User talk:Raul654

For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

Talk-page archive

Congrats

You made arbcom. Woohoo! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations on your reelection, my friend. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. →Raul654 11:13, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Raul -- I have no idea how you can have endured the last six months and come back for more. :-) Congratulations on your reelection, and hey, get this batch of rookies in shape, all right? ;-) Good luck and best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 22:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congrats - you can whip me into shape anyday ;-) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

American vs. Britsh spelling

Why should an article use the bastdard version of the English language unless it relates to American matters?

I find American spelling hurtful to the eyes, and as such, I reserve the right to make whatever changes I see fit. --TintininLisbon 11:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If that is the attitude you are going to take, I suspect you will find your time here short and unpleasant. →Raul654 11:19, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it could have something to do with 300 million people using the American spelling and only 60 million using the British spelling. Most International (non-American, non-British) classes of English use the American spelling as well. The United Kingdom was important in the late 1800s, but we are now more than 100 years into the United States' dominance of the English world. The population gap between the American-spelling sphere and the British-spelling sphere widens every year. Uris 22:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez - arbitration case

Congratulations on your re-election! Could you please take a look at my comment [1] before the arbitration case gets closed? Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe I found a mistake in the sentence. Boraczek 14:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee term

As the second-highest vote-getter, it's now your turn to decide how long you wish to serve. Theresa Knott has picked a 2-year term, which still leaves one 1-year term, one 2-year term, and four 3-year terms to choose from. What's your preference? --Michael Snow 00:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I guess Ambi has the information and has put you down for a 3-year term. So never mind, unless that happens not to be the case. Also, congratulations and good luck! --Michael Snow 00:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I had said previously that I was going to take a 3 year term should one be available. After multiple elections in as many months, I don't want to have to repeat the process anytime soon. →Raul654 01:11, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

With less than 50% support, you want a 3 year term?????? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Only one candidate got 50% support. What do you expect the other 6 "winners" to do? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I expect them to serve 6 month terms, and then allow elections -- what kind of tyrant sits on a three-year term that he knows he doesn't deserve? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Well, crackerjack, the man that founded and owns this website sets the term lengths, not Lirath Q. Pynnor. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which dosen't remind me, the article titled crackerjack is in need of expansion. On behalf of (probably!) WP founder, Jimbo Wales, I am hereby, commissioning you, user:Blankfaze, for making it a feature article. Looking forward to it! El_C

Jimbo should resign, and Raul should know better than to take advantage of Jimbo's boundless goodwill. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Nice job spin-doctoring the election - you couldn't convince people to vote for you, so you try to convince people that the others didn't have enough support to serve full terms. A better job of muddying the waters I have never seen. Sigh, I guess I'll just have to join the ranks of those other obviously unqualified people who failed to gain a majority in their elections - John Adams, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Abrahamn Lincoln.

Oh, and as a side note -- I suspect the only reason you are still allowed to edit here is because of Jimbo's boundless goodwill. You are always free to run again during the next arbiration committee election next year, assuming you aren't banned by then. →Raul654 05:41, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

But a few weeks ago The Wikipedia foundation asked the public for $50,000 saying it was needed to keep the site going. He (abusive goader "jimbo"), now at least should respect the public that come here. And this site should be run according to norms that normal citizens expect. Apparently only 520 people voted (one presumes that's what they mean, although with the usual foolishness of the people who run control the Wikipedia they said there were only 520 votes) out of 200,000 or more users. If you look here you will see an example of the most extreme way in which The Wikipedia guidelines can be broken. How disgusting.WikiUser 20:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

El C, as your talk page doesn't have te facility for me to post I'm asking here, please show basic manners and restore the proper order of posting. WikiUser 21:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My talk page does, in fact, facilitate posting. As for basic manners, that it a rather courious comment – my comment stands out visually in the threaded discussion, I am surprised you have neglected to notice this. El_C

cogratulations on your election. sorry i couldn't vote, but i have just reached 90 days membership. Xtra 13:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed, congratulations! I know continue to serve well. I have filed a Friend-of-the-ArbCom briefing for you to read at your leisure. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:59, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both :) →Raul654 05:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Spam protection filter gone haywire?

recently recieved the following:

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

See m:Spam blacklist for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please contact an m:Administrator. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

http:// www zephyrgraffiti com (had to break the link so filter wouldnt scream)

This was in response to an edit on FAC where i commented that i had asked Zephyr, whom i then linked to, to come comment. It was not link spamming, as far as I know he has not link spammed the site, and I did not gain this spam notice when I included his site as a link from the main Graffiti page last night.

Can you please figure out whats going on? Thanks Alkivar 13:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's the skinny on the spam filter. As you can imagine, we often get spammers in here pushing products and websites. Occasionally, they keep coming back despite repeated blocks. When that happens, they get added to the spam filter, which prevents anyone from saving a page with that term. However, if the term is added and then someone tries to save a page on which the term already exists, then they will be prevented from saving, even if they are not spamming. You can get to (and modify) the list of blocked terms at m:Spam blacklist, just be careful not to break the formatting. →Raul654 05:56, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, this helps immensely. I was totally lost as to why this was occurring, and when the server went into read-only mode yesterday i was sorta stuck for a couple hours scratching my head. Alkivar 06:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Urgent request

Hi Raul, how's that temporary injunction going? Cause my user page just got vandalised by CheeseDreams. See [2]. She added disputed tags and dubious tags to the page. She is well aware that this is not allowed. I also feel under attack from this user due to my difference in world-view. Also she is attacking me for asking for her articles to be tightened up, something I feel is very fair to do. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, that's pretty clear cut vandalism. I suggest you ask an uninvolved sysop (who is not arbitrating the case) to look at it, and if (s)he feels the same way, (s)he should block Cheese Of Dreams for a nontrivial amount of time (1-7 days). →Raul654 05:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Help!

I seem to be having a bit of a problem with an abusive user, namely User:Fvw. This individual has taken it upon himself to be the ombudsman of what is and is not a speedy delete candidate. He's reverted my edits and left some snide remarks on my user page and the edit summaries. I've listed him on RfC as well. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Raul, I just noticed a couple of typos in the "today's featured article" spiel for the 21st and 22nd. WP:MOS is specific in punctuation (and as I understand it, featured articles should comply with it). In Free will, the punctuation should (per the MoS) be "up to us". That is, the full stop should come after the quotation mark. On Holy Roman Empire, the full stop should, likewise, come after the quotation mark for "Emperors-Elect". Thanks, jguk 00:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Award for Tireless Effort on the Wiki(s)

I award you a cookie for all your great and tireless service to this and other projects. Got Milk? :D Arminius 07:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...cookie. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 07:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Btrieve

Hi Raul, thanks for helping with this! The article is Btrieve and it isn't actually complete but I'd like to know if I've got facts glaringly wrong and whether my style is OK. Also, it's getting pretty big! I'm not entirely sure how to split it up... in fact I'm not sure that Btrieve is the correct name to call the article title now. Any help or feedback would be very much appreciated! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I gave it a once over but it looks fairly good. →Raul654 02:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks mate :-) I've actually split it as it was getting pretty large. Nearly done! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Edit

You removed the edit link from Template:Endocrine system. What is the real problem? It's otherwise fairly hard to add articles to ASBs. JFW | T@lk 13:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the edit link because (in general) you're supposed to avoid cross namespace links - IE, don't link to a Wikipedia: page from the main namespace; don't like to the template page from the main namespace. That's (more or less) meta data. →Raul654 19:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Popped this on the Main Page talk page, and someone suggested I tell you direct. So - can I suggest that the text 'Recently featured' be bolded, to distinguish it more noticeably from the text of the article above it? Dan100 22:23, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Posthumous Nobel Prizes

You said recently:

<Austin> The peace prize can't be awarded posthumously.
<Raul654> Austin - not exactly true
<Raul654> it *can*, and in 1948, they seriously considered doing it
<Raul654> but it has never been done

You were correct in saying that the prize can be awarded posthumously, but incorrect in saying that it had never been done. The 1961 prize was awarded posthumously to Dag Hammarskjold.

Respectfully yours, Dominus 05:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected :) →Raul654 05:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

You type standing up? :-) --Baylink 22:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please vote

Raul, could I get you to vote on WP:IFD to delete Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg? It's a picture of a child on a paedophile magazine. It needs to go. Now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Main Page

Hi Raul - have you seen the discussion on Talk:Main Page? Quite a lot of people liked the new, simple, unclutttered version of the main page. I'm not going to get into a revert war about this, but I just wondered where the comment "this version is awful and I think everyone agrees" comes from. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Al, I think Raul was talking about the old wordy version he'd reverted to after the admins went a bit made making their own individual changes to the new one. Raul, there seems to be a good consensus on the Main Page Discussion page for the 'original' new intro as proposed and installed by Tom. It would be great if you could RV the Main Page to that version. Thanks Dan100 18:11, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and reverted to Rdsmith's version (the polished new interface), although I did incorporate one change (moving the multi-lang icon to the template). →Raul654 19:52, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Lirpedia

I was informed that you intend to vandalize Lirpedia, you have been banned for one year. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Actually, I believe I said that I didn't want to admin status on Lirpedia because the temptation to vandalize it would be too great. There's a not-so-subtle difference. →Raul654 19:36, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

PS - Last I checked, Lirpedia is blatantly violating the GFDL by not giving the license or citing a source. →Raul654 19:36, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

multilang icon

Hey there - notice you just moved the language icon into the other template. I experimented with that but found that the location (in the included lang template) makes it's position look a little awkward. Also, quite oddly, it seems to need "font-size:92%" to show the bottom line of the image. Good luck with the "always wrong" changes! violet/riga (t) 19:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hail to Raul - the first ArbCom member ever to be re-elected! :) --mav 02:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The photo that wouldn't die

I see from User talk:VeryVerily that VV has been banned, so I'm picking you almost randomly on no better basis than that you were a message-bearer: could you please weigh in at Talk:Nicolae_Ceausescu#Death_photo? Ratza again wants to include the death photo of Ceausescu, and VV was one of the (few) people watchlisting this page. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:Edward_Elgar.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 05:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Image:Margaret Mead.jpg needs a source and tag too. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 07:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona and more

Hi. I saw that you voted on the RFC regarding Tucson, Arizona, and I thought you might be interested in commenting on a broader application of the formatting to other city articles. The discussion (for now) is at Talk: Tucson, Arizona#Other Arizona and nearby cities. (It might get moved to WikiProject Cities, if there's interest in doing so.) Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring

I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was MediaZIlla'd on bug 1204, and brion says it's fixed. --Baylink 01:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is wiki's policy on MOD files?

As far as I can tell there is no copyright encumberment on .s3m, .xm, .it, or .mod files. Do we have a policy regarding them? I tried uploading a public domain .s3m file but Upload tells me its not a recognized file type. I cant convert it to Midi (doesnt use the instruments right), I cant convert it to Ogg (theres no converter), am I just outta luck? Alkivar 00:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The mediawiki software automatically scans uploads with the unix 'file' command and if it comes up as anything but a certain handful of file types, the upload is rejected. This acts to prevent the use of wikipedia (a) to spread virii, and (b) as a host for pirated software. Midi's are currently rejected as well, but Ogg is not. →Raul654 00:24, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

And if worse comes to worse, you can always plug the stereo out from one computer into the stereo in of another computer (yes, I have done it before to get around the above limitations) →Raul654 00:25, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

then the problem becoms your recompressing an already compressed file! aka it ends up sounding like total shit. Guess I go without till Jimbo pulls his head out of his ass and allows some other file formats. Alkivar 01:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forgot to set /away

Got your message, and I do appreciate you doing this :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Urgent assistance needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Grunt%AD is a user with a non-printable character on the end of his/her username. It's a GNAA member and they have been uploading goatse images. They need to be blocked IMMEDIATELY but I am unable to do this without block User:Grunt.

Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christmas tree

Hi Raul - hope you won't mind, I've removed your pic from there as for some reason it was not loading properly (even crashed my computer, I don't know why) - MPF 08:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images weren't loading properly across wikipedia earlier - it wasn't a fault of the picture or the article. I had some other people look at it, and it worked just fine for them, so I suspect the crash was just some random windows burp, and not the fault of the picture. →Raul654 13:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; it was because the other pic loaded OK I thought there was something wrong. It is working OK now. Mind if I swap the positions of the two to have the more traditional one at the top? - MPF 16:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go right ahead. →Raul654 17:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Two trolls

grunt and lotusleaf. They are impersonation on IRC. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mailing list

Where have I contributed to the mailing list - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 22:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Donation link on main page

Hi Raul654,

I appreciate your comments on the donation link issue.

So, are you in favor of restoring the donation link for the tsunami disaster relief on the main page?

I find it rather shameful that large corporations such as Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Apple are all setting aside more space on their web site than Wikipedia. (I'm especially shamed by the Microsoft page.)

Although those other sites have set aside big chunks of their main page to helping out, we had a single line link, and now it's been removed.

A single line link, temporarily appearing at the top of the page. Not too much to ask.

No need to make precious little "slippery slope" arguments at a time like this.

Dante once said something to the effect that the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of peril.

I'm not an Admin, so I can't do much to contest this edit, but I'm hoping more Admins will realize how selfish it makes the users of this site look, that numerous commercial sites are being more generous with their web pages than we are.

We can go back to our petty squabbles later. Please restore the donation link if is within your power to do so.

— DV 23:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alchemy is not a belief

Per Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Alchemy. Alchemy is not a belief nor a religion, it was an early form of science. I would like to reach an agreement on this point before I start rv your rv of my changes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can I assume you have no objections to my argument? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question about emailed featured article

A while ago, I saw a link to get the featured article of the day wmailed to you. I went to look for that link and I cannot find it anywhere! Was the geature removed for some reason? Or could you point me to where I can get it? Sorry to bother you, but I could not find an appropriate place to ask the question and I noticed you edit the featured article frequently. Hope you can help me or point me to the correct place. Thanks. -- FrankH 04:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link was removed because nobody is sending updates to that list anymore. Once/if that changes, then the link will come back. --mav 05:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell - Kate set that feature up, and she's the one who maintained it. Since her departure, there hasn't really been anyone to take it over. With the holidays and whatnot, I haven't really had the wherewithall to try to find a replacement, but within the next couple weeks I'm going to advertise the reason and see if someone wants to take over. →Raul654 05:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Purple Heart award

Mark, I would like to remove the Purple Heart award from Wikipedia. Please see the discussion here.

I do not propose to remove it from those users who have already been awarded one, but I do not want to see it awarded in future. Thanks for your comments. Axl 11:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Malicious edits by admins to the Main Page

Since you started locking the featured article template on the main page, Neutrality has started reversing the quoting style from logical to conventional, in breach of the Manual of Style. I used to watch for such malicious edits and reverse them, but I cannot do so any longer. Do you have any suggestions about how to solve this problem? Any attempts to reason with the user himself are either ignored or deleted. —Wereon 17:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

So that's why all main page featured articles suddenly get written up into American English and all the AD/BCs converted to CE/BCEs! So much for Neutrality on an International encyclopaedia! jguk 18:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly this is nonsense. I've changed the grammar (quoting style) on the Johnny Cash article to American English because Johnny Cash is American. Likewise, I've left only the perfectly proper British English on the House of lords blurb. This bogus complaint stems from the strange British English fixation of a few users. Neutrality^talk 19:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration thought

You commented on Ciz/Proposed decision:

I'm a little worried about how much the word "closely" could be stretched. I can only think of one other article that this ban should probably cover, and that would be furry. So I'd be willing to ban him from those two articles, but I don't think we need to ban him from "its closly related articles".

I can see the sense in that. However, the concern is that Ciz attacks zoophilia and furry in articles which are not "closely related", for example, animal abuse or animal behaviour. So the intent isn't a ban on specific articles, so much as specific topics and subjects. In fact he's already POV edited Homosexuality in animals this way, which was clearly motivated by a link from Zoophilia and a contribution by FT2.

What about a ban on "Zoophilia or furry related articles, and any edits in other articles related to these subjects." And then leave it up to admins in any given case, which shouldn't be too hard. Can I suggest that? FT2 08:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Please move to the relevant Arbitration page if it should be there and not on your personal talk page. Apologies, Im not clear which is the right way to say it. Either way I hope it makes sense. - FT2)

Thanks for...

... picking up the ball on "Space Race".Sfahey 20:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading Image:Marconi.jpg. Seeing as he died in 1937, I assume that the photographer died before 1955, meaning that the tag should probably be {{PD-old-50}}, but I wasn't sure. Right now, it's {{unverified}}. Thanks, ugen 64 01:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meetup

Not to be overly mean or anything, but you didn't exactly give me much notice, if any. I already have plans this weekend so I will not be going. Mike H 16:09, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. I emailed Jimbo about it a couple weeks ago, but he was in Israel and apparently never got my email; so the planning didn't really happen until this week. →Raul654 16:20, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

You're perfectly welcome to meet me alone, when I'm not having plans. I have class from 12 to 3:30 on Monday. Mike H 00:10, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would take you up on that, but I'm going home Monday at the crack of dawn. →Raul654 06:02, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen

I could be seriously misreading Dr Zen's motives, but it seems to me that his current spate of edit warring on Clitoris may be a deliberate attempt to force a protection of the page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know. I saw it last night as it was happening. When one person takes it upon themselves to do that, it's better to block the individual than to protect the page - something which I was seriously tempted to do last night. If he does it again, I'll seriously consider blocking him. →Raul654 15:08, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Um, Schneelocke vprotected it anyway. Could we have it unprotected, please? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

I've done my best to comply with your request. Have a look. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:22, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my photography. Adam 08:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Link images

Thank you for pointing out the issue of Link's images in the Link article. I'm having problems editing the image pages right now (keep getting the 'we have a problem' page, etc...) but i'll fix those ASAP. I might have to replace one image (one I didn't do myself) because I am unsure where I found it Phils 21:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:WWII memorial wide.jpg

Hello Mark. You uploaded Image:WWII memorial wide.jpg, but it doesn't have any copyright tags. Could you add one? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 23:46, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's one of mine - now GFDL'd. →Raul654 23:56, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image tagging

On the subject of image tagging, I appologise for tagging one of yours incorrectly. --nixie 02:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted :) →Raul654 02:36, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back

Thanks! Just needed some time for other stuff (and the holidays). Jeronimo 11:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:L'Origine_du_monde.jpeg

Some people are arguing for the inclusion of this picture to accompany L'Origine du monde in the "Did you know"-section. I think it will break some policy. What is your view on this and can you point me to policy on such images on the main page? (MacGyverMagic not logged in) 131.211.210.157 12:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know if there's a specific policy against it, but common sense would say not to. I'm totally against censoring articles in any way (as my actions and comments on penis, clitories, vagina, 'etc have shown), but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to put images we know will offend some people on our most visited page. →Raul654 18:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Johannesburg

Mark, why have you made Johannesburg a featured article? According to the criteria it should not be one. If you are about to reply that the voting was for featured status, then my rejoinder is that the vote isn't good enough on its own: The criteria must be met. The vote is a necessary precondition but it is not a sufficient pre-condition for featured article status. Paul Beardsell 18:05, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul - Ambi's minor objection not withstanding, everyone besides you seems to think that this article meets all the criteria to be a featured article. →Raul654 23:13, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they can honestly believe that and they do not claim that: They support the featuring of the article but it seems to me patently obvious that they have not reviewed the article against the criteria. I had thought that whoever actually did the promotion to featured status would also do that review. The implication of your response is that you based your action on a vote count alone. We could write a bot for that. Paul Beardsell 23:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do skim the non-unanimous ones (reading all of them in their entirety would consume far too much time) and nothing struck me about this article as being particularly flawed. The prose is fairly good, it seems stable and comprehensive; it includes pictures where appropriate, and it has references (albeit it's a bit light on those), 'etc. I can't comment on factual inaccuracies as it is far outside my expertise, but on the whole it seems a good article. →Raul654 00:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Seems", possibly. One of the documented criteria for a featured article is stability. In the day or two before you promoted the article to "featured" large sections of the article had undergone a re-write. The votes could not have been on this greatly changed article. Another is accuracy: On the talk page the stats in the article were being disputed. I had had to fix some, others were dubious. Since the article has become "featured" many of the stats have been deleted as no source could be found (citations being mentioned as an important criterion) and another source has been shown to be questionable. The article is not comprehensive: Most of the suburbs listed in the suburbs section are predominantly white - this in a predominantly black city. Lenasia, Alexandra, Wynberg etc missing. In my view the article does not meet the criteria and a quick review of the Talk page and the edit history (50 edits in the 4 days prior to promotion) would have identified the "stable" and "accurate" issues. Paul Beardsell 01:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I was wondering if you had yet given the above remarks any consideration. Paul Beardsell 23:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I looked at the diff, and there have been some changes, but not so much as to make it "unstable" in my eyes (I wrote the requirement specifically to combat the current-events type nominations of articles that change 100% daily). It looks like normal post-FA turnover (even featured articles change after they have been promoted). If you really think it's below the featured article standard, you can nominate it on the featured article removal candidates in a few weeks (you're not supposed to nominate recently promoted articles), but, respectfully, I don't think you've made a compelling case for its removal. →Raul654 01:34, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, respectfully, there is more than a bit of post hoc justification going on here. The guidelines, written by you or not, do not read that way. Indeed, the guidelines themselves are more than specific enough to support my point. It was not stable enough, according to the guidelines. And the talk page noted areas of concern which were not being addressed, something to be checked, according to the guidelines. The article was not comprehensive enough, according to the guidelines. (Admittedly you were not necessarily in a position to recognise this last point.) The article is now somewhat improved but at the time you promoted it it was not good enough. That is my point and why I am addressing this on your Talk page and not at the article's own pages and FAC page. The process is flawed. Maybe not as documented but the documented process is NOT being followed. That the article is better now should not be cause for complacency. Had I not gotten involved we would now have a featured article which would be significantly flawed. Now, I have annoyed others with my sometimes intemperate attitude and maybe I annoy you now. I have even been criticised for claiming to have saved the article - the closest I have come to this claim is in this paragraph. And I recognise that improving the articles is what we are supposed to do - I recognise there is always room for improvement - perfection in a featured article is not what I am arguing for. BUT you are demonstrably complacent about what has happened here: A significantly flawed article was uncritically voted for featured status seemingly WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE GUIDELINES and it was promoted to that status AGAINST THE GUIDELINES, not following the process as documented. Either the guidelines must be changed or they must be followed. Not a controversial point, surely? Paul Beardsell 09:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is your Talk page. I am prepared to let you have the final word. Here. Paul Beardsell 07:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The guidelines say that a nomination needs consensus on the FAC to be promoted. I judged, when I promoted it, that the Johannesburg nomination had consensus (remember, consensus is not unanimity). At that point, the guidelines are satisfied. There are some cases where judging consensus is hard, but (if memory serves) this nomination was not one of them.

You say the guidelines were not met because you judge that that the article was unstable, inaccurate, and not comprehensive, but (at the risk of reiterating myself) most everyone else disagrees with you. I personally do not think it unstable (the changes you mention effectively amounted to a handful of paragraphs out of the entire article); your claim of inaccuracies was disputed on the FAC nomination page itself; and as I said above, I cannot respond to the claim of inaccuracies for lack of expertise - I do concede that this is possible, though.

Regardless, I think this case can be summarized simply by saying that the FAC regulars (the people who regularly comment on nominations) are highy reliable and accurate in their article appraisels - more so than I by myself. So when a large group of them support an article, I rarely go against that. Remember, consensus (as reguired by the guidelines) is not unanimity - there are times when I promote articles despite a few objections, and this case was one of them. As you yourself said, a featured article does not necessarily have to be 100% perfect, but representive of the high quality of articles we shoot for on Wikipedia.

And lastly, no, you do not annoy me - on the contrary, I welcome it when people question the process - it keeps me honest and on my toes. →Raul654 07:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

But you annoy me because you reply but the issues I raise continue not to be given proper consideration and you misrepresent what occurred. You are seemingly unwilling to properly consider what I have been saying earlier in this section and I assert strongly that this section on your Talk page demonstrates that clearly. I ask that you re-read what I have said. But to address your latest points:

No. Consensus might not be unanimity BUT for a reasoned consensus to be reached a discussion must be entered into - the raised issues must be addressed. They were not being addressed. This is obvious from the Talk page and the FAC page at the time you promoted the article. I cannot believe on the evidence that consensus was properly "judged" by you to have been reached. If I am right the article should not have been promoted.

No. "Inaccuracies" were being claimed but it was not necessarily for you to determine the validity of the claims but merely to note that they existed and that there was a prima facie case to answer which was not being answered. This was, I think, a trivial thing to determine. That should have been enough for you to delay article promotion. (What was the rush, anyway?) In other words: You need not be able to say whether something is inaccurate: Merely noting a number of material inaccuracies were being claimed is enough to prevent the article being promted.

No. You say a "large group" disagreed with me that the article was unstable, inaccurate and not comprehensive. I did not raise the issue of stability with the group as stability was not then an issue: The article became unstable after the vote but before you promoted it. Nobody disagreed about the factual errors I found. A non-large group voted in favour of promotion before my vote. I identified inaccuracies only after most people had voted. Despite this the article was promoted by you. After my vote a few people took umbrage at the way I said things rather than the accuracy of what I said. Any re-reading of the FAC page bears this out. It is not true for you to claim that "most everyone else disagrees with me" unless you take their silence to mean that. I could just as easily take their silence to mean they support me. Neither point is true: They neither agreed not disagreed with me on the ISSUES I raised. They did not disagree with me. They supported promotion, I did not. That does not mean we differ on the factual inaccuracies. If so they must be dissatisfied that many of these have now been fixed! But note the timeline: Many vote for promotion. I then vote against and identify inaccuracies and a lack of comprehensiveness. Some comment on my intemperate attitude and a poorly judged edit by me but other than that nobody disagreed with what I actually said. 50 edits ensue over two days immediately prior to your promotion of an OBVIOUSLY inaccurate and unstable article.

No. That the FAC "regulars" are highly reliable is a circular argument put forward by you. I say that (on this case at least) they screwed up. You say this you find unlikely because they are highly reliable. I say this begs the question. If you were to examine the evidence then you might conclude that the "regulars" are less reliable than you think.

No. Johannesburg was not, at the time you promoted it, an article "representive of the high quality of articles we shoot for on Wikipedia." Identifying it as such does Wikipedia a disservice.

You say that "The guidelines say that a nomination needs consensus on the FAC to be promoted. I judged, when I promoted it, that the Johannesburg nomination had consensus (remember, consensus is not unanimity). At that point, the guidelines are satisfied."' No, nonsense. At that point, if consensus had been reached, all you have shown is that ONE of the set of guidelines had been reached. The guidelines do not say that only one or some of the criteria need be met. It says ALL must be met. On this occasion you neglected, it seems to me, to check some of the criteria.

To precis my argument: The documented procedure for promoting this article to featured status was not followed. Had it been followed then Johannesburg would not have been featured.

Paul Beardsell 11:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) and Paul Beardsell 11:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Gzornenplatz

Gzornenplatz is still on parole, right? (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily) He was reverting the addition of a disambiguation link, marking it as minor, giving a wrong edit summary (format), and not commenting on it on the talk page a number of times related to Einstein (disambiguation) (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6]). I put a notice on his talk page, but did not block him. Just though you might want to know, as you were on the arbitration comitee. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 01:16, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, he's on revert parole and I guess he shouldn't have reverted your additions the 2nd time, but I don't think he should be banned for this. He would do well to discuss it first. →Raul654 01:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Given the extreme trouble saving Wikipedia had for a few days (which finally seems to be over today), I was wondering if you have/would consider giving some of the candidates that may not have had there objections addressed as quickly as normal due the saving problems a few extra days of consideration? Niteowlneils 20:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right, I'll be a bit more lenient when archiving failed nominations for the near future. →Raul654 23:14, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Hampton Roads

Hope you had a nice break in the Sunshine State. As a coincidence, yesterday afternoon, I was visiting a family member at MCV Hospital in Richmond, which virtually surrounds the former Confederate White House and the Museum of the Confederacy. While walking past, I paused (in the snow!) top clear off the bronze plaque and touch the anchor of the C.S.S. Virginia which is prominently displayed out front. I am a transplanted northerner, and maintain NPOV on the subject of the Civil War. However, with health issues at home, I don't get out too much these days, so tangible history (literally) felt kinda neat.

I spotted the improvements you made in this article. However, there were 2 resulting errors in the lead, which I took the liberty of revising. You may want to tweak further, but I felt sure you would be concerned about factual content.

1. The original name of the Confederate ironclad was Merrimack (with a "k"). This probably derives from the Merrimack River in New England near Boston where she was built in 1855. I have written a fair amount about the naming confusion. By the time of the Jamestown Exposition in 1907, it had been revised to lose the "k". However, during its existence, the ship apparently never had the name Merrimac.

2. Sewell's Point is on land. Hampton Roads is used to label both the water area and the surrounding land (talk about disambiguation!).

One a different subject, I spotted a box on someone else's User Talk page which makes it easy for visitors to enter a new message at the bottom of my talk page, where it is easier for me to find, and where it is less likely to alter earlier messages. It was easy to copy and edit for my Talk page. You might find it helpful. User_talk:Vaoverland

I hope the server (??) problems are corrected. I have been enjoying Wikipedia a great deal, and miss it when I can't get in. I have had good interaction with other editors/users and want to help continue to help make it grow. I like working on content for articles I am working on, but I try to make time to look over Peer Review and FAC areas, and comment where I feel it would be helpful, especially topics I have some understanding of. My financial resources are very limited, but I do spend a lot of time on-line. Please feel free to leave me a message if I can help in anyway. Yours in Richmond, Mark Vaoverland 22:57, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mark - good work on the Battle of Hampton roads article. I always like having someone check over my writing to make sure inaccuracies don't creep in. I expanded the introduction because I'm going to schedule it for the main page (it should be up in about a week) very soon.

As to the server issues, our devs are working on it. You can track their progress here. →Raul654 23:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I see the article is scheduled for January 26. One thought: would an internal link in the lead to the U.S.S. Monitor be a worthy enhancement, or it it aleady too late? On a separate note, I wish that the featured articles candidate page had a section for listing the recent promotions/failures. Its really hard to keep up with dispositions, and would make helping with the reviews, etc. a little easier and more pleasant. Perhaps this could be done easily, just a simple list, as I realize that this activity is already a great deal of work to review and maintain. I have marked January 26 on my calendar! Snow and freezing rain here, hope we don't lose power. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 22:44, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have made the appropriate change both in the article and in the main page blurb. Also, you can find lists of recently promoted articles either on Wikipedia:Goings-on, or linked to from the top of the featured articles page ("Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured article status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.") →Raul654 22:56, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for both the quick enhancement of the Battle of Hampton Roads lead section and the headsup on Wikipedia:Goings-on. I jumped into contributing content so quickly that I have failed to learn some of the WP basics. BTW, the IeSpell program suggested by other Wikipedians has been a godsend for me, as i have a typing transposition disability. I am going to try to cover some of the red internal links in the Hampton Roads article before Wednesday. Vaoverland 02:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Half-million pool

A request for unprotection for this page has been listed at: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I just thought to let you know. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wrong guy

Whoops! Looks like you got the wrong guy (see Special:Log/block). I think you blocked User:User:Vacuum, not User:Vacuum, so I've unblocked. If you want to block again, go ahead. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's actually because where it said username I typed "user:Vacuum" instead of just plain "Vacuum" - however, the way mediawiki works, I still blocked the right guy. If you check the block log, you'll see that about 5 minutes later, he got bounced. →Raul654 02:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email. Rick K 07:31, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

vandalism on Johnny Carson page

FYI, There seems to be a vandalism battle going on the Johnny Carson article. I copied the following from the talk page. Yours in richmond, Mark. Vaoverland 01:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) Something should be done about the persistent vandalism by 68.32.2.128. I don't know if we should protect the page, or what, but something should be done.--Fermatprime 01:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saddle-billed Stork

Will do, but probably not for 24 hours, got to go out now. Incidentally, I reverted your images for Sacred Ibis and (I think) White Stork since they were not in fact the species claimed. the first one was an American White Ibis Jim

I noticed. The white stork revert actually took place on stork (where any stork picture is acceptable), but that's all right. Thanks for writing the article. →Raul654 07:39, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, The stork wasn't you anyway, I've now restored the image for that with the correct caption jimfbleak 07:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gone

Why was Image:Lips-Moustache.jpg deleted? Just wondering, -- Infrogmation 20:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was one of mine, and I really, *really* didn't like it. So I removed it from the two articles it was present in and replaced it with two celebrity photos instead. →Raul654 20:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Afanous

You're so much more tactful than I am. :) Rick K 00:23, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Duck

Your image is of an adult White-faced Whistling Duck jimfbleak 06:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Advice

Hi. I've been contributing to a series of articles along with 3 other users. The articles are out of control. Several of them have been protected on more than one occasion, but to no avail. RFCs and RFAs against at least one of the users, and attempts at mediation with the same user, have also gone nowhere. Repeated requests for neutrality and cooperation on the appropriate talk pages have gone unheeded. The edit histories are a mess of reverts that light up my Watchlist every day.

In my opinion, the only solution is to remove all but the most basic, undisputable facts from the articles, lock them, and then have the users hash out any other additions on the talk pages, providing credible unbiased sources, before adding anything else to the articles. The articles would, of course, then have to be watched carefull to ensure that the same type of crap doesn't creep back in as it always has in the past.

My question is, does this seem reasonable or feasible, and how can this be initiated given that I'm a frequent editor of the pages and involved in a dispute with one of the other editors? There are at least three articles that would need this treatment, which I suggest since every other attempt at solving these problems has failed. Any suggestions? Thanks. Exploding Boy 21:38, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is not uncommon in situations like this to protect the page, and then work out a compromise version on a subpage, and then copy the subpage over the article once everyone agrees to it. To intiate it, if you want, I can look at the pages in question and revert to what I deem to be the last stable version and then protect them. That would give everyone involved incentive to discuss rather than revert. →Raul654 00:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Director

How did you become featured article director? Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it happened sort of by accident. In December, 2003, I came up with the idea of putting featured articles on the main page, and it was implimented in January, 2004 - as a simple list. About the same time, I became involved in the FAC process and reorganized the FAC page, trimmed the instructions, 'etc. The process became more organized and streamlined.

In February, 2004, the main page got the face lift and suddenly the featured articles were the most prominent articles on wikipedia. When it started, people were changing the article hourly, and I thought that that was insanity, so I went in and declared that it wouldn't be changed more than once every 24 hours, and I started doing the changes myself. At first, it was sort of a casual thing, but as the months went by, I guess I became the de facto director.

In August 2004, a certain troublesome user decided to challenge my de facto authority (he was temp-banned for it by Danny for edit warring on a main page template), and so someone else (I cannot remember who) called a vote to ratify my position. The result of the vote was almost unanimous, and I was ratified. And that's how I got to be featured article director. →Raul654 19:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's another mystery cleared up. Odd that I can find no reference to it whatsoever anywhere. Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for eavesdropping. Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/archive_2. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FA by email

I'm not sure if this is what you need, so I didn't add it to the subpage, but if you need somebody to send the emails manually, I'd be happy to send it daily, provided I have kate's script. 0:00 UTC is a convenient time for me, so I should be able to send it within the first 1/2 hour of the day consistently. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can get unix version of the script if you don't mind running it on a unix machine. Or, I asked, and Kate said she could probably modify it to work by itself (so presumably all you'd to do would be to copy and paste it into a web browser). →Raul654 00:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't laugh :P, but I'm using windows. If it only runs on unix, then I have a spare computer that I could install it on, but it would be much if I could just run it off my main computer. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I figured as much. So assuming she gets it working, all you would have to do is copy it from a web browser into an email client. →Raul654 01:03, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, looks like I missed that. If she gets that working, then I'd be happy to send it manually every day. Of course, there will be times that I'll be unable to (i.e. vacations), but I'll leave a message somewhere.

PS: Do you know Kate has any plans of getting her tools to work again? -Frazzydee|✍ 01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo and I discussed this in Tampa. Long story short - Kate's tools are written in Java. There are two Java virtual machines we could use - Sun's proprietary (IE, not free) JVM or an open source JVM. For philisophical reasons, we cannot use Java's JVM. Currently, the tools work on the open source one but they're "1000 times slower" than Sun's JVM. Jimbo thinks it might be a bug, so we're contacting the open source people to see if we can get them to fix their JVM. →Raul654 01:24, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

How to

Ok, I talked to Kate. Here's how to get the script working and start sending them to the list:

Download Sun's Java virtual machine (15 megs) and install
Download Kate's script (6 kb)
Open up the command line by going to start->run->command.com
Go to the directory that the script is in (in my case: cd desktop)
Run the script, and dump the output to a text file (java Mkfamail > mail.txt)
Copy the contents of the text file (mail.txt) into an email and send it to the list (daily-article-l at wikimedia.org)
Emails to the list have to be approved. You have to log into the mailing list software and click OK. I can explain this more later.

After the first time, you can skip steps 1 & 2. →Raul654 01:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, the txt file looks perfect :). Will my email be publicly shown if I send it to the list? I've been able to avoid all spam thus far, and I want to make sure it doesn't start. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your email address will be visible to everyone on the list. It will also be visible in the daily-l archives, but the archives are design to resist spam harvesters (by not using @ or the mailto tag)

Also, I'll have to give you admin powers on the daily-l list so that you can approve your emails (step 8). Daily-l-owner (which is already CC'd to my email address and presumably will be to yours) does get some spam - quite a bit less since it got taken off the main page. I can talk with the devs about setting up some kind of filter.

Also, one more thing I just noticed. Be careful when running the script if your computer is not on UTC time. My computer is on US eastern time, so when I run the script after 00:00 UTC but before 00:00 EST, I got the old featured article instead of the current one. It's also possible if you are ahead of UTC that you could get a newer featured article (IE, tomorrow's featured article before today's has been taken down). →Raul654 02:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony#Six_month_review

I'd rather not have anything to do with Anthony. Rick K 05:17, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly understand where you are coming from (trust me, you're preaching to the choir on this one), but I'd still like to keep the standing order in place, which means any evidence you can provide would be helpful. →Raul654 05:22, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Darwin's finches

I never mind requests, but in this case the only pictures I have are those in Finches and Sparrows by Clement, Harris and Davis, ISBN 0-7136-8017-2, which are obviously copyright. Sorry, jimfbleak 06:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

D'oh. →Raul654 06:22, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have a book about the old naturalists that might have something, but it will be this evening (UK) before I get a chance to look - i'll get back to you if i find anything. Jim

In case you wanted to know...

"The free encyclopedia" in Dutch is "De vrije encyclopedie." Scott Gall

Ok, I've added it to 50,000 category area on www.wikipedia.org page. →Raul654 10:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)