19:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I see that you removed a tag from Democratic peace theory. I fear that Ultramarine can be a disruptive user, and articles near him tend to acquire tags. You should see Criticisms of communism, on which he has put three. :) Septentrionalis 20:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
{{Toomanytags}}
They are becoming a blight to articles, especially when they are (ab)used like that. →Raul654 07:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul. User:Frazzydee phoned me a little while ago to say that his router is broken and that he'll be on vacation until August 1, so he needs someone to send out the daily article until that date. Could you possibly run it? Today's article is pending, as his router broke before he could send it out today. Thanks, Yelyos 01:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654! I'm so glad go be back! I'm so glad to see you're still here! I hope we can have a lot of fun helping each other out, buddy! Plautus satire 03:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Raul654, I have not even been back 1 day and already you're threatening me on my talk page! I am in schock! I thought you were better than that! Shame on you, Raul654, I wish you hadn't threatened me on my talk page on my first day back! Plautus satire 03:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Think of it not as a threat, but as an opportunity. I am giving you the opportunity not to demonstrate again why you were banned for a year, by giving you plenty of notice that we've gotten much better at removing people who make such edits. →Raul654 04:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Stop threatening me, Raul654, why are you so mean to me! I've had about enough threats from you, I'm asking you one last time to stop threatening me! If you have a problem with my editions then let's collaborate, buddy, that's the way to do things, don't you know that!? Work together, pal, I just want to be friendly! Plautus satire 04:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Let's here it for collaboration! Yay! We can all work together! Woo hoo! Let's go, Raul654! No slackers! Plautus satire 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, editing articles to improve them is a great thing. In fact, if I recall correctly from your last stay here, you did make (exactly) 3 beneficial edits (out of some 1300 edits). Perhaps it is time to increase that. 5, even 6 beneficial edits is not out of the question. →Raul654 04:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is patently absurd, Raul654, I made hundreds of beneficial editions! Thanks for your concern, have a nice day, ta-ta! Plautus satire 04:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Raul654, there's no reason to lie to get attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plautus satire (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 July 2005
Ah, ok, then this is clearly a misunderstanding. When counting beneficial edits, I omitted the ones I did not consider beneficial (like ones calling Hubble an orbiting death ray laser). [Typical Raul654 tactic here, I said the Hubble was used to observe the Earth. - Plautus satire] Once you take those away, you only made 3 useful edits. Your count is higher beause you're including those. →Raul654 04:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I came off as laughing at you or as trying to make a bad situation worse. I meant no offense, just noticing the lighter side of things. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no, I know exactly what you meant. Plautus's scribblings have definite comedy value, if you're not the one who has to pick up the pieces :P →Raul654 16:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
And now, the show we've all been waiting for... Plautus Satire 2: Special Edition! I probably won't be around much for this one, as I seem to have acquired a job and some new hobbies since he last graced us with his presence. Isomorphic 04:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654! I'm so glad to be back! I can't wait to start correcting mistakes! Let's work together, buddy! Plautus satire 15:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes Plautus, we're all waiting with baited breath for you to make good contributions. →Raul654 15:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I already have, buddy! Check the mask article! Woo-hoo! My count is almost doubled by your reckoning! Plautus satire 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Before getting to the substance of my comment, let me just thank you for all the work you've done for Wikipedia; users like you are such an asset to the project. I do have one minor critique to make, though... I noticed that you promoted Italian Renaissance to featured status, but at the time, I had an actionable (and in my view appropriate) objection. (Candidate page, with my comments) I objected to elevation to featured status on the grounds that there are stylistic issues in the article, missing commas, etc. I went through the first half, but haven't had time to fix the second half. At any rate, you probably just didn't see my objection; I'll do more to address it myself, but the style isn't up to par for our (rightly) high standards for featured articles. --Zantastiktalk 17:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I saw your objection (particularly the last one you made) and the problems didn't sound so serious so as to derail the nomination. That's why I promoted it. Unanimously approved nominations are great, but expecting unanimity is an unrealistic (if laudable) goal. →Raul654 07:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your comments on the process -- unanamity is a laudable goal, but it cannot always be attained. Thus, I agree that it is ok if I object, I'm the only one, and my objection is overruled. However, I believe that my objection should be discussed, rebutted, etc, or at least commented upon before being overruled. I don't demand that I win; I only demand due process. As concerns the substance of my objection, take a look at this paragraph (glaring errors highlighted), and my corrections below:
The Renaissance style developed to its fullest at around 1500 in Rome. St. Peter's Basilica is the most notable building of the era. Originally planned by Donato Bramante, who was one of most prominent architects of the time, the building was influenced by almost all notable Renaissance artists, including Michelangelo and Giacomo della Porta. The beginning of the late Renaissance in 1550 was marked by the development of a new column order by Andrea Palladio. Colossal columns that were two or more stories tall decorated the facades.
The Renaissance style reached its height around 1500 in Rome, with St. Peter's Basilica representing perhaps the best well-known example of this particular school. Originally planned by Donato Bramante, one of most prominent architects of the time, the building was influenced by nearly all notable Renaissance artists, including Michelangelo and Giacomo della Porta. Furthermore, the late Renaissance (1550) saw the development of a new column order -- that of Andrea Palladio. St. Peter's Basilica's façade itself was decorated in colossal Paladian columns, some two stories tall.
Also,
this
As the Greek works were acquired, manuscripts found, libraries and museums formed, the age of the printing press was dawning. The works were translated from Greek and Latin into the contemporary modern languages throughout Europe finding a receptive audience. (especially that part)
should become this
While scholars and collectors rediscovered many Greek classics, Northern Italy was entering into a period a intellectual ferment: libraries and museums were founded, and the age of the press was dawning. This knowledge was spread in part by new translations of classical Greek and Latin works into modern European languages, enlarging the audience for these works (though this audience remained small, given the cost of books and widespread illiteracy)
I know you're very busy, but I just think that objections need to be addressed (even if later overruled, which is ok!), and that we need to maintain very high standards for the prose that hits our front page. Brilliant prose, after all, was the old name for featured article. Thank you for your time and for your work on Wikipedia. --Zantastiktalk 22:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Would you please weigh in on my "Latest attempt" at ending this edit war and unprotecting the page. Even Bensaccount, who has been the most opposed to all previous versions, seems to like it. -- BRIAN0918 14:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks good to me. I've unprotected the page. →Raul654 16:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Raul654 has unfairly had me banned from wikipedia. He has a personal agenda, and has banned me motivated purely by malice. If you are able to, please help reverse this ban and/or help me get Raul654 punished for his damaging and childish actions.
I also received this same email, probably since I voted to keep his photo in Wikipedia. I will print my response below. Zscout370(Sound Off) 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear Plautus,
I checked the list of blocked users, and sure enough, you have been blocked forever. However, it was not Raul654 who performed this block. The list said User:Smoddy did so at 11:24, 29 July 2005. His reasoning was "ongoing disruption -- conflicting blocks -- this is actually Snowspinner's block." I am not sure what recourse you can do, but I would try to email Jimbo Wales himself. Smoddy also blocked two IP's of yours when you tried to edit. The whole block list can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist.
Regards,
Zachary Harden, Eagle Scout (BSA)
Vista, California
I received the same email, although I've had no interaction whatever with PS. It seems everything is in order and all is right with the world. Cheers, Fire Star 20:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. And I wager that, more than anyone else here, I have no idea what this is all about! El_C 20:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I got no response so far, but it does not help I de-bunked all of his claims in my response. Zscout370(Sound Off) 07:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't expect much. He tried a similiar stunt last February (he was blocked so he email many, many admins with the same form letter). User:Bcorr/Plautus documents what happened to Bcorr when he replied (Bcorr, whom I've met in real life, is actually a very sweet person). →Raul654 08:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
FYI: I also recieved the email, having had no previous involvment (only been an admin for a week). Seemed genuine but edit histories don't lie. My only comment is that edits like this (IMHO) [13] are only going to fuel the fire. I know we all like a laugh and joke but in matters of banning I prefer a more formal tone. No offence meant of course, I don't know the full history of the dealings with user. Greg Robson 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I also received one:
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:28:46 GMT
Forgive me if this seems like spam, this is the only method I have available to seek redress in this situation. Raul654 has gotten my talk page protected so that I can not edit it, and no notice is put on the page to indicate that.
Raul654 has unfairly had me banned from wikipedia. He has a personal agenda, and has banned me motivated purely by malice. If you are able to, please help reverse this ban and/or help me get Raul654 punished for his damaging and childish actions.
To all those above who have no idea what is going on, Plautus is a crackpot and troll who was forcefully thrown out of wikipedia about a year ago. This is not the first time that he got banned and emailed large numbers of people begging to be unbanned. I've catalogued the whole sordid affair of Plautus's existance at user:Raul654/Plautus. This was the primary evidence against him when the arbcom banned him for a year. →Raul654 00:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
From what I gathered from the evidence, Raul broke into Platypuse's car, somehow. Not a good sign. El_C 00:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I am now wondering if he was really banned or just blocked after returning from his one year ban. The evidence seems to support that he is habitually disruptive. Fire Star 05:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
He served out his ban in its entirety; no one is disputing that. But he started misbehaving almost the second he arrived back. I've updated user:Raul654/Plautus to include his recent misdeeds. →Raul654 05:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
He seems confrontational, to be sure. My question is, was he banned again by another committee's decision two days ago? Or did Smoddy just block him indefinitely when he started disrupting? Fire Star 05:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Plautus was re-blocked without any formal committee decision. The reason is (as snowspinner said in his block message) "Because we don't need this". In other words, it's crystal clear from his actions that Plautus has not reformed one iota and there is no sense in prolonging his stay here any more than necessary. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. Admins are expected to use good judgement, and Smoddy's judgement in this case was most solid. →Raul654 05:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Fire Star 06:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul—did you mean to place your reply to Everyking's statement at the bottom of the talk page, or would it be better off right under his ultimatum? I didn't want to move the comment for you, since it's on an arbitration page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I replied at the bottom because he had just asked if the arbitrators were watching. If you want to move it up, I am fine with that too. →Raul654 20:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm wondering why you listed Suburbs of Johannesburg as a former featured article candidate. When I looked at the page, there were four supports, one neutral, and one object that is inactionable and he never responded to my questions. I fixed the problems with the image, I just wasn't near a computer to reply to his comments. So as far as I can see, it should have passed without a problem. Would you mind explaining? Thanks! Páll(Die pienk olifant) 04:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you will care, but User:Michel Jackson Fan made an addition to WP:RA intended to demean you: [14]. It has been removed. The only other edits from the account are to User talk:Lir, where he also made a personal attack against you, and which I see you already removed. Dragons flight 15:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
It saw it, reverted his only unreverted edit, and duly extended Lir's ban because it's quite obviously a sockpuppet of his. →Raul654 04:47, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
This is really starting to piss me off, so I'm sure you would like to hear about it :) We start out with List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm and List of General Slocum victims. The latter was VFD'd from Wikipedia, where they said to move it to Wikisource or Commons (since Commons does accept text). So, the former was moved to Wikisource as well. Now they are currently up for deletion at Wikisource, where people say to move it to Wikipedia or Commons. So, in the interim, they've been copied over to Commons. Now they are currently up for deletion at Commons, where people say it should be on Wikisource or Wikipedia. Now, they clearly shouldn't be on Wikisource, since they are user-compiled lists. Where do you think they should be? -- BRIAN0918 16:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - It's often sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.
If anywhere, I believe that lists of victims of disasters belong on Wikisource. On the other hand, I'm not even convinced it belongs there. →Raul654 04:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed your nomination of TOCright from TFD on the grounds that it was kept with a 31 to 14 vote concluded just earlier this month: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/TOCright. Further, unless something has changed, the MOS discussion also seems to have concluded that right-aligned TOCs were acceptable, albeit under limited circumstances: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright. Dragons flight 09:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have reverted the TOC to non floating, being left below the intro. In general I think this is a sound layout principle, but I floated left in this case for 2 reasons. Firstly, someone had positioned it floated right, which placed it below the opening image and (to my POV) made the article completely inaccessible for the casual reader, particularly those browsing with low screen resolutions: there is no indication of the depth of content. Secondly, the intro for the Tony Blair article is much too long to have the TOC below it, again for the same reasons.
I think that either the intro needs to be shortened or the TOC floated left to bring it into effective view.
What are your thoughts? --Cactus.man 10:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
We should not be using either TOC left or TOC right -- mediawiki scripting forces a standard, which all articles should abide by. When I viewed the article (using Firefox in the classic Skin) it looked quite bad, and it looks fine now in either skin. →Raul654 19:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
You should have seen it with TOCright !! I still think the intro is too long for the present TOC position to be effective. I run Firefox, classic skin, at 1280x1024 and float left looks fine to me, but the standard TOC is way too low to be effective. I agree the standard is best followed by most articles, but most have a suitably succinct intro. The Blair one is over bloated IMHO. --Cactus.man 19:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You had promoted Louisville just a few hours after I'd made some additional critique. I think you should have allowed the nominators to reply to them and only promote after a day's lull. There were some pending issues that needed to be sorted out such as non-encyclopedic tone and ill chosen words. =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
talk 08:38, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
New: 
—Josh Lee 19:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
