Misplaced Pages

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Misplaced Pages Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant.
This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

International Conference on Climate Change

The AfD that you cited (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) was about the NIPCC, which came out of the ICCC but is not the same thing. It was also a year ago and ended with no consensus and a "recommendation" to redirect. If you look at most of the non-keep arguments, they either claim that there is no notability or that there's no evidence that it's notable outside of the conference. This year's conference has been covered in many news outlets, as you can see here and in the large number of sources in the article, certainly enough to meet WP:N IMO. The other concern doesn't apply to this article because the conference clearly existed, was attended by numerous notable people in both science and politics, and was well-covered by sources. If you think this shouldn't be an article, another AfD is in order. Oren0 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as the message at the top of the page makes clear, there was no consensus to delete the article. There was, IMO, a pretty clear consensus to redirect it, although it was unclear what to redirect it to. As for the reasons, I'm seeing far more than a lack of notability outside the conference, such as:

• "may be to prone to POV problems" - Realkyhick
• "There is no evidence that the NIPCC even exists" - Kim D. Petersen
• "It does stink of a publicity stunt, and the name seems to be chosen to deliberately confuse " - Ioliver
• "a barely notable cheap trick to confuse people about who is speaking" - Dhartung

So clearly the reasons go beyond the lack of any media attention. As for this year's conference, simply re-running the same conference with the same names does not make it any more notable than it was last year. Raul654 (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fowler and fowler

I am fully prepared to take this user to ANI for purposeful disruption ala point violation. You can get a sense of it here.

Reason that AGF no longer applies: Would you like me to pick apart your "best FA" as well? You teach grammar to college students? In what language? English? Then (in addition to the howlers above) what explains: "I teach college students grammar?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Found here.

As you can see, the early life is mostly that original Johnson biography that was split off to make room for 30k of new text added weeks into the Johnson FAC after it already received a thorough copyedit by a lot of people. This was even stated at the top. Then he takes grammatically correct sentences and says that they are wrong without any proof? His own understanding of syntactical terms is completely wrong. For example "parallel structure" does not mean words in a list. It means multiple sentences in a row that connect to the same thematic pattern. (i.e. saying "Love is great. Love is gentle. Love is nice." is a parallel structure). Then he asks what meaning of "dominate" is used.

Well, I suspect that the user is not a native standard English speaker, especially when their contributions are mostly based on Indian culture and literature that show a direct experience. Regardless, it is clear from the comment before that he doesn't understand FAC and is disruptive. I am taking this to you because you are the FA director and that you deserve the chance to settle matters at FA before it goes to a place like ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a mo'. If you're considering taking Fowler&fowler to ANI, I think first a central discussion to FAC and how editors should handle opposes should be held. If it should be specifically about Fowler&fowler or rough FACs in general, I do not know. SandyGeorgia has recently clued in FAC admins to step in to sort out the chaff. If this needs to be done for Samuel Johnson's early life, then I'll be happy to do it on the FAC page. It looks like a lot of commentary you object to is on the talk page for the article. In that case, I suggest re-posting comments you find abrasive and striking through the irrelevant commentary, leaving the heart of the objection: e.g., "This awful article makes no sense and has clearly been written by a trained monkey. Get a copy edit and call me when you get some talent." Such wasted energy... This may boil down simply to your response: "No. I do not think your changes are wise. I will not change the article per your requests." And there you go. It puts pressure on the FAC closer (apologies, Sandy, Raul, and maybe Karanacs), and makes you fret that it will never be featured. That is the risk we take when we nominate articles we have pored over for weeks. I would recommend waiting 24 hours before refusing to make changes, however. I get so hot and I am so certain I am right and everyone else is wrong during an FAC that I need to take a pill and walk in the woods. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it, Moni3. With his directly attacking -me-, I put up the Johnson article because I knew that so many people copyedited the text that he wouldn't be able to find any real complaints. I could care less if Johnson's early life was passed now or in three months, and I have been sitting on it for a while now. However, it was in part to see if he is really here to troll. His oppose of it and his comments about it prove that he is. He is targetting me. Why? Who knows! Perhaps I opposed one of his pages before. It is obvious that he is, because he picked Johnson out of all the articles to review. Look at his contribs and you will see that he doesn't spend time as a FAC regular. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I may not get it. But I think I do. However, Fowler&fowler has started a thread at FAC. I think a comprehensive introduction to whatever problems you're having should be there. Apologies for the repetition, but here in this thread you've linked to three different locations. This thread is a fourth. It's already confusing. We should put it in one location to get as much input as possible to avoid it getting out of hand due to confusion. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the only location that I am dealing with it. The links above are to evidence of a behavioral problem that is unfit for FAC. I would like Raul's response as the director before I proceed in any direction. However, it seems obvious that with Fowler not reviewing FACs regularly yet reviewing mine in the exact same way is problematic, especially when one was obviously of such a quality and background to make his oppose laughable. If he has some vendetta against me or just felt like causing problems, who knows. But the behavioral patterns are obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, the discussion about your interaction with Fowler&fowler will be had without you, by your choice. Contentious FACs that require administrator intervention have been rare in the past, but they seem to be picking up. I do not believe most of the editors at ANI are aware of the intricacies of FAC. Therefore, the discussion should be at FAC. There are admins who know enough about article writing, who have gone through FACs and have reviewed them as well, who keep WT:FAC on a watchlist and can give their opinions on this. I believe their opinions are more relevant than admins who chase sockpuppets or deal with vandals mostly, such is the majority of what is found at ANI. Plus, FAC regulars will be able to tell if there are valid points amid objectionable language. It would not hurt to have learned opinions and sober advice from uninvolved editors. You have clearly asked Raul to participate. Let us help you out here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Moni, I am accusing a user of WP:POINT and WP:STALK. This doesn't concern the FAC process. It does concern the grounds of the FAC but not other reviewers or opinions about the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're accusing Fowler&fowler of. I'm pretty sharp. Will you accuse others who object to your articles? Could a user who consistently brings articles to FAC that are clearly not ready also go to ANI to ask for admin action because their articles are objected to? Worse, what if I remove or raise objections to an article three times in a row: am I stalking the user? Is it merely the objection to your article at FAC or the way it is being objected to? Does Fowler&fowler have any valid points? Are you so caught up in the stress of an FAC that you're being played like a cheap violin? Are you hoping for a topic ban or an Ottava Rima-nominated article topic ban? Won't it seem as if you are silencing your critics with this heavy-handed move, when the object of an FAC nomination is to improve the article as much as possible? These are hypothetical questions. This is not: what is it you think or hope someone at ANI is going to do? It's my view that these are fine issues more suitable for the regulars at FAC to sift through. I cannot stop you from taking it to ANI, but I think that is an unwise move and you will be worse off than before. I think the most constructive way to handle this, for you, the article, and the FAC process, is in a central location, with input from multiple experienced editors. I wish you the best of luck on it, though. --Moni3 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - A user comes to a page that has one of our great FAC editors and accuses them of having the worse prose and didn't bother to read past the lead. They then attack me, claim I don't know English, and say that they will tear apart the language of the Johnson page. Then they make the same basic argument, oppose over a page they didn't bother to read, and demand a copyedit when there were already dozens of our best copyeditors at the page last year to check the language. That is beyond any action that a "good faith" reviewer would take. I already have over 2 dozen people who believe that his actions were inappropriate the first time, and many others who wewre there when I discussed putting this page up at FAC to see how he responds found him to respond exactly as we predicted if he was here just to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Antiparallel net force.jpg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Misplaced Pages over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Antiparallel net force.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Misplaced Pages has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please reply

Please reply to my post at Orchestrated?. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good decision, Raul

I'm delighted that you've appointed another delegate to share what is an arduous load. Well done. Tony (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

For what its worth, this was a sound close. It was going downhill. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar

Raul, I was out with a medical appointment almost all day yesterday; I'm going to start through FAC now, Sunday (just so we won't edit conflict). I'll be out again all day Tuesday, so that may be a good day for Karanacs to get her feet wet for the first time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul, Museum of Bad Art, a 4/1 contender, is now promoted. I know U.S. Route 491 also planned to contend for 4/1, although the humor potential there escapes me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this: User:Davemeistermoab/U.S. Route 491 - main page blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. 491 used to be U.S. Route 666, and odd things happened because people associate 666 with the Number of the Beast. I prefer the Museum of Bad Art myself. Royalbroil 01:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The main page blurb is being worked on on the talk page for Museum of Bad Art. If you want something edited in the blurb: don't like something, or would rather see elements of one in antoher, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For March 16 Dispatch

Rough outline only, needs more eyes: Misplaced Pages:FCDW/FACFARdelegates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Raul, I wanted to ask your opinion on a issue that is holding up the RCC page from evolving toward FAC again. We are currently in mediation over use of the word "officially" in the lead sentence. Some editors say that both Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church are official names of the Church. Fifteen other editors and myself have disagreed with this argument because there are no good sources to support that suggestion and several expert sources that support only Catholic Church. The opposers have cited the website of the Church in Hawaii that uses the name "Roman Catholic Church in Hawaii" as the legal copyright on this website as evidence that Roman Catholic is an official name. I wrote to the Diocese of Hawaii and received an email from a very top official of that diocese who gave me a detailed explanation not only of the Hawaii diocese's name but also of the official name of the Church and why they used the term "Roman Catholic" in the web page copyright. I think this email could clear up a lot of misconceptions being tossed around at mediation and I want to know if this can be uploaded somehow and somewhere on Misplaced Pages to provided official guidance for Misplaced Pages users. Please let me know. Thanks. NancyHeise 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just type up the text. We'll take your word that you are not lying about the contents of the letter. And FWIW, I'm sure you're right - their definitive book is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic church. Raul654 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't doubt the truth of the above for a moment, but just amusing that when reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, everyone seems to be "In one holy catholic and apostolic Church" or believes in "the holy catholic Church". Came across that in the Piskies, but just about all the Christian churches seem to do the same. . dave souza, talk 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Raul, I'll post it to the talk page of Catholic Church, the author gave permission to use his name and title but requested to keep his email private. If anyone wants to verify they can just contact him by calling the diocese or emailing him via the published email on their website. NancyHeise 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Concert Singer sketch

Quick work! I scoured the commons for that, to no avail. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

If the article keeps improving at its current rate, it might be worth shooting for FA status in another month or so. Raul654 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Video help

I uploaded a video of Modified racing that I converted from AVI format to OGG using ffmpeg2theora. For some reason, the audio doesn't come through. I've done this before (here) but I don't remember how I did it. I know this wasn't the way. My O/S is XP. I've read Misplaced Pages:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files. You can respond here on your talk page. Royalbroil 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it! I used MediaCoder and everything works. Royalbroil 11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

shmeat

Hi , Stephen Colbert on the The Colbert Report discussed something he called shmeat, and it’s a meat that is grown in a lab from real meat cells, so seeing that you made a redirect for shmeat to mock meat I thought you should check it out and maybe create a page about it.

See Colbert discussing it here its the second part of the show

Bloger (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the interview - that's why I created the redirect. :)

Shmeat is a meat analogue, that's why I redirected it. There's no sense in having two articles on the same thing. Raul654 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So why not at least a section about this specific Meat analogue?

Bloger (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

I would like to nominate Protonk for a Common Sense Brick for this comment on why arguments against promoting admins because of the number of existing admins are needlessly destructive. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging suspected socks

Hi, I'm going to have to ask you to stop tagging users as suspected socks of JarlaxleArtemis, because consensus was reached at an MFD to stop doing so. Could you delete the userpages for the users on this list ? Thanks--DFS454 (talk) 21:07 ,20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - it's a habit I've gotten into with other users, but I'll try to remember to make an exception in his case. Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on TFA

Hi Raul654, and thanks for the work you do for Today's Featured Article ! I was pleasantly surprised to see First-move advantage in chess reaching the Main Page today. Unfortunately, due to my brain having taken a week off, I was not able to find out the discussion on its nomination, despite one hour of search in various edit histories of Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 2009, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/pending and a few others. Could you please tell me on which page (even if it is only in the edit history) I can find the discussion about its nomination ? Thanks in advance ! SyG (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak for Raul, of course, but I do help out quite a bit on the TFA/R page, and can tell you that community nominations make up probably only about a third of the articles used on the main page. The remainder are selected by Raul directly. The chess article did not come through TFA/R and was selected directly by Raul, so there is no discussion to find. Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK, I see. Thanks for the explanation ! SyG (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Albert Kesselring.jpg missing description details

File:Adolf Galland.jpg missing description details

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Misplaced Pages Loves Art and upcoming projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cross-keys

Hello, this editor has come up with an unblock request, claiming he's on one of the ranges you blocked against Tile Join. Would you mind taking a look at things to see if anything can/should be done? Thanks! Hersfold 23:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on his talk page. Raul654 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiAtlas

Why aren't you interested in developing our own WikiMapia system? Wouldn't a WikiAtlas sister project be useful to wiki media? Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested, but it is not up to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did mention it at the Meta Wiki before but any discussion seems to get overidden with other discussions underneath and in the end it ends up being only two or three people commenting on it! I think that a WikiAtlas sister project would be a great idea and whereas with WikiMapia it is just a map with names, our own Atlas project could have the articles on wikipedia wiki linked on the atlas or at least a summary comes up when you hover over a place name etc so we take the maps a step further by actually providing information about these places by linking to wikipedia. Like WikiMini Atlas but obviously more professional looking maps and details, showing highways, towns and villages, evne landmarks like notable govenrment buildings and churches, airports etc with labels like wikimapia when you zoom in on them. It would also fit in with standard encyclopedias which always have a proper atlas for reference usually in the center. I just thinking that the information provided on maps should be part of our overall project goal to provide knowledge and the goal which WikiMapia is trying to achieve, "with the aim of describing the whole world" is pretty much our own philosophy within reason. I think the wiki project is large enough in scope to make it successful eventually. I know a great deal of people look for maps on the web of places for a reference but where we could differ from google and wikimapia in this respect we would have info summarised about these places too rather than just location. If given time to develop it might even help generate more traffic towards the site and project in the long term if more and more people use it for a reference when looking for maps too. I would very much like to help make something happen in this area, could you mention it to anybody on the board or suggest how we might start a fuller discussion on it? Thanks. Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are genuinely interested could you please mention it or suggest a way we can work towards making it happen? Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:MGM hat.jpg

File:MGM hat.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Sorcerer Hat.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Since you have chosen to protect your WP:ATTACK page, please add a section there on vandalism and include this reference. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Miss Amelia Van Buren

--Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:TFAR

I have to admit I'm seriously surprised at how oddly this process is handled - I was told, in all seriousness, that because there are other music articles on pop music that an article on an opera does not count as underrepresented, for instance. (!!!) So what on earth does count as under-represented? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, yes. Because there are more than fifty articles in the WP:FA music category, it does not count as underrepresented for TFA/R purposes. That is just the way the rule has been for the almost a year I've been involved there. Change needs to come from WT:FA, I think. If they changed the categories, TFA/R would follow along. I'm sorry if I've been hard on you, but I try to apply an evenhanded approach to evaluationt points. Your mileage may vary.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But there's only 9 featured articles on all of classical music. I find this claim that because pop music has been featured classical music isn't underrepresented ridiculous. Why should anyone try to counter systemic bias in FA, when that bias will be used to belittle their efforts? That has to be the most half-arsed definition of diversity ever considered. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is why you get the bonus point for no similar articles. You don't see me saying that your article is similar to athe band or pop singer articles you get on a regular basis? The points are two different things. To encourage the small categories, and also to bring in neglected areas. If you want to separate out classical music, really, you should propose that on the FA talk page. The rule basically transcludes those categories over to TFA/R and we don't have discretion in applying them, we just count the number of articles in the category the article was assigned to, over fifty no points, less than 50, a point.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seems an odd way of handling things. It's not going to promote any real diversity, such as, say, articles on African history or other systemic bias issues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The real test is in the voting anyway. Regardless of points, people hesitate to replace an article with a long list of supports. And it is only community recommendations, we count on Raul to fill in the blanks and make things diverse. Incidently, we are running an African history article in 3 days, which had broad support. If you bring in an odd article, people love it, look at the stream article right now! I don't think the system is perfect, but we've had things stable for months, and allowed Raul and SandyGeorgia to focus their limited time elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

FA categorization of Warfare

Hi Raul. Sandy and I noticed that the warfare category of FAs has reached over 200 articles. We've started a discussion on whether the category should be subdivided. I've invited the WP MilHist coordinators who are active at FAC to weigh in, and, of course, we need your opinion. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:FA#Warfare.3F. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a "Good God Y'all" category that corresponds with "What Is It Good For?" Placement of articles in either category should be decided by one of those 26-sided die used in Dungeons and Dragons. --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Revolution review

How does two weeks from now sound for a review draft for The Misplaced Pages Revolution? Since there will be multiple reviews, I suggest taking a particular focus and/or a personal approach rather than an exhaustive evaluation. Length would be up to you, but I suggested the ballpark of 400-1000 words to Durova and Steven Walling.--ragesoss (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think two weeks should be possibly. I'm about 60 pages in at the moment. Raul654 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hello! Your submission of Matsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (the same template everyone else gets) Art LaPella (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the semi on Kenneth Pinyan. I'd been considering requesting that for a while, but never quite got around to it. At this point it seems unlikely that there's much verifiable information which isn't already in the article. (Surprise of the day: It gets around 1000 hits per day on average.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

Note: WP:3RR. Since my edit was good, I think you are trying to get me to undo a second time again. --Chuck (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was not good, for reasons that have already been explained on the talk page. The fact that you have been reverted twice by two different admins in the span of just a few minutes should hopefully illustrate this fact. Raul654 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ain't

"Ain't no such thing" is equivalent to "Is not no such thing." Ain’t means aren’t, isn’t, or am not.--Chuck (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ain't No" is an idiom. It cannot be further parsed into constituent words, which is exactly what you are (wrongly) trying to do. That is why the dictionary gives exactly the opposite meaning that you do. And I trust the dictionary a lot more than I trust your word on the subject. Raul654 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Raul, I'm going to talk to Marskell; can you hold off on decisions for a bit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Raul654 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say give it a day or two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing RfB

Looks like it all worked just fine - I must have just done the promotion seconds before you! Warofdreams talk 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate?

You OK with this? Just checking. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul appointed me as an FAC delegate a few weeks ago . I don't think most people have noticed yet - good catch :) Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I wasn't sure what Rick was taking issue with. Yes, Karanacs is the new Sandy :) Raul654 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just call me Sandy, Jr. ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Below the belt

I have no opinion on whether the blocking of LaraLove constitutes a funny or appropriate joke, but you should really be ashamed for this completely gratuitous ad hominem sideswipe. The user in question expressed a great deal of sincere (and very public) soul-searching and regret for the "white pride" remarks, and for you to dig it up--over a silly April Fool's joke--is petty and cynical. Consider that your prominent position on the project might require a certain level of class and dignity.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, Fat Man, and I've taken it to heart Raul654 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That was good of you. After posting the above, I re-read the rather hostile comments LaraLove had written that provoked your reply and understand why an equally hostile reply might have seemed warranted at the time. Still, my larger point was that it reflects badly on the project when its most prominent members--who hold official capacities--are not held to higher standards of (for lack of a better word, considering that we are unpaid volunteers) professionalism than loudmouths such as myself (God knows I've engaged in some vicious ad hominem stuff in the past). Thanks for responding.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I am quite concerned. You say you've taken it to heart, but have you directly apologized on her talk page? Something oblique hidden in an AN/I thread might not be the best way to go if you truly are sorry you synthesized that rather outrageous collection of things. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I did apologize to her, both privately in IRC and publicly on AN, and I meant it. Given her latest rantings on WR, however, she was apparently being duplicitous about the whole thing (Raul said we agreed to bury the hatchet. Too bad he failed to realize that I meant I wanted to bury it in his skull.) I can only hope she wasn't also lying about retiring. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back just for you. April Fools'! Yea, I read your message in full when I got back from a dinner party tonight. Your synthesis was absurd and shameful. You can peg me for whatever legitimate issues you can dig up. Trust, there are plenty, but that was just beyond inappropriate. Our IRC conversation was a joke. You weren't even consistent and you completely misrepresented your original ANI post. You still don't see how you caused the drama by posting as you did the first time, much less the second; and continue to claim that by merely requesting a block, I've caused all this drama. By your own comments, my prank was within your acceptable standards. So it makes no sense.

You should not be in a position of power. You've abused that power in the past in a situation this all too closely mirrors, and you knew when you posted your bullshit libel that you could get away with it, just like SWAT did, because of your position of power. If a lowlier editor had done that, they would be blocked right now, or, at the very, very least, they would have been lashed down by countless people in an ANI thread created solely to discuss the appropriate punishment. Policies on this project are unevenly enforced, and one of the most frustrating ones for editors is the shoddy and inconsistent enforcement of the stupid civility policy. Blocks are handed out in the name of CIVIL for the most petty crap, yet people like you can violate it and NPA is the most vulgar ways and get nothing but a little note on your talk page. No matter how nasty I may have been, justifiably or not, you had no right whatsoever, under any circumstances, to pull that card. You flat out fabricated and synthesized. You dug up year-old drama with the sole intent of stirring up drama. You, Raul, are beyond a shadow of a doubt, a hypocrite that can't see his own reflection standing before a mirrored wall. You are everything you denounce. Not only should you be ashamed of yourself, but so should everyone that let you get away with it, just like the same situation that went down last year. لennavecia 04:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I'm really sorry about this - as you may know, I have health issues (feel tired a lot of the time), and one of my bad periods came just as this opened. =/ I'm trying to get in and deal with it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your health comes first. If you're not feeling well, please withdraw the nom, take as much time as you need, do whatever you need to do to get healthy, and then come back to it later. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

TFA

Just a reminder - if this isn't updated by midnight today, there will be no TFA tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. I had to schedule out a bit further because I'll be in Dallas Friday through Sunday. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry to second-guess you, but it was at April 2nd back when I suggested Agrippina on March 25th, and it was getting a little worrisome to see it hadn't moved since then. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Traumatic insemination

I just stumbled across Traumatic insemination, and wanted to say; nice work on improving it - it's an interesting article. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I studied that in my parasite biology course, and think you've done a great job. I've nominated the picture for FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article April 2

um what were you thinking? putting that grotesque picture there for everyone to see? That sort of thing is not called for you probably offended millions of people today. unless i am mistaken it traces back to you. You should at least apologize for it on the main page discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.105.120 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who picked that picture for the main page. It was in the queue for a week, and no one complained. And, despite the complaints from some people today, I see nothing wrong with featuring that picture on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Raul. Horrifying is sometime a good thing: It raises awareness, for one. That's the wwhole reason those images were released: To make it clear such things could happen, and that care and vaccination is necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Musopen

I've just noticed the huge list of sounds marked "Musopen has requested in-line attribution in any article this file is used in."

I'm not sure we should be doing this at all, and if so the wording should be changed. Currently, most if not all in-article instances say "courtesy of musopen". This is not really the case. Since the works are in the public domain, we could publish them with or without their courtesy. If we want to link to them to promote the cause of their operation, this should be decided separately, and is probably something of a WMF thing; but if we give them attribution in the guise of some requirement on their part, this is cause to question the validity of the public domain status.

It's worth noting that Musopen themselves are only a repository for this kind of material and didn't create any of it. Their only role is in helping us find it, and possibly providing the first means of downloading the material. The same could be said of Obama's oath of office were it sourced from YouTube, for example. If attribution is given, it needs to be a much more conscious decision to support this website's cause. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)

Goddamn. We spend weeks trying to get this prepared for the main page so that there will be something up for the 250th anniversary of Handel's death, but all our points get argued away (no, you can't celebrate a 250th anniversary with one of the person's works and get any points beyond 1 for it... no, just because it's only the third opera FA doesn't make it underrepresented in our crazy moon logic - so it gets replaced.

WP:TFAR leaves me with nothing but a bad taste in my mouth. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that way, and I regret I was wrong when I said that people would hesitate to remove a heavily supported article. The page is running extremely smoothly at present, with minimal intervention from Raul or Sandy. The whole point of TFA/R is to make Raul aware of articles he might want to use in making his decisions on what articles he wants to run. Mission accomplished, if that can still be said without a wry glance at Bush.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If the point is to show Raul options, why put a hard limit of 5? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul set that rule. Five at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Matsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters

iiitttsssss Johnny.

Barstoole --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More fishing? I guess anyone who mentions livestock and global warming in the same post will automatically get a WP:CheckUser now? Want to take bets on how Raul will come down on this when he renders his "finding"? I think I see a pattern forming here. Quite the little operation you have going here. Very efficient. --GoRight (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)