Misplaced Pages

User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:01, 3 May 2012 view sourceUcuchaBot (talk | contribs)Bots5,146 edits Bot edit: Notice that South Side, Chicago will appear as today's featured article in the near future← Previous edit Revision as of 23:33, 3 May 2012 view source TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers400,444 edits →South Side, Chicago: ceNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 546: Line 546:
</blockquote> </blockquote>
] (]) 23:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC) ] (]) 23:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

::I see that you have scheduled ] for the main page on May 5. Personally, I would prefer that this run on the main page on a day that is meaningful to the South Side like the annual ]. Is it possible to delay this until August 11. In addition, this is barely a week after ] had ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 23:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:33, 3 May 2012

For your tireless work in making Misplaced Pages better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Misplaced Pages: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


Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Barnstar for the South Park TFA

The Original Barnstar
For putting up Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as TFA despite the flames. meshach (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
...and for resisting the temptation to say what I would've in your position. —WFC— 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Seconded. Keep up the good work, Raul. —David Levy 01:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

Thank you for adding the sound file (which I shall now go and listen to with much pleasure). I have juggled it and the two nearby pictures around slightly, which leaves all three files adjacent to relevant text. Tim riley (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've schedule it to appear on the main page in three days.
Your future reference, the way I got the song was extremely simple - youtube now allows you to search for CC-licensed works and there's an online youtube-to-ogg converter here. SO if you happen to be editing music articles, now it's very simple to find music to add to them. Raul654 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I say! That search and converter facility sounds really excellent. Thank you so much for letting me know, and I'll look out for other sound files for future articles. I've copied and pasted your message above to my "How To" cheat-sheet. More power to your elbow! Tim riley (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggested a few minor changes to your write-up Raul. See if you like them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Nate emergency intro

Hey Raul, I've tried to update the new TFA for MOS but it has two dead links, I wonder if (in future), you should have a reserve FAC which is always ready to go and top notch? I'll try to fix those links, although Norwegian isn't by first (or second or third .... or fifty-third language).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about doing that before. What I could do is put a note on TFAR that in the event of serious problem X, to go ahead and use article Y. And then some definition about what kind of events would qualify. Raul654 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's worth having one in your pocket, this one is a tiny bit ropey, I can't find an easy replacement for one of the two deadlinks yet. Will go over the text shortly. Will this now just run until midnight UTC today? Is that a precedent? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it will only be on the main page 7 hours. Admittedly that's a bit unfair to the article's authors, but I figured that there are many, many hurricane FAs and this wouldn't greatly impact the supply. Raul654 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem unless it's another TFA precedent (like SOPA-day!) in which case I guess we'll need to be prepared for a "why wasn't this checked for copyvio before TFA" dramaz. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I've had to switch one out mid-day. In those cases, the replacement article always stayed for less than 24 hours. The current situtation is just following those precedents.
The SOPA blackout was different from those other situations because I knew the blackout was coming days ahead of time. Raul654 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, no problem, just trying to avoid more drama as we've seen more than our fair share over the past few days. On Nate, I've done my best to remove dabs, ensure external links are live etc, hopefully no further issues. But as I said, always worth having an FA or two in reserve, probably a couple of recent ones which have undergone recent scrutiny per WP:WIAFA so there's less work to do to make sure they're fit for main page. Also, do you (semi-)protect main page FAs? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
(1) FYI, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/emergency was created in November 2011; it's linked at the top of WT:TFAR but perhaps a few more links around the place would be helpful. (2) TFAs are move-protected only, usually. WP:SEMI says that the TFA "may be semi-protected just like any other article. But since this article is subject to sudden spurts of vandalism during certain times of day, administrators should semi-protect it for brief periods in most instances." Bencherlite 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh Bencherlite, you spoil us... Maybe Raul wasn't aware of that (I certainly wasn't but I'm a real TFA-noob) however it seems like a good idea... After I asked about the TFA protection I realised how silly it was, the FA itself will be open to "editing" but the TFA blurb (I assume) will be protected. Same as the stuff I'm used to at TFL. I'll learn one day how this place works. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You're doing very well for a newbie, TRM. Keep it up and someone might nominate you for admin. The TFA blurb is cascade-protected like TFL blurbs, as you worked out. Bencherlite 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the emergency TFAs page. It looks like it was created by Wehwalt and edited by almost no one else. About the TFA blurb and protection - the blurb is automatically cascade protected 24 hours prior to hitting the main page. Until then, anyone can edit it. Raul654 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, perhaps we can keep one or two historic (klaxon: easy) FAs in the wings just in case we have a sudden issue like today. Nate is a weak FA and hopefully we could do better in future, especially if we have a process in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am probably going to designate a few pre-written emergency blurbs (I just might make the page Wehwalt created official). I'm more concerned with the specifying the conditions under which they are to be used (by someone other than me). There are some conditions I can think of where anyone with the applicable bits can do it (like, for instance, Dabomb and I fail to schedule an FA, as happened last Thanksgiving); there are others (like today) where judgement is needed and I don't want to throw open the door. Once the RFC closes (dear lord is it ever going to close?) I'll probably open up a discussion on WT:FAC about this. Raul654 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, opening up a possibility of "replacement TFA" is serious and useful. However, the "anal probe" would have been replaced/re-replaced/replaced/edit-warred etc for the whole day which would clearly have Misplaced Pages look fucking stupid (as it South Park would put it). So the emergency reserve of benign FAs is useful but there needs to have a careful consensual way of instigating it. Only 55,000 people bothered to click on it anyway, (which was less than the featured list the day before, Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award), so perhaps (no, inevitably it is) a storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be important to stipulate that concerns regarding subject matter (excepting those related to unfortunate timing, in which case only rescheduling is required) explicitly do not justify pulling an article. —David Levy 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
If I do go forward with the backups idea, I will define when a change is permissible affirmatively and with no exceptions. Something along the lines of "You may change it only under the following circumstances..."). Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


FYI Raul, I should be back in business this weekend. Sorry for the extended absence. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, glad to have you back on board. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on when to edit File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg following new legislation/court-rulings

Hello, I have noticed you made edits on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg and/or File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg/Archive 5, so I am contacting you to take part in a newly-formed discussion at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg as for whether we should update the map directly when a new legislation or court-order hits the books or if we should wait until said action takes effect. Historically, we have been updating the map when the new legislation is signed (or veto overrode or won at the ballot box, etc.), and thus it can be inferred that the consensus is to update as soon as one of those occurs. A discussion has emerged in regards to whether we should begin updating from the effective date instead of from the date of signing/etc. If you have an opinion over this matter please post it at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#When_to_update_map.3F_Effective_date_or_signing.2Fruling_date

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Article split and renaming for Cordoba House and related controversy

Hi, Raul. Were you going to get back to me on the splitting off of the Ground Zero controversy from the Park51 article? So far, no one has objected, although one new user asked me, "Can you explain?" on my talk page. Do you have any comments, or any reason I shouldn't continue with my idea of moving the controversy page to Ground Zero mosque controversy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've left you hanging on that one. I don't agree with the proposed split on the grounds that I don't see much difference between the two. I said I'd try to round up some other comments on it once the RFC got closed, which just happened a few hours ago. I'm about to head off to bed, but I promise I'll look at the article tomorrow and get some more eyeballs on it. Raul654 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

I saw from this edit that you promoted Turning Point (2008) to Featured Article status. I thank you for doing this, it really made the 4 reviews worth it.--WillC 09:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadji Ali

Hi Raul. I was pleasantly surprised to see you had chosen Hadji Ali for the Main Page so quickly. I am not complaining and don't want it to lose its place in line for no purpose. I just wanted to broach the possibility that it might make a good April Fool's Day feature, as suggested at the FAC by Mark Arsten. Since you would make that decision as well, or so I imagine, I thought I'd let you know about that idea so you could choose whether to hold it back if you think so too.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I choose the April Fools article based on what I think is the funniest and/or most outlandishly unbelievable blurb. I can't really say how funny Ali would be without seeing such a blurb, but I think it's definitely got potential. So yes, I think it might be worth holding it back. Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to see where past blurbs were posted for April Fools Day to gauge where they might be this year, but failed. I checked March 29, 2011 at WP:TFA/R and the various archives of Misplaced Pages:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article/Archive YEAR. Anyway, I took a stab at writing a blurb.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadji Ali (c. 1888–92 –1937) was an Egyptian vaudeville performance artist famous for throwing up in front of audiences throughout Europe and the United States. Ali would swallow and then spew nuts, water, handkerchiefs, smoke and even live mice with a panel from the audience invited on stage to verify he was the vomiter extraordinaire he claimed to be. His best known stunt, and the highlight of his act, was first regurgitating kerosene onto a metal model castle or house and then extinguishing the flames produced with imbibed water, expelled by him from up to six feet away from the blaze. Although never gaining wide fame, Ali's gustatory gushing garnered him a gratifying gathering of groupies on the vaudeville circuit in the United States. Ali purged for heads of state, including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Judy Garland and David Blaine each gushed about Ali, whose bilious act was captured in the short films Strange as It Seems (1930) and Politiquerias (1931), the Spanish language version of Laurel and Hardy's Chickens Come Home. Ali's ability to hurl on cue led to rumors that the Rockefeller Institute had offered a large sum of money to obtain his stomach post-mortem. After he died in England his body was offered to Johns Hopkins for study, though the offer was declined. (more...)

MSU Interview

Dear Raul654,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Misplaced Pages administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Sincerely,


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Kardashian for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Kardashian is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Kardashian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Would like your thoughts

Hi. Haven't talked with you in awhile I know, but I have something I wanted to ask your thoughts on.

Before I go on (so that my intent is not miscontrued by any) I suppose I should note some positive things from the past, like how I supported you for director when the position was first created, or this for another example : )

Let me share my perception of something with you, and I'd like you to help clarify some things (and possibly show me where I may be mistaken, and maybe help look towards what can be done for the future).

From what I can see, the "featured article" concept has a noble aspiration. Getting pages to a point where a certain consensus feels that they are very encyclopedic. Something to show off and say: "Look we really do have some great things on Misplaced Pages!".

But it is not without its problems. First and foremost is that this is a wiki, which means constant editing. The FA process seems to be creating a situation where editors possessively ("featured articles that I created/worked heavily on.") constantly revert well meaning editors simply because they add anything without a reference. This to me is very un-wiki.

And when asked - "I'm protecting my featured article so that it doesn't get delisted at FA".

This is very very bad in my opinion.

The FA process itself has become a sort of awards system. Another "I win at the wiki" thing. And while it's great to try to motivate using the fallibility of human nature, again it really looks like to me that it's fostering situations which are very un-wiki here.

Problems like WP:OWN first and foremost. Biting well-meaning newbies who only want to be helpful. The process itself creating a walled garden of sorts. And finally, on a wiki the pages are never "done" yet the FA process suggests that once reviewed the page is "done" (there have been those even supporting protection of the page at that point - I think I have myself on previous occasions).

And the insidiousness of it is that these FA contributors/protectors can fairly be well meaning and sincere themselves, thinking that this is how one should act in such situations.

I know that these concerns are nothing new. And I know that this can be a sensitive topic for those who sincerely work so hard and diligently, but I seriously think that the problems have been happening repeatedly, and it would be nice if we could rise up out of this vicious circle.

I have intentionally not added diff examples. For one thing, the diffs would go back as long as the FA process has existed. For another, calling out just a few examples isn't fair to those people, especially since (as I mentioned) I'd like to believe that the failing was human nature, and mostly abetted by the environment that we created through these processes (plural). And finally because I have no doubt whatsoever that you're aware of this problem, and don't need any examples to discuss them : )

So having attempted to broach the subject with you, what do you think? How can we move forward and get past this? I sincerely don't think we want a replay of the Esperanza situation (another very well meaning process - that I liked a lot - that was apparently problematic in how it was organised/conducted, creating unwiki situations). - jc37 17:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

<peanut gallery> The better an article is—the more comprehensive, more logically organized, more thoroughly and reliably sourced and more polished its text—the harder it becomes to make an edit that should remain. That's not ownership, that's maintaining quality standards. I am not saying that there aren't times when edits to FAs aren't reverted for pure ownership reasons but that happens across all articles. This is of course anecdotal, but I have edited quite a few FAs both while logged in and more often as an IP, even while on the main page, and I've only been reverted a few times. Those few reverts were for reasons I would characterize as legitimate bases (even if a few I disagreed with). Also of course, I was not writing in broken English and (I hope and was attempting) with a high level of polish, nor was I removing or breaking citations or adding unsourced content and so on, which brings us right back to my first point. Is it really ownership? Or is it the result of the legitimate scrutiny that should accompany edits to a very high quality article? You purposefully said you were not providing diffs, and I am not your target audience, but given my experience, I would need to see a true pattern shown across many articles (not just reverts but pretty clearly bad faith reverts) to be convinced of the ownership issue. As to biting, are you talking about the revert itself being the biting act, or some accompanying harsh edit summary, because it's axiomatically impossible to revert someone without reverting them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm one of the peanuts... Everything at Misplaced Pages can be, and has been, misused. Are you sure you are seeing a genunine problem, or a one-off case where there is a misguided editor? If any established editors noticed someone protecting "their" article and inappropriately showing ownership issues, the problem would very quickly be resolved (I have seen cases where passers-by have taken a quite extreme position of opposing the one or two editors who built an article simply because the passers-by interpreted some comment as an OWN violation). One article I am familiar with is Shakespeare authorship question which has been subjected to a lot of POV pushing (resulting in an Arbcom case). The article was promoted to FA, and some edits have been reverted with "this is an FA" being part of the reasoning behind the reverts. Those reverts have all been well founded, and there was no ownership issue behind them. If someone has new information but no reference, they can try adding it. If reverted, they need to discuss the matter and ask whether anyone can find suitable references, and whether NPOV is satisfied—that's because it's a good article that people care about, and is not because it carries an FA badge. The FA badge is a handy way to point out to people that the article is at a high quality level, and new material needs to be worked through to preserve that quality, and OR or SYNTH are definitely not appropriate in a quality article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(Haven't commented on any of the above. Would like to wait until you express your thoughts.) - jc37 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there JC. Sorry about not responding sooner. Just to respond generally to your above observation - yes, the FA process is an 'awards' system, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Recognizing the good work done by people is a simple (free!) way of saying "thank you" to our editors for the good work they do. I don't find anything inherently bad about this.

Second, I agree that it can give rise to ownership issues, but the behavior you describe could just as easily be described as invested editors defending a well-written article from people whose edits are probably not improving it. Raul654 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment, that it would seem to create an adversarial environment, it's contrary to the wiki-way. One person adds info, another adds sources, and off we go. Right now, if its unsourced, it can't be added. So AGF goes out the window.
So a well-meant awards system to help motivate people, is causing strife where none needed to be. And those involved are naturally protective of it (human nature). Sounding more and more like some of the varied issues with Esperanza before it ended.
An excellent illustration is the first sentence of a well-meaning editor above: "The better an article is—the more comprehensive, more logically organized, more thoroughly and reliably sourced and more polished its text—the harder it becomes to make an edit that should remain." The inherent problem with this is: Should remain? According to who? There is no one on Misplaced Pages with the omniscience to know everything about every single topic. And I would strongly assert that there is a good likelihood that EVERY article on Misplaced Pages is nowhere near "finished". It was just deemed "good enough". We're all editors here.
I say this with no slight intended to the person who said it. It is, as I mentioned above a well meant mistaken opinion seemingly shared by others involved in the process.
Let me offer this thought: Why do we show what we feel is the very best of Misplaced Pages on the main page? Wouldn't it be more in line with being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to show flawed pages to help entice more ppl to help out? "This page has numerous issues, we'd like to ask you to help out!"
After all, if the goal is "improvement" (whoever decides what that is), then articles which supposedly cannot be easily improved would not apparently be the best representative?
I say this all to point out (remind) that what appears on the main page is merely a stylistic choice. And so is much of the formatting rules etc that go into much of Misplaced Pages MoS (Manual of style).
Awards are nice, and can be a helpful motivating factor. But in the light of the various issues with other processes in the past, and dealing with the various biases that Misplaced Pages fights with constantly has to consider (See Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias), it would seem problematic to suggest any group of editors can call any article so "perfect" so to suggest that little to nothing can be added.
So as I said, I bring this up with you, wanting to know what your thoughts are. I sincerely am looking for a way forward that helps reinforce the wiki way, rather than creating an environment where well meaning editors are reverting others' well meaning edits as "vandalism" merely because that reverting editor couldn't be bothered to check for a source, and dictatorially decided the edits were not "improving the encyclopedia", and/or seeming to be without value. (The kerfuffle over Mizzoli's comes immediately to mind.)
An environment where it's easier to revert edits because your work at getting it to FA is "done" than to actually continue to try to improve the article. After all, if changed too much, you might risk the article losing FA "status" and making one of your awards not seem as valued.
Right now it could be argued that the FA process is stifling encyclopedic improvement.
Do you see a way that this can be fixed? - jc37 04:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(Here's another link that may be helpful as well: Strategy:March 2011 Update.) - jc37 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're not interested in continuing this discussion, please let me know and I'll move to a different venue. I merely was hoping for discussion with you about this first. - jc37 18:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi JC. Sorry about that - I was traveling for most of the last week so I wasn't very responsive to anything on-wiki.

it would seem to create an adversarial environment, it's contrary to the wiki-way - I think where the problem lies is how reviewers approach the reviewing process. I don't mean to single any particular individual out, but my guess is that people are far more likely to voice criticism of an article than to support it, and don't feel comfortable supporting unless they find something wrong first that gets fixed.

I'd also like to try to refocus the critiques on more content and substantive matters and less on presentation or stylistic matters. But I'm not exactly sure how to go about doing this. Maybe some kind of process to reach out to people knowledgeable in the article's subject area? Raul654 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Precious

reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's over, 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with Easter eggs, in peace (Bach cantata 67), "commented" by General relativity, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

creation science

There is nothing "overwhelming" about the fact that almost all scientists reject creation science. I wasn't taken aback at all when I learned that. The word "overwhelming" sounds to me like there is so much rejection of creation science that the average person couldn't handle it and would have a heart attack. This is a weird word that I feel should be replaced with something less... weird... Cadiomals (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

o·ver·whelm·ing adjective 1. that overwhelms; overpowering: The temptation to despair may become overwhelming. 2. so great as to render resistance or opposition useless: an overwhelming majority.
Your statement above indicates you believe it is being used on the creationism article in the first sense described above. It is not. The creationism article uses the second meaning of the word, as in an opposition-less majority. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Vauban-fortress.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vauban-fortress.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For the love of coordinates

Hey Raul. I'm having a little issue at the FAC for Highway 401: The coords issue has sprung back up. Unfortunately I've let my emotions get the better of me, and instead of just thanking the opposers for their comments, I have fueled the fire. I'd like to just leave it at their opposition and stuff a gag in my mouth, and so I was considering archiving the replies that are directly related to that coordinates debate to the talk page to hopefully minimize disruption (leaving the original comments on the main page of course). I wanted to get your input first, as it is quite a heated debate and I am right in the centre of it. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Raul654. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Apology

Raul, I would like to apologize for my harsh response to your comment at the administrators' noticeboard. I strongly disagree with your statements there, but I should have phrased that disagreement more diplomatically. I have refactored my comment. I hope you will accept my apology. 28bytes (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apology, 28. My comment there was a bit intemperate too and I'd like to apologize to you as well. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it very much, and of course accept yours as well. Hopefully we will meet again under happier circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!

Who should come? You should. Really.
She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Misplaced Pages content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sarah (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

X-rated content

Hi Raul. I complained about a DYK about gay pornography hitting the main page on a Saturday morning US and Saturday afternoon British time and it being linked on the main page seemingly at a peak time with no concerns whatsoever. My sister laughed at it and now thinks of wikipedia as a joke encyclopedia for a] permitting such content as an example of its progress and b] for being so careless and carefree about putting it on at a moment in the week be both thought ill-suited. I tried to argue the point that a lot of people are offended by the very subject of pornography appearing on the main page but it unfortunately turned into a discussion suggesting I am somehow homophobic, even though I have stated I accept such articles on wikipedia, I generally accept LGBT related articles on the main page, except pornography and I generally think all pornography is ill advised as being showcased as our best work. i was quite take aback to see nobody concerned about it and a mass response which indicates to me everybody is happy to see pornography-related articles on the main page and I had no right to find it distasteful. I was informed that you refuse to put the article on Jenna Jameson as the TFA because you are evidently aware it would get masses of complaints and people condemning wikipedia, responses I would agree are likely and was why I showed a concern about that DYK, which it became apparent few really care about DYK. But the general consensus during the discussion at Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012 appears to be that they all support, some strongly support the coverage of pornography on the main page, even TFA and few of them will admit that a lot of people frown against such content. I don't expect you to take sides, but I was wondering if you could make the current status on pornography as TFA apparent and what the real concern is and clarify exactly whether this is true. I have suggested that if there be such apparently unaminous support for it there should be enough people to deal with complaints should it appear and they should voice their support on grounds that forbidding pornography to appear as TFA is against our censorship and free content neutrality policies. Its just I see some double standards here and a refusal for anybody to really acknowledge why I aired some concerns.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy, this discussion again. ;)
Long story short: everyone has a different opinion on where to draw the line between what is and is not acceptable on the main page. I listen to what others have to say, but at the end of the day I use my own judgement and call it like I see it. I've previously said that I was OK putting history of erotic depictions on the main page; Jenna, who is known primarily for her appearances in hardcore porn, I think is out-of-bounds. Admit this is subjective, but there you have it. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Sorry to bother you with this discussion again, but I wasn't aware it is a frequent topic for you. Clearly it is a subject than does not have the universal support evident in the talk page discussion and I will not be the last person to complain about it. The impression I got though is that all of the "community" who responded imply that there simply should not be a line to draw because it is somehow detrimental to our "free content" and "neutrality". I just wonder why its OK for a hardcore pornographic article to feature as a DYK and not as TFA and would seemingly indicate the lack of seriousness in it when it is all on the main page and should also be handled at least with some sense and responsibility. All the best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly it is a subject than does not have the universal support evident in the talk page discussion and I will not be the last person to complain about it.
No one claimed that there was "universal support". As noted in the discussion, TFA blurbs about Pokémon-related topics draw numerous complaints, as do those about many other subjects (particularly those from popular culture).
And yes, people complain when they perceive TFA as sexually explicit (as in the case of Gropecunt Lane, an article of which you expressed approval).
I just wonder why its OK for a hardcore pornographic article to feature as a DYK and not as TFA and would seemingly indicate the lack of seriousness in it when it is all on the main page and should also be handled at least with some sense and responsibility.
As I've noted repeatedly, Raul has stated that his decision stems not from a determination that the content in question is inherently inappropriate, but from a concern that he'll be inundated with complaints to that effect.
And I find that position understandable. Raul already deals with enough and doesn't need the aggravation. But this has absolutely no bearing on the main page's other sections, none of which are his responsibility or burden.
In other words, other editors determine the content and handle any fallout. It's absurd to claim that their arrival at a decision different from Raul's (and different from the one that you advocate) is indicative of a "lack of seriousness" on their parts. —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Raul:
As noted above, I find your position understandable. But I'd like you to consider an angle that I don't recall the community discussing in the past.
It's been pointed out that earlier in the month, this blurb, about an infamous murder, appeared. And despite the detailed summary, no one complained at Talk:Main Page.
I agree that a Jenna Jameson TFA likely would draw complaints (which arise whenever subjects from popular culture appear), but do you honestly want to validate this dynamic? Whatever one thinks of Ms. Jameson (and I'm certainly no fan of hers), do we want to send the message that a blurb about a pornographic film actress is more objectionable/upsetting/disturbing than one about someone who "dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard"? Even if we look at this from a "protect the children" perspective, would a blurb about Jenna Jameson really expose them to something worse than that? —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
i was quite take aback to see nobody concerned about it and a mass response which indicates to me everybody is happy to see pornography-related articles on the main page and I had no right to find it distasteful.
Please stop misrepresenting the discussion's nature.
As has been stated repeatedly, you have every right to find anything distasteful. We simply don't ban content from the main page on this basis.
Many people find the theory of evolution, miscegenation and photography of women (as a few random examples) distasteful, but we don't censor the main page to appease them. This is what we've been telling you.
But the general consensus during the discussion at Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012 appears to be that they all support, some strongly support the coverage of pornography on the main page, even TFA and few of them will admit that a lot of people frown against such content.
Nonsense. I'm baffled as to how you interpret "we don't censor material because it offends people" to mean "this content doesn't offend people". —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

David - Society has different standards for how it treats violence and sexual content. Sexual content is treated far more puritanically than violence. In fact, that was one of the major premises of This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Now I'm not defending this, but I'm pointing out that that is the way it is, and it's unrealistic to approach the subject otherwise. Given that premise, I don't find it surprising in the least that no one complained about a violent FA appearing on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be viewing this from an American perspective. I'm American too, but my understanding is that some other countries are very different in this respect. For example, UK broadcast television contains nudity not permitted in the US, but its rules regarding violence are more restrictive.
Of course, I don't doubt that Jenna Jameson would generate far more complaints than Murder of Julia Martha Thomas did. Heck, articles about movies and video games do. People complain about entertainment-related TFA blurbs, especially when they perceive them as "non-family-friendly".
If the exact description of Julia Martha Thomas's murder were used in a blurb about a horror film, I can almost guarantee that Talk:Main Page would be flooded with complaints about exposing children to it. It's a nonsensical distinction that shouldn't be validated. —David Levy 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Reservations about Ring-tailed lemur

I will admit that having Ring-tailed lemur as the TFA has been one of my hopes and dreams for several years. I am very flattered that it was both selected and unanimously supported. However, I have reservations because I know for a fact that the article has issues. It was my first FA, and a lot has changed in terms of FA standards since that time. Last year I tried to re-re-write it, but only got about half way done. There are still large portions that need serious work. In fact, I have feared for more than a year that someone would come along as slap it into FAR before I could get around to cleaning it up. Since writing the article several years ago, I have obtained the book Ringtailed Lemur Biology (ISBN 0-387-32669-3) and many other useful books that I haven't even had time to fully tap. I'm not asking you to remove it, but I do feel it needs further consideration. Normally I would take this as a challenge to clean up the article, but I'm so overwhelmed right now that I simply don't have the time to do what needs to be done. Maybe this summer or this fall... If you do keep it for TFA, I will have some suggested changes for the lead. – Maky 03:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Madonna

Notice you've scheduled Madonna in the TFA queue. You might want to consider pulling it; it's currently at FAR after the discovery that it was full of fabricated sources. (Laser Brain should have the full details.) After the Grace Sherwood fiasco, I doubt Misplaced Pages needs a repetition, especially on such a high profile topic. 188.28.132.1 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, hopefully we can get that out of the queue. We're in the middle of the FAR and there are many problems. BLP nightmare. --Laser brain (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Jimbo.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jimbo.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Check it out

Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jack Merridew ...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It took me a few moments to figure out why you sent me that link. I see now that Alarbus is listed there. I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Raul654 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
good riddance...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
With few surprises; some folks seem to have a knack for being on the wrong side of disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Gotta wonder - who knew what; and when...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You're not allowed to ask ... you'll get a lecture from a "senior editor". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan

I feel the need to mention that I'm impressed by your diligence in maintaining this page. I'm sure I can't be the only person who appreciates your efforts. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you, Pdfpdf. I appreciate that. Raul654 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Who decides what readers read

I run the DYK section of the Portal:Germany, almost by myself (although I generally invite new contributors to participate), and I understand that you are responsible for TFA. How do you decide on the sequence? Do you reflect what a community of contributors/readers) wants? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly deep or mysterious about it. I go through, open up the articles, read the intro, and pick ones that look interesting to me for which blurbs can be written without too much difficulty. (Some articles are more difficult to summarize than others) I try to keep them varied by subject and nationality.
TFA tends to get a fair number of requests, so I created Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests as a central clearinghouse for them (along with a set of scoring rules to adjudicate overlapping requests). Raul654 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I was involved in one FA, Brianboulton and Tim riley cooked the main course, Messiah (Handel), I prepared the side dishes on structure and music, including He was despised, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It crossed my mind that Messiah would be good on Good Friday, premiered in a Lenten concert. "Did you know ... that in Handel's Messiah, Part II contains the famous Hallelujah Chorus and the oratorio's longest movement, the air for alto He was despised? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It was good to see Messiah yesterday "on this day", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It is good to see Kathleen Ferrier as TFA today on her centenary. The "blurb" came late, or I would have asked a few questions. Why so much on her cancer and rather little about her voice and singing? Why her two opera roles while she was known for singing Bach St Matthew Passion, Brahms Alto Rhapsody and Vier ernste Gesänge, Elgar Dream of Gerontius, and Handel He was despised? Compare: "The works presented here capture a voice ... “...so full and beautiful, the intonation always perfect, the phrasing so elastic...”. Ferrier’s interpretations were also celebrated for their poignancy, notably in her reading of Brahms’s Vier ernste Gesänge, recorded just three years before the singer’s untimely death." , --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Compare also A centenary tribute to an iconic singer, Kathleen Ferrier --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you know that 11,577 readers clicked Great Dismal Swamp maroons in March, and that the article, on inspirational people under oppressive conditions, became a Good Article within five hours? Decide that the community gets more such articles, be bold, assume good faith, unblock the author! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, I understand that you have some measure of affection for Rlevse/PumpkinSky, but you have to understand that PS chose to withdraw his unblock request back in February. Until he makes a new one, no administrator is going to unblock him. Second, there's a large deal of mistrust among parts of the community related to his actions. He left the project and abandoned the Rlevse account after an article for which he was a substantial contributor was found to have copyright violations while it was on the Main Page. Several other articles had to be cleaned up after that "scandal" broke.
Later, the PumpkinSky account comes along and aids in fanning flames during an already difficult discussion over FAC/FAR/TFA and its leadership. The fact that this came from a former member of the Arbitration Committee (as Rlevse), that there was renewed issues with the level of paraphrasing or plagiarism in PS's article contributions, and questions related to the appropriate use of alternate accounts only further complicates matters.
I'm all for giving people a second chance, but they have to earn it. In this case, PS needs to atone for errors and ask to be unblocked. Until he makes a new request to be unblocked, the block will stay. If in his request he promises to work on resolving any remaining unattended issues with his content contributions, there will be community mistrust. Simply put, it's not Raul's place here to just unblock the account. (Sorry for the long-winded reply on your talk page, Raul.) Imzadi 1979 → 09:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Who is the community? The admins? The contributors? The readers? I don't have "affection" for Rlevse, I didn't know him, became aware of him only in the discussions on his leaving. I have great affection for PumpkinSky with whom I worked for half a year, who did good work (see articles) and had only minor copyright problems (s. CCI). If I was an admin, I would do what Steve did with Malleaus Fatuorum, unblock sacrificing my admin rights. You are probably aware that the admin who blocked PumpkinSky said "there are a thousand other admins to overturn the block if it's unwarranted." 999 of those would be afraid to do so, right? That's why I came here. Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove Tiananmen Square self immolation page

(Cross posted: Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Remove_Tiananmen_Square_self_immolation_page)

I edit and watch in the Falun Gong space of articles. I strongly suggest that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page be removed from the main page. It is currently subject to intensive, controversial editing and to some degree edit warring. The tenor of the page has changed dramatically in the last 48-72 hours, with upwards of 60 edits that quickly changed important parts of the article. I am about to submit a note for its Featured Article status to be reconsidered, with a view to rescinding that status, because of this. The page is not stable and currently suffers neutrality issues.

Background to this note:

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; editor user:Ohconfucius was the lead editor at the time. He put tremendous effort into seeing the page reach FA status. The page was revisited in 2011 by a group of editors who discussed major changes quite exhaustively (lead by several editors who are more sympathetic to Falun Gong). At that time, editor user:SilkTork wrote that "I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done."--a lot of the changes that occurred were discussed extensively. Consensus was reached. That was early 2011.

Ohconfucius re-appeared a couple of days ago and made a flurry of changes, apparently in an attempt to return the page, in whole or part, to how it was in 2009, when he edited it. He ignored the interim discussion. The changes made in 2011 identified and resolved misrepresentation, omissions, original syntheses, and failure to cogently present the views of Falun Gong or third parties in a manner commensurate with their notability, etc. Ohconfucius preceded to edit, apparently bringing the page back to how it was in 2009, without discussion or any attempt to form consensus. An example: the 2009 version did not say that the use of torture on Falun Gong practitioners increased in the wake of the immolation; that was added to the page in the 2011 version; Ohconfucius deleted that piece of information when he started editing the page again. Ohconfucius has made around 60+ edits, judging by the history. Most of those edits, many of them controversial, were not discussed. He was asked on his talk page and on the immolation talk page, and for the most part failed to do so while continuing to make make changes that changed the tenor of the article. His peers have expressed exasperation at this behavior.

This is obviously a sensitive topic. The incident led to people being tortured and killed. It thus deserves to be treated with circumspection and caution. That caution has not been forthcoming, and I think it would be valuable if an administrator would intercede and monitor the discussion, because attempts for other editors to discuss it with Ohconfucius have not been effective. There is a behavioral problem when an editor makes that many changes unilaterally while ignoring the discussions, particularly when it's a featured article under ArbCom sanctions. He has been politely and repeatedly asked not to make substantial changes, including those that misrepresent sources--which he's done more than once--or change the balance of the page without discussing, but has not done so. It is difficult to know what to do, except find some time to breathe.

Thus, I am strongly urging that the page be removed from the front page as a featured article. I am also entering a request for the page's feature status to be reconsidered. And I am initiating a mediation request so that an uninvolved editor can step in between Ohconfucius, the page, and other editors, to make sure that proper process is being followed on this important and contentious topic.

Further notes: I have made a decision not to edit the page amidst the current strong dispute. Ohconfucius has an open opposition and animus toward Falun Gong. I have said to Ohconfucius that it is my opinion that he is too close and invested in the topic, and should stick to the voluntary self-ban he initiated some time ago. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Image modification for Chrysiridia rhipheus

Hi Raul654, I am honored that Chrysiridia rhipheus was chosen as TFA for april 7th. I would like to improve the picture associated with the blurb (i.e. remove the shadow and clean the background), but it is currently protected. What do you suggest? Regards, Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The blurb is automatically protected once it's within 24 hours of hitting the main page. If you want, clean up the picture and post it somewhere (like imagebucket). Drop me a link here and I'll upload it. Raul654 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Here it is, in Picasa. Sorry for the delay, I was away for most of the day. Thank you. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
All right, I've uploaded it and the new version is now on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Highway 401 TFA

Hey Raul, I noticed you created this yesterday. I currently have a request in with WP:CANADA as well as at the pending requests page at WP:TFA to run Highway 401 on July 1, the 60th anniversary of its numbering. If that's not possible, can it be withheld entirely for now so that I can run it in a couple years when another big anniversary props up? Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic TFA

Could you possibly update us on what you plan to do with the Titanic TFA, in particular which day you plan to run it on? I think there was general agreement on WP:TFAR that it should be featured on April 15th, the centenary day, and to be honest I think most people would find it hard to understand running it on any other day. Prioryman (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 15, 2012. --Rschen7754 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Prioryman (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

 New England Wikimedia General Meeting

The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future!
Potential topics:
Sunday, April 22
1:30 PM – 4:30 PM
Conference Room C06, Johnson Building,
Boston Public Library—Central Library
700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Library of Congress system

I wanted to look up what the local college has instead of the Dewey Decimal System. At least, that's what I call it. That link actually redirects to Dewey Decimal Classification. It was from there that I finally located Library of Congress Classification. That's where I wanted to be. Wouldn't that be a better redirect, because I couldn't tell that the Library of Congress has more than one location? I don't see it as a system.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted the redirect. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't want to do it myself if there was a good reason for the other.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Misplaced Pages email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library
Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Misplaced Pages meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch.
  • Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227).
  • Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street.
  • Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)

The event's goal will be to improve Misplaced Pages articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!

Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic TFA follow-up

I thought you might be interested in the outcome of the Titanic TFA from Sunday. Eleven Titanic-related articles were linked from the Featured Article box that day; they got the following numbers of page views:

Thanks for your help in making this such a big success! Prioryman (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, although I can't help but wonder how much of that was 'natural' attention brought about by the centenary and how much was a result of putting it on the main page. Given how high Titanic compares to the Sinking article, I suspect the vast majority was 'natural' attention. Raul654 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review edit to JSTOR access requests page

Hi, Mark. I was about to request JSTOR access at the page for that, but decided to poke around a bit, first, to see whether one of my local public libraries provides a free gateway to the archive. I couldn't find anything at all about it on any of the websites for public library I have access to, but then found this list on the JSTOR site itself. I checked that list for the name of my public library, and found that I do indeed have access to JSTOR already, at no cost.

I went back to my library site again, and eventually found an obscure notice of that on a library subpage, along with instructions for accessing it there. If we're only getting access, via the current program, in increments of 1,000 users at a time, then it makes sense to conserve those for users who don't have access through a library, yes?

With that motivation I've boldly edited the intro text to the JSTOR access requests page in this edit. Feel free to revert or modify it if my action puts a spanner in the works for some reason I'm unaware of, e.g. relations with JSTOR. I've posted this same message to Steven Walling's talk, as well. Thanks very much for your work on this. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner

Please join us for a Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner on Saturday, May 5. This will be a great opportunity to meet other Wikimedians from the DC area, discuss upcoming Wikimedia DC activities and events, and have fun over dinner and drinks. All ages are welcome! Kirill  04:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for your JSTOR initiative. Good luck! Dsp13 (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

MSU Research Questions

Hello, I am involved with a research project for Michigan State University and am wondering if you would be able to answer a few questions regarding tool sets on Misplaced Pages. What were the tools you mainly used prior to becoming an admin, and after becoming an admin? Here is a link to the project if you are interested Misplaced Pages:United States Education Program/Courses/Wiki-Project Management (Jonathan Obar) , and if you have any questions please let me know. Thanks! Ltezl (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

FAN

Hi. Please close the FA nomination for School of Advanced Military Studies. Based on the recommendation of a few editors, I'll request a peer review and then renominate in the future. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

TFA notifications

I initially directed this query to your delegate Dabomb87, but am told he has been inactive for 5 weeks, so perhaps you can help. I am wondering why notifications for impending TFAs to main editors are now given so late. An hour prior to the main page's appearance (12.01 BST when I am most likely in bed, or at any rate not online) doesn't provide any time for possible preparatory work. In the case of today's, the likelihood of selection was always high so I took all the necessary steps some time ago, but this won't always be the case, and short notice seems to be the standard procedure now, for all TFAs. We used to get several days' notice; why has the practice changed? Brianboulton (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the notifications are going out late. It's that for the last two or three weeks, I've been scheduling them close to the deadline. I'll make an effort to build up a larger queue today. Raul654 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Misplaced Pages. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Misplaced Pages community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Misplaced Pages have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Misplaced Pages. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Misplaced Pages Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive4

Please take a look As you can see, I've done this three times before and I really want it to pass now. In previous attempts, it didn't because of lack of interest--do you know how I can get anyone else involved to say yay or nay? Please respond on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: South Side, Chicago

This is a note to let the main editors of South Side, Chicago know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 5, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 5, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Regents Park

The South Side is a major part of the City of Chicago. Regions of the city, referred to as sides, are divided by the Chicago River and its branches. The South Side of Chicago was originally defined as all of the city south of the main branch of the Chicago River, but it now excludes the Loop. The South Side has a varied ethnic composition, and it has great disparity in income and other demographic measures. The South Side covers 60% of the city's land area, with a higher ratio of single-family homes and larger sections zoned for industry than the rest of the city. Neighborhoods such as Armour Square, Back of the Yards, Bridgeport, and Pullman tend to be composed of more blue collar residents, while Hyde Park, the Jackson Park Highlands District, Kenwood, and Beverly tend to have middle, upper-middle class, and affluent residents. The South Side boasts a broad array of cultural and social offerings, such as professional sports teams, landmark buildings, nationally renowned museums, elite educational institutions, world class medical institutions, and major parts of the city's elaborate parks system. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have scheduled South Side, Chicago for the main page on May 5. Personally, I would prefer that this run on the main page on a day that is meaningful to the South Side like the annual Bud Billiken Parade. Is it possible to delay this until August 11. In addition, this is barely a week after WP:CHICAGO had Rogers Hornsby.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)