User talk:Raul654


Image:Red ribbon.jpg
Mark, um, have you been getting enough sleep lately? Image:Red ribbon.jpg is already source. :) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't see it below the tag. Typically, you want to put it in source-license-tag order. →Raul654 17:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Featured articles
I counted and only came up with 499. To make sure, I checked again twice and still came up with the same results. --Michael Snow 08:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The quickest way to count them is to paste the list into excel and delete the column headings (takes about 2 minutes). I did this and you're right - we definitely have 499. Someone must have miscounted by one at some point. →Raul654 09:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Pic of the day
Hi Raul,
Just to let you know that your photo Image:Camouflage.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on the 7th Feb. If you like, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 7, 2005. -- Solipsist 12:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
History of Russia
Hi. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Russia has gone through as of 08:05, 6 Feb, but still hasn't been archived. 172 22:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's a good amount of support, but (IMHO) not quite consensus yet. Taxman still has an outstanding objection which I'd like to see addressed, so I thought I'd leave it up for a few more days. →Raul654 22:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Taxman just posted his objections after I wrote my comment above. A coincidence-- but now the article is not ready. 172 22:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bloody Mary
Hi. I see you've just added a comment to Mary I of England that "Bloody Mary" is a synonym of "witch". Really? I've never come across it -- a drink, yes, a witch, no! -- Arwel 11:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's a children's thing. "Bloody Mary" is also a name for a ghost or witch who appears in children's folklore; other very similar tales use different names." --Bloody Mary (person). (Look for that article on the main page soon). →Raul654 17:57, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
large ogg and mp3 files
See User:Raul654/bigogg. Jamesday 23:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A matter of personal attacks
Maybe I'm being too sensitive, or I'm tattling (if you will), but a recent conversation I've had with Alkivar seems to me a serious breach of civility and wikiquette. Since I have never dealt with these issues before, I have no idea how to proceed, or how serious the offence committed really is.
The conversation is as follows:
My apologies if I'm being to critical, but I feel that many of the comments made in the Fruit Brute VfD debate were far from reasonable. There had to be a more diplomatic way to disagree with Bart133's assertion on the initial sentence than don't lie, it makes you look even more juvenile.... Learn to face up to when you've goofed, it will go a long way in your life The attacks do to his age certainly border on a personal attack. Were Bart133 forty, sixty, or eighty, would you have included the comment on how 'juvenile' he is?
I don't expect you to apologise to anyone, but I want to make it clear that I consider your comments in this VfD debate inappropriate, and I think their are many members of the community who would agree with me. →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:46, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
- On a vfd which is caused by the user's lack of experience due to youth your damn right i would continue to make this attack. I've seen users REGULARLY make worse comments and have nothing done to them. As for other people , I'm not here to make people happy. People dont have to like me, merely tolerate my presence based on the quality of my edits. User:Alkivar/sig 07:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I must object to the assertion that regular use of worse comments justifies those kinds of comments. Furthermore, even users (example: RickK) who are infamous for excessive harshness have not, to my knowledge, made attacks even close to that which I noted above. I maintain that regardless of what prompted the VfD, this attack was inappropriate. Dialogue does not benefit in any way from blasting people for being "juvenile". →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 03:42, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
- and I quote "What utter juvenile pretentious crap. Delete with extreme prejudice. RickK 00:54, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)"
- and I quote "Bite me asshole. RickK 05:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)"
- yeah i'm so much worse than others. when you yourself are out of high school and college and have as much experience as I do, then you can talk to me as an equal. Til then if you have a problem with me ... in the immortal words of RickK "bite me asshole" User:Alkivar/sig 03:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I still fail to see the connexion between these quotes and the justifiability of the comments you have made. →Iñgōlemo← talk donate 04:11, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
For further background see User talk:Alkivar and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fruit Brute.
- All righty, I'll have a look into the situation. →Raul654 06:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Space Race
Hi Raul. I spent muchas horas revamping this recently failed FAC for another shot, but can't seem to get it on the FAC page correctly. This may relate to its having been briefly renom'd three weeks ago by someone who apparently didn't realize it had just failed. The article therefore has two archived FAC/talk pages, and I keep getting redirected to them when I try to put it on the FAC page. If you can find the time (away from the above bickering), could you please re-nom it for me, copying the following nominating "speech":
- This article had too much good material to die. It fell short of FAC some 6 weeks ago, and then was re-nominated by someone unaware, who hadn’t changed a thing. Since that abortive effort, it has been revamped greatly per reviewers’ requests. Innumerable redundancies have been removed, the time-sequencing has been improved, and the bizarre “Funding” section (which compared 60’s NASA to the current RSA) has been eliminated. The main objections were that a quarter of the article covered “recent developments”(which occurred well after the “race” ended) and that the spinoff ramifications of the race were glossed over. These too have been fixed, though I think mentioning the possibilities of future such “races” under “Legacy” is a reasonable inclusion.
and adding my "Sfahey" signature . If you're too busy, chat me back and I'll seek out another expert. Thanks. Sfahey 06:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I can do it, don't worry. →Raul654 06:17, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- All done. →Raul654 06:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I got up earlier today than usual, and decided to take another whack at ferreting out and "moving" those old nominations, and ... voila! ... you'd already come through. Much thanks. Let the judging begin. Sfahey 14:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- p.s. Noticed your photo on the way out. How much did the orthodontically perfect smile cost your folks ... or is it just good luck?
- All done. →Raul654 06:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
spambot URLs
Hi Raul654,
First of all, thanks very much for your support and your kinds words in my recent RfAdm.
Second, I've compiled a list of URLs used so far by the spambot that is attacking PHP and some of the pages linked to it (DBpp, CCVS, Cybercash, DBM) and their talk pages, and have listed them at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist. Since you are also an admin on meta, could you consider adding these to the filter list? Thanks. -- Curps 19:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, Silsor seems to be involved in updating the spam blacklist on meta, so I'll pass that request to him instead. Sorry about that. -- Curps 20:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bahaullah's pic
Hello Mark. I see that someone managed to convince you that the foto of Bahaullah is right after his release from some dungeon. I just wanted to let you know that this is a lie. That foto if from Adrianople and the hat he is wearing is a so-called Turkish or Ottoman hat. I corrected the line. Also, there is no reason for two versions of that article -- it is just that a few Bahais make coordinated efforts to "shape" the Bahai articles to suit their prefered perspective. There is no excuse for them for this sort of manipulation and lack of respect for the open nature of Wikipedia and the Internet in general. --Amir 11:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your bot
I debugged and improved on your bot, you can access it here: http://pig.berlios.de/wikiupload as proof of concept it uploaded this file.
I rewrote it in bash, see [1] ;) Actually i just couldnt be bothered debugging a csh script, try adding -x to /bin/bash like #!/bin/bash -x, works wonders. It also only gets the cookie or sends the confirmation form if it needs to, which speeds it up and spares the servers, oh, and the settings and other data it makes are saved in a directory /tmp/uploadbot/ which means that it won't clutter your filesystem if you run it recursively in the future. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:22, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
Upload script, based on pywikipediabot framework
Raul, do a cvs download to get the newest pywikipedia bot. Then the steps to get the bot running is:
- Create a user-config.py
- Login in by typing: python login.py
- Edit upload.py to include the #!/usr/bin/python (or where ever you place it)
- Make upload.py executable
- Upload an image by typing: $DIRECTORY_OF_PYWIKIPEDIABOT_FRAMEWORK/upload.py -keep $IMAGE_FILENAME $UPLOAD_COMMENT
- -keep indicates to keep the file name the same.
- I am uncertain whether the script can resolve filesizes larger than 5 M. If it can not, submit a bug report on the framework site.
A few suggestions for changes, this makes certain that the bot uses the login-data in the directory for all the scripts:
In config.py, _fns=[sys.path[0] + "/user-config.py"] In login.py, f = open(makepath(sys.path[0] + '/login-data/%s-%s-%slogin.data' % (site.family.name, site.lang, user)), 'w') In wikipedia.py: fn = sys.path[0] + '/login-data/%s-%s-%slogin.data' % (self.family.name, self.lang, u) In wikipedia.py: fn = sys.path[0] + '/login-data/%s-login.data' % self.lang
Housecleaning

To all those on the ArbCom: Man, you guys cleaned house! Great work. My number one hope for the 2005 ArbCom was that the backlog would shrink due to prompt decisions, and you all surpassed my hopes. My hat's off to you. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Cantus
If I may ask, what was his explanation that prompted you to unblock? --Michael Snow 16:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, please explain at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cantus violation. He had ample opportunity to discuss his edit, but made no effort. He better have a really good reason. -- Netoholic @ 18:59, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's what I would have done if Cantus had asked me, although I really wish some of our hardened edit warriors would get the clue that it's not the other person's sole responsibility to initiate a discussion. --Michael Snow 22:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
from Nug
I just wanted you to know that we all think you are doing a great job on the arbcom, way to be reasonable and objective. With less than 50% of the community voting for you, its awesome that you were willing to volunteer for a three year term. Nug
- Hi Lir. Are you enjoying your year off? →Raul654 21:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- PS - I know I am. →Raul654 22:18, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Minus-signs (a comment for your Bugzilla report)
Re: your Bugzilla report [2] on en-dashes and em-dashes, it would be nice to support − as well.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) approves the use of − and says it is supported in almost all browsers. The minus sign is the same width as the "+" sign and is much wider than a hyphen. Compare - and −.
I wanted to enter the following comment at Bugzilla, but unfortunately Bugzilla does not support anonymous contributions. If you agree, could you submit the following on my behalf? Thanks.
- It would be nice to accomodate minus-sign as well, and could probably easily be done.
- The Unicode minus-sign character is approved in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes).
- In addition to the three rules already proposed, anything of the form ' -[0123456789]' (space followed by hyphen followed by a digit) should get converted to −
-- Curps 03:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Featured article February 21
Hi, I noticed in the FA archive you put the link to Liberal Party, not Liberal Party (Utah) in the first sentence. Don't know if this makes a difference. --[jon] [talk] 14:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Katharine Graham
Thanks for reverting my mistake in categorization. I've fixed it now. Thanks. --JuntungWu 14:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Help!
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu. I think that speaks for itself! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No violation
- Hello Raul654. You posted a message in my Talk page saying I had violated my ArbCom decree by reverting the Autofellatio article twice in 24 hours (you didn't specifically say 24 hours, but I will assume this was what you meant, as otherwise I wouldn't be violating the decree). This is false, I'm afraid. On this 03:49, Feb 13, 2005 edit I removed an external link to a pornographic site showing a man autofellating; I never touched the image in the article. On this 07:59, Feb 13, 2005 edit I reverted the article (for the first time) to Jimbo's approved version which linked the image instead of showing it inline. In conclusion, I never reverted the article twice in 24 hours, so there's no reason for you to worry about blocking me :-) —Cantus…☎ 02:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Well said Cantus, Raul is a mature fellow and I am sure that he will address this matter with the utmost judicial propiety. Have no fear, if I know my man Raul, he will not let his personal grudges interfere with his duty to be reasonable. Hug
I disagree with your recent edits to the article on obesity. It may be your personal POV that obesity is widely accepted and "ok" -- but the article should more prominently address the concerns that obesity has with regards to health, and the fact that many people see obesity as a sign that someone is irresponsible. Hug
How to stop vandalism? Possible?
Dear Mark (Raul654):
I am trying to restore facts in the article about Karabahk. However, I am having troubles with two users: User:Tabib and User:Cantus, who keep reverting the page without any discussion.
Here is what the facts are. According to the Soviet population census (as of 1979), the population of Karabahk was 162 000, from which there were 123 100 Armenians (75,9%) and 37 300 were Azeri people (22,9%). That's why it is correct to say that this autonomous region was predominantly Armenian populated, even before the conflict.
Based on the above (well-known) facts I wrote the following:
This predominantly Armenian populated autonomous region had been placed under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan by an arbitrary decision of Stalin in 1923. Karabakh has declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The NKR's sovereign status is not yet recognized by any country in the world.
They ( User:Tabib and User:Cantus ) keep reverting this to the following:
The region is now predominantly ethnic Armenian and effectively under Armenian control. The local Armenian separatists declared independence from Azerbaijan on December 10, 1991 and established Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).
As you can see, their statement is very different, and it is not neutral. According to them, Armenians have never lived in the region before the conflict. The term "separatists" also does not look right.
I have made several attempts to negotiate and discuss this subject with them. However, they have never responded to any of my messages.
I strongly believe, this is a violation of the very basic principles of Wikipedia. The Wekipedia should present only facts without any political propaganda.
As a user, I am more active in Russian part of Wikipedia, where I wrote some number of articles on the subject of Russian phylosophy, theology and history, and I have never had problems with any kind of vandalism. I hope we can improve the situation here too. You, as Administrator, can help!
Thank you, Rovoam 18:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Developer assistance
Thanks whoever's been updating the numbers of articles in the 50,000+ category on www.wikipedia.org. I have one thing to ask you or another developer. I have noticed that although sl: is in the 1000-10000 category on the same site, it recently reached 10,000 and has been given that recognition in other language WPs, even ours, maybe that error could be fixed up on www.wikipedia.org. Scott Gall 18:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Done. But Scott, FYI, the portal page is m:Www.wikipedia.org portal. It's a wiki page like any other (albeit protected). Also, I'm not a dev :) →Raul654 00:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- So that's how the international page is changed? I thought a developer went there and played with the HTML code for a while. Scott Gall
- Nope, it's as simple as that. Check on the talk page - there are two designs currently being considered. The current version was more ad hoc than anything else. →Raul654 02:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I get it now. But I'm not an admin, so I can't edit protected pages. The Belarussian Wikipedia (be:) has recently reached 1,000 articles and this has not yet been fixed up on the main page or the portal page, so I would like something done about that. Scott Gall 05:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So that's how the international page is changed? I thought a developer went there and played with the HTML code for a while. Scott Gall
Plurality v. majority in Iraq
Mark --
Could you please take a look at my suggestions on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates regarding the phrasing of this headline? There are media outlet headlines that say the Shiites won a majority (meaning the seats in the Assembly) and failed to win a majority (meaning a plurality, 48 percent, of the votes cast). I'd like us to be more precise. Thanks. Chris vLS 20:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
FAs
A pleasure - I figured something was up, couldn't believe you'd stopped halfway through by design. Also, FYI, you put the FAfailed notice on Space Race, which I took to be a mistake, so have changed it to featured status in line with your edits to the featured log. Kind regards, jguk 21:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't put FA failed out it - that's been there for some time because it has failed the FAC twice previously. →Raul654 01:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
ArbCom
I am not certain how much the arbcom does. Could you tell me whether something like this: [3] would be part of their jurisdiction?? Thanks in advance, Zwischen
Glacier
Sarah suggested I examine your edits to Glacier. I could not figure out how to view previous versions, could you help me out? Pellegrini
Oh Lir, I was just reading your University's Computer acceptable use policy. I found a couple of interesting things you aren't allowed to do:
- Accessing, or attempting to access, equipment or networks at UNI or elsewhere via UNI resources, without permission.
- Sending anonymous, deceptive, fraudulent, or unwelcome electronic communications, such as chain letters.
It'd be a shame if Jimbo were to send them a complaint about you, telling them how you've spent 3 years trolling this site, gotten yourself banned from it repeatedly, and that we might just have to block the whole university if you keep it up. I expect they probably would't be too happy. →Raul654 22:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Wired fame
There's a spooky line-drawing of you in the March WIRED. congrats... :-) +sj + 22:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Link me! →Raul654 22:36, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Question about policy
OK, this is going to sound odd, but in all my time here I've never suggested a single policy or policy modification. The reason is: I've never been able to work out the process! How would I go about doing this? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's a very fuzzy, misty process, that no one really understands very well because no formal mechanism exists. Ask me on IRC and I'll give some specific suggestions. →Raul654 22:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Revert
I reverted you at History of Music -- I hope you will agree that it was better before. BestBuy
Raul654 2.jpg
Raul there isn't a copyright tag on this picture! Brookie 20:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Good call - I've fixed it. →Raul654 20:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Protected featured article pictures
Hi Raul,
I notice you generally protect the "Today's featured article" about 10 days in advance. What do you think—would it would make sense to protect the associated image (and add {{ProtectedMainPageImage}}) at the same time? I've been protecting the images one day in advance, but I'm worried one might slip through the cracks.
dbenbenn | talk 00:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks! Hyacinth 23:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That file is playing at very high speed for me (in XMMS and mplayer). The original MP3 works fine. None of your other OGGs have that problem, so I presume it's with the file and not my player.--Eloquence* 12:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Really odd error. The only time I have seen that is with files I encoded at <128 kbits/sec. But the other file I uploaded at the same time works fine. Odd. Anyway, I have reencoded using a different encoder and it came out fine, so I overwrote the old song. →Raul654 14:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
wired too
You are the second person to mention the article, but as of yesterday it had not yet appeared in Northern NM. I enjoyed my time with Daniel Pink and was wondering how it would translate into ink. Since I live an hour away from the nearest potential copy . . . . . Anyway, I'll pre-pave a congratulations to you too, both for your work on wikipedai and for your recognition. Carptrash 18:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Suffice it to say, you are featured fairly prominently in the introduction. The article should be available on wired's website within a couple of weeks. If you want, I can scan it in the beginning and send it to you by email. →Raul654 18:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Today's featured article
I'm sorry, but I wasn't quite sure what to do. The first few times the image was replaced, I simply blocked the IP, but apparently it was dynamic, and this did nothing to stop the vandalism. I won't protect in the future, but what should I have done? Thanks, Meelar (talk) 19:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Today's John Vanbrugh article
Raul654, this is Sodwiki (Steve) and I was not trying to vandalize the article. I was only trying to fix what SYSOP had done with the redirect although unsuccessful. Your fix for SYSOP was not working either. Regards and keep up the good work.
Looks like L33tminion was able to make the correct fix.
- Uh, no. What happened was - (a) Sysop vandalized the template. (B) I reverted it, and then banned him. (C) You blanked it again, and (D) I reverted that and warned you. The database is being a bit weird now, so it shows events as ABDC (which is why it says "(Reverted edits by Sodwiki to last version by Raul654)" before you edited it). →Raul654 14:46, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Solar energy
In any case Raul you were right it came out to about 1.83 HP (per hour per square meter at 1 AU) from a highly variable average. Looks like I will have to think about this at closer than 1 AU to be practical in any way. Thank you. -- Dbroadwell 15:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think your units are a tad confused there. It should be 1.83 hp/square meter. →Raul654 16:53, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
- True; I pulled them out to use the google calculator; 1.83 hp/m^2 (at one 1AU). I was also wrong on the highly variable part. This was based on luninosity, not the solar wind, so I had that fact as a holdover. And again, Thank You for bearing with me. I'm not in the EE classes yet and am still trying to study what intriuges me. For some reason, it's the sun as a ~4billion year energy source. Numbers at User_talk:Dbroadwell -- Dbroadwell 17:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Standing order
I have withdrawn my agreement to the standing order. anthony 警告 16:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Regarding protection of featured article
Hi, I was hoping you could give me some advice on the situation in which highly visible and offensive vandalism is repeatedly performed on "today's featured article". What should I have done in the Brolga situation? Yours, Meelar (talk) 07:22, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Please reply on my talk. Thanks very much.
Please could you explain why the above article failed FA when it had 4 votes of support (5 if you count me the nominator) only one objection, and one neutral? Giano 18:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- After a very long time on the FAC (11 days), there were 4 supports (Bishonen, ALoan, Worldtraveller, Zerbey), 2 objections (Markalexander100, Dinopup), and 1 neutral (Morwen). Further, I think Markalexander's object has merit. →Raul654 23:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
- There was not one unqualified statement in that article, but - some you win, some you lose! End of story. Giano 07:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quick question
Hello, Raul!
I just need some quick advice: the article chemical warfare was given featured article status on January 2, and it hasn't yet made it to the main page. However, I notice that other, much more recently "FAS'ed", articles have been given this honor. For example, ammolite and Buddhist art which, while both are indeed excellent, only became FA's on the 24th and 27th, respectively.
Is there something in chemical warfare that needs revising before it's acceptable? Naturally, I would be willing to do the work necessary to make this article into a true gem, worthy of a Main Page presentation. Many thanks for your input. – ClockworkSoul 06:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh no, quite the contrary, it's a good featured article. It's just we have a glut of some categories of articles (war-related featured articles, for example) and a dearth of others (art-related featured articles). So newly promoted art articles tend to make it to the main page faster. →Raul654 14:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Gee, Raul, why do you always have to go and make perfect sense? ;) – ClockworkSoul 14:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why you chose the strongman photo for the FA summary. I feel that the strongman photo represents out-of-date stereotypes that I would prefer would not be used to represent the subject as a whole. (That's why I chose a female model to demonstrate the exercises.) I put the dumbbells photo at the top of the article because I though it was the most generic representation, but if you don't like it then please choose any of the other photos. (Or am I allowed to change it myself?) Just not the strongman. Please? GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Just go ahead and change it yourself to whatever you think would be appropriate. However, as a general rule of thumb, split pictures, maps, and graphs do not make good pictures for the main page. →Raul654 14:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Image:Helen Hogg.jpg
Hello Marc. I was image tagging, when I came across Image:Helen Hogg.jpg, which you uploaded ages ago. Could you add source information and an image copyright tag to it? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:23, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
how can i submit an article to be featured? I thought this was rather nice: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Standing_orders/Anthony cute CabbagePie