Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:50, 14 September 2007

• Archive 1: August 2003 - November 2003
• Archive 2: December 2003 - March 2004
• Archive 3: April 2004 - July 2004
• Archive 4: August 2004 - November 2004
• Archive 5: December 2004 - March 2005
• Archive 6: April 2005 - July 2005
• Archive 7: August 2005 - November 2005
• Archive 8: December 2005 - March 2006
• Archive 9: April 2006 - July 2006
• Archive 10: August 2006 - November 2006
• Archive 11: December 2006 - February 2007
• Archive 12: March 2007 - May 2007
• Archive 13: June 2007 - August 2007
• Archive 14: September 2007 - December 2007

What?

Why did you add an obvious hoax to Misplaced Pages? Academic Challenger 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not a hoax - http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nma_cont.php?vsep=93&gen=edition&p1=11&l=1 Raul654 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a hoax: for the article on the German wiki. Antandrus (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgive you, Academic Challenger. It's very easy to mistake it for one. I do have a new goal for next april fools, though. Raul654 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. You can repost the article with sources. It definitely is the best new article ever. Academic Challenger 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On September 12, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lick Me in the Ass, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

heh. lol.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm greatly amused :) Raul654 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Downfall

I don't have a handy reference, but I have seen language cited in one or two places as the main reason why MacArthur didn't want Indian Army units. I think it makes sense; the vast majority of the Indian troops would not have been native English speakers. I think "racism" is nonsense, after all MacArthur was commander of the Philippine Army when the war started and had African American units in the SW Pacific. Grant | Talk 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank's Downfall specifically mentions language. I think the racism claim is bogus too. Raul654 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ceiling Cat

You ought to "watch" that page too you know :) -- Cat 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

need your help

I maybe violated a policy by my choice of the first username, but I was angry, because I saw you deleted two revisions of El Hormiguero. My initial name was Raul654Censored. I got indef banned without any talk, I choose a new name, indef again, I choose a new name, less controversial, I had to! I was not aware that the initial name was a policy violation.

I tried to improve the sockpuppet report at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RaulAndHorstCensored I added one more name and indicated that that one was the initial.

see

Please help me! You have power, you can fix this! Why is there no place to talk??? This is ridiculous. Because I did choose a wrong username, WP admins are going to bann me from WP for all my life???

I even helped to reveal another name. I also went to WP:RM, so they can fix this. Please, see, I made controversial edits, but the accusation of vandalism is absolutly wrong. Xy209 16:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

see also "Not only are new accounts continuing the pattern, but they're becoming increasingly abrasive in their edits, e.g. referring to "ignorant admins" in an edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)" - the admins were ignorant, i.e. ignoring that the initial user one was the one I indicated. And why "but they're becoming increasingly abrasive in their edits, e.g." - what is abrasive here? This is a witch hunt. I did not continue the pattern, I did only contribute to the sockpuppet page. Xy209 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You may continue using your current username (Xy209). Raul654 01:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul, thank you. Hopefully the admins will not hunt me any more. Xy209 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're name

I was reading recent changes around a hour ago, and I was wondering about you're name. Is it pronounced like Rahul, or is it Rawl? Just a curious question. And what's with the 654? You don't have to answer that part, it's just random... Yamakiri on Firefox 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx thanks:

I don't know if you got my previous thanks messages, so I'll thank you again for putting Archie on the main page. Seriously, you do a wonderful job and I don't know how Misplaced Pages could cope without you. Anyway, just thought I'd drop by and thank you for your hardwork. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 04:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad I could give you the spotlight for a day Raul654 04:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You really are a legend man. :) Spawn Man 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith /C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith /C 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's creepy... I was just listening to the 9th symphony when this popped up. Raul654 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. On this day of sadness, let us spread the joy. Marlith /C 05:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point - Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away! are lyrics from the (englicized version of the) ode to joy, which is part of the symphony. Raul654 05:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominations page

Repost: I'd be happy to work with you on a clean start, say at User:Raul654/Main Page nominations. Happy for you to invite anyone you like to work on it; but my thinking is that at first, your input shouldn't be diluted, until we've got a good steer of the direction you'd like it to take. --Dweller 14:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Waddaya fink? --Dweller 07:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See below, "TFA Requests: "Outside the box" thinking" Raul654 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Community images

I was reading Misplaced Pages:Licensing for community images, and I wondered whether you would be interested in this discussion: Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Community pictures? Carcharoth 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an idea two years too late. The horses have already left the barn. Raul654 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And are halfway across the field... :-) Thanks for looking, anyway. Carcharoth 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta

Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change m: Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thou

One of the points brought up today on the talk page for today's featured article, Thou, is that this article does not meet FA standards because it is part of Articles that may contain original research, has various stylistic problems, is not well-referenced, and is not (though this is not always necessary) visually appealing. While I am not a large contributor to WP:FAC, I do not believe that this article represents "one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community." I cannot put the page on WP:FAR because it is currently the main page FA. If I were to give the page an overhaul, even a section of it, it would be reverted. I am asking your advice as to what should be done in this instance. Thanks. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a huge chunk of unverified material. I suggest the whole section is commented out for the rest of the day at least. This is embarrassing. I think we should exclude all FAs from Main Page that passed before the hoik in the criteria unless and until they pass FAR. --Dweller 06:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I take (some of) it back - I see the article passed FAR/FARC (Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Thou/archive1) despite the "Current usage" section being present and entirely unreferenced at the time. Looks like the FAR wasn't rigorous enough, lol. Makes me wonder if you already apply the rule I suggested, Raul? --Dweller 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA Requests: "Outside the box" thinking

Regarding the problems with the requests page, perhaps one solution would be to divide it (bear with me) into dates: say the 14 days following from the end of the current queue.

1. The page would be restricted in size to 14 sections (plus the section at the beginning detailing that the final decision rests with you, etc.).
2. Requesters would be permitted to place only one request on the page on only one date. For each date there would probably be several requests (either for date-specific articles or people who didn't care about the date but just wanted their article on the main page).
3. For each day you could select one of the articles listed (or not), and then delete the section. In this way the page growth (at least for the time being) would be curtailed as the older/unselected listings would be removed.

Anyway, this is just a "brainstorm" idea of mine. I don't care what you do with it, as you know, I've never made a request and I'm not going to! :-) Best wishes, DrKiernan 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but agreee with Kiernan there is a humungus backlog over there, dating back to the beginning of this year. I think the proposal of sorts, should be brought up on the requests talkpage. Davnel03 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done, but I really dislike this idea. I think a modified form of the requests section at the top of the TFA page might be a good idea. Raul654 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As a start, I've removed the write up suggestions area - it's too long and has far outlived its usefulness. Raul654 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Now that you have removed that section, here would you prefer that we construct potential write-ups for the TFA? Johntex\ 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To tell the truth, with a handful of very rare exceptions, I never use the suggested write ups. I write it up myself using the lead paragraphs from the article. Raul654 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realize that. In this particular case, I started from the lead paragraphs but I made some changes that I feel make it read better for the Main Page (took some detail out, moved a major point up). I also selected the free-use image which I believe is most relevant to the article. I have placed my proposal here for your consideration.

I am not requesting any particular day for the article to appear. I hope you will work it in when you think it is appropriate. I would like to ask you to please avoid scheduling it this Nov 17-25 because I won't be around then and I don't want to miss its appearance. I hope that is not too much trouble. Johntex\ 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Classical Music Sound Files

Are there going to be anymore pieces released to Misplaced Pages? It would nice to get some more orchestral pieces as the majority that were released are violin/cello sonatas or concertos. Centy – reply• contribs – 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have a feeling you waited to create Lick me in the ass (best song title ever!) on 9 September in order to try and make that the 2,000,000th article. How close were you to getting that milestone?

The world is full of individual or small groups of musicians who want to see their music played by lots of people, and are willing to license it under a free license to achieve that goal. The same is not true of symphonies. That is to say, with the exception of the Fulda Symphony, I cannot think of one that would, nor do I think asking is likely to yield a positive response.

I did not create lick me in the ass to get the 2 millionth article - I created it 12 hours after the milestone. I did create Jerusalem bus 26 bombing to be the 2 millionth article, and missed it by only few ;) Raul654 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear FAC Director....

Would you please have a look over at the gender-neutral language proposal discussion, part the seventh or so: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#What we are now discussing, and share whatever wisdom you care to concerning the suggestion that we specifically exempt gender-specific language as a FAC criteria? Thank you. ←Ben 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I spoke too fast below, and see from your edit summary at MOS talk that you were referring to the proposal to build GNL into the FA Criteria, something that has little support, I'm sure. I just wanted to emphasise that the current GNL text at MOS is a recommendation only, and is thus not grounds for opposing a nomination—I will continue to ask for generic male pronouns to be deftly changed on the basis of other, more general requirements of the FA Criteria, certainly not MOS (Criterion 2). Tony 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion that people are trying to make it a requirement is unfortunate. That's not it at all. It is at best meekly suggestive. Your position does surprise me a little though, Raul—the Cambridge style guide, the United Nations (PDF), and Mr. Jimbo Wales have been cited in support of GNL at this point. Marskell 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the FA requirements or MOS should proscribe one particular "style" of writing over another (for the same reason it's OK to use either American or English spelling, dates, etc), especially when the style it is recommending against is still taught in schools. If someone wants to write in GNL, I don't object, but I do object to requiring people to write in GNL.

As for Tony's point regarding suggestion versus requirement: I consider the FA criteria to be requirements, not suggestions. All FAs must meet all criteria. (Obviously, this is not the case for all FAs, but that's what FAR is for) Tony says that the MOS entry would be a meek suggestion - I disagree. I consider the manual of style to be a suggesion in the sense that this-the-way-you-are-supposed-to-do-it-unless-you-have-a very-good-reason-not-to. I do not think that GNL is widely accepted enough as to proscribe it. Raul654 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are your ears ringing yet? Also talking about you here; I think this fuss about minor MOS issues raised at FAC is a red herring. We're not stupid, after all, but it's really hard to get some editors to make these kinds of easy corrections post-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL "Please consider"

"Please consider using ..." is not a requirement. Why are you framing it as such at MOS talk? It's not helpful. Tony 05:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Please see my comment above. Tony 05:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

King Crimson FAC

Hello Mark. What was the reason for you restarting the FAC nomination? I thought that nominations were either archived or promoted, not restarted.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For borderline cases, I'd rather restart the nomination (and it give another chance) than fail it. Raul654 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• So you think it's almost there? Thanks.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/someFutureDate

Heyo. Will you consider unprotecting the "Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/..." series of pages, and instead allowing cascading protection of the Main Page and Main Page/Tomorrow to keep vandalism off the main page? This would allow all editors to make improvements and corrections to the proposed blurb right up until 24 hours before it goes live. With so many eyeballs on the page, it is very unlikely that anything undesirable would go unnoticed before it hit the main page. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, yes, I suppose that might could work, provided I don't end up with more problems like this Raul654 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly people are going to disagree about the content of the blurb if it's protected or not; I doubt that the perennial Main Page Edit War Royale is going away anytime soon. Cascade protecting the will just make it easier for non-administrators to get their kicks in as well, at least if they do so ahead of time. ➪HiDrNick! 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind people tweaking it, as long as they don't change it in a way that I explicitly avoid. I don't include alternative names, translations, acronyms, etc unless they are essential to understanding the blurb, but in that case, people went ahead and put it in (twice). I'm in favor of not protecting the blurbs provided it doesn't exacerbate that problem. Raul654 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnivàle FAC

Hi. I am new to this whole FAC thing, and it says you're the FAC director. I expanded and copyedited Carnivàle greatly and to the best of my powers and nominated it for FAC, thinking that it would (hopefully) pass after one or two weeks maximum. Now five weeks have passed and the nom slipped down to the third to last. There were two (WP:ILIKEIT???) supports, one comment by Tony who wanted to see another copyedit, and three comments/opposes that stayed that way although I addressed them or simply couldn't reasonably address without making the article/subject a lot worse. I have asked for copyedit help in several on- and off-wiki places, without much happening in the past weeks, so I can't tell whether Tony is just too hard on the article (he may have raised the bar too high with his great writing skills (edit: this was not supposed to sound snarky, rather was a sign of admiration)), or whether there is just no outside interest in this topic. I also don't want to go on a vote-shopping spree besides of who I've already informed (a few wikipedians who helped, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television). So, since the FAC is still open, and since I don't think that much will/can happen in the next few days, I'd like to ask what you'll do with this FAC (e.g. you mentioned restarting a nom two topics above), and what you think I should do to finally get it up to FA that doesn't require months of twiddling thumbs. (BTW, the article is currently at the top of the list on WP League of Copyeditors, but I don't know when they'll copyedit it.) Greetings :-) – sgeureka 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Sandy to revisit her comments there. Raul654 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology mainpage

I noticed you cleared out the FAC todays featured article request page. So I wanted to ask, How does one go about getting an article onto the mainpage? Thanks. Wikidudeman 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to request it for the main page in order for it to appear there. (I should probably put this in huge, bolding, blinking letters at the top of that page) You can if you want to, but most of the articles I put on the main page are not there because of any specific request. Also, since your article is in a relatively underpopulated section, and I try to selection from a wide variety of categories, this works in your favor for getting it on the main page sooner. Raul654 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to see it on the mainpage soon so please do what you can to get it there sometime in the near future. Thanks. Wikidudeman 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

Hi Raul,

I wonder if you'd consider putting Georg Cantor into the main page queue. I saw your remarks about the "main page requests" page, and I'd point out that this is the first page I have ever requested be featured on the main page. Also it's a much meatier subject matter than many of the requests, and as you said there's a dearth of appearances of mathematics on the main page (this is a mathematician bio rather than a mathematics article per se, but it's a springboard to some very interesting mathematics articles). --Trovatore 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! --Trovatore 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA Requests

That's much better! Two other things - I think you should remove this line: Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests in this section at any time. Five requests is a bit too little, I'd suggest twenty maybe? Also, maybe say that requests must be in chronological order. I also think it could be set out just a little differently, maybe like this (taken from current requests):

• Date requests
  • September 2007
    • September 17
    • September 23 - 30
    • September 27
  • October 2007
    • Early October
    • October 3

Just my opinion. As it goes, I want to add an article (CM Punk) to the list, but can't due to the five request rule!! :( Davnel03 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Five is far too few (future editors note that this is five TOTAL requests allowed on the page, not five from one editor), unless you routinely accept/reject articles. Quite frankly, I'd like to see it just be requests for those dates in the next month which are available. You can have multiple requests for the same date, but once that date has been selected, all of them are just deleted released. In addition just state that you can only nominate one on the page at a time and that will cut down a lot on duplicates. — BQZip01 —  23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01, what you are suggesting, in essence, is that we have a nomination procedure for every day. This is something I will not do. I refused to do it back in 2004 when Drbalaji md proposed it (and it was subsequently unanimously rejected), and I'm saying it again now.

Davnel03 says: I want to add an article to the list, but can't due to the five request rule - yes, that's pretty much the point of me limiting it to 5 requests - so that I don't end up with 160 (or more) outstanding requests, like the ones I deleted today. Right now, open slots are doled out on a first-come-first serve basis, but I'm open to changing that if someone has a better idea that doesn't involve a whole lot of maintenance.

As for 5 being too few, it is apparent to me that if I make it 5, 10, 40, or 100 - the requests can only be fulfilled at a maximum rate of one per day. So what's going to happen if I increase the number of slots is that they are going to fill up (again), and then people are going to complain that there aren't enough slots to request an article. (Wash, rinse, and repeat) Raul654 07:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. Even if there are 30 spots, you'd still end up with 160+ requests (with everyone shifting them down as their article wasn't picked.

Sooooo, why not combine the two? Have up to 30 days out available and just allow 3-5 per day. You still might have 150 on the page, BUT, you'd only be sifting through 5 each day ("Ah...Thursday...let's see what is out there...Hmmm, African baboon, Troy Aikman, Abstract art, Texas A&M University, and Plasma TVs...I'll go with Texas A&M University...) Ok, so there's a little shameless self-promotion in there :-), but my point is valid. As it currently stands, you have to be online at just the right time to catch a gap when you select/don't select one and it is removed. This way, you can have a reasonable amount of items that are regularly cleared out and are well-maintained, but that shouldn't get too excessive. In addition, have them done the same way as the FAC page in their own subpages. That should make it even easier to delete them. If you don't like any of them you can always pull from one of the others that are also on the page. — BQZip01 —  08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Regarding the fairness concerns, how about: "Articles are listed on a first-come, first-serve basis; to be fair to other editors, do not nominate more than once in any thirty day period."

One thought I've long had about the date requests: do they actually discriminate against articles that have no date attached? I edit animals, for instance, and there is never a date request that makes sense. Marskell 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My intent is that the current guidelines for dates (only nominate by date if it is significant to the article) would no longer apply. An article for the attacks on 9/11 and a cheetah could be next to each other on September 11th and it would be Raul's choice as to which one to pick.

As for "don't nominate more than once over a thirty-day period", my solution inherently incorporates that. As it is, it is still a problem and a matter of luck to have a chance to get your article featured.

for example: let's say there are 100 people who want an article they worked on to be a TFA, but there are only 5 spots, leaving 95 people waiting. Raul picks one for TFA at 3 AM and the one person who happens to be up submits his, but no one else gets a shot. With 95 people waiting, it is probable that 60 of those people will have little chance to get an article featured.

Raul, your thoughts? — BQZip01 —  15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul, at least improve it to 10 if anything! :) Davnel03 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology FA

Hi,

I'm just really astonished at your actions- this is an attempt to work things out peaceably. You seem to be operating out of your own view of parapsychology, rather than abiding by the conventions of discourse and the decision of the other Arbitrators. They clearly said that parapsychology is a scientific discipline. Bauder changed his mind about it. There are plenty of reasons to put it under psychology- for one thing, parapsychology resides under psychology departments at the universities.

I'm also disturbed by the censorship exhibited by your reverting my flag and then protecting the page. I've never seen action like this from any other admin. In other words, this is a first for me, and it seems like an abuse of power. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He isn't abusing any powers. He is the main person responsible for maintaining that page and he's protecting it due to edit warring that was occurring. You should be a bit less hasty in labeling people as abusing powers and should assume better faith. Wikidudeman 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, he is edit warring against two other users- and all I did was change it once, then change it again and give reasons. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you also added a completely ridiculous {{totally-disputed}} template at the top of a page linked prominently from the Main Page; not only does it look tacky, but it categorizes the page with articles as well. It wasn't exactly a smooth move on your part. ➪HiDrNick! 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for putting it there were sound if it was a normal article. As I explained in the summary, there were issues of both POV and content. In a normal article, it is part of the regular escalation if a user insists on edit warring- you tag rather than revert, then you discuss more. I have no experience with non-article pages, so you may be right about it not being correct on FA. I have no idea. Reverting and protecting the article was not right either.

The tags are supposed to be ugly- they're supposed to inspire users to work things out. If this page needed special treatment, then Raul should have explained that- if he'd reverted and explained that it wasn't right on this page specially, then gone back to the talk page and discussed, I would not have reverted back or anything. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we didn't get off on the wrong foot. I don't feel as strongly about it as Martinphi, but I would like to see it properly classified. I understand that you don't want it listed alongside "Biology" and maybe it shouldn't be. It is, however, heavily related to "Psychology". It is a part of transpersonal psychology and though it may not be as straightforward as the hard sciences, it is a soft science. It's not a belief system at all, isn't religious like Creation science and Intelligent design and actually get's discussed in mainstream periodicals like Nature and Psychological Bulletin from time to time. Totally fringe science, but science nonetheless. We've had a lot of discussions about this on the talk page of parapsychology, and did spend months in aribitration trying reaching consensus. All in all it's been almost two years working these very issues out. It is definitely tied to psychology (please take the time to read through it) and if lumped in with "Religion, mysticism, and mythology", there has to be some sort of distinction drawn for it to be properly categorized. Again, don't feel as strongly about it as others might, but "belief system" is definitely a few too many shades off right. Sorry, I know you feel strongly about that, but please consider the past consensus. --Nealparr 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it a stellar beginning, but I agree with you - let's wipe the slate clean and try again from the start :)

I am absolutely opposed to putting parapsychology into biology and medicine; however, someone suggested on the talk page modifying the religion/mystecism header to include pseudoscience or fringe science or the like. This is something I could accept.

However, it's very late now, and I'm about to go to sleep, so I'll respond further tomorrow afternoon. Raul654 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since not all pseudoscience and fringe science is related to religion, mysticism, etc. my proposal would be to change "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" to "Religion, mysticism, mythology and paranormal". Martinphi doesn't agree, but I think that "paranormal" would create enough of a distinction that it isn't necessarily religious or mystical. It would also open the section up to future FA articles, like maybe one on UFOs, which aren't religious or mystical but are paranormal. Fringe science would be alright, but as Wikidudeman pointed out there may not be enough articles to populate the section. Pseudoscience is a pejorative and should be avoided for that reason, and that there are very few topics wholly "pseudoscientific". Pseudoscientific is a singular point of view and largely a subjective interpretation of what is and isn't science. As I pointed out on the talk page, psychiatry psychoanalysis is seen by some to be pseudoscientific. Actually all of psychology has been called pseudoscientific at one time or another. Still, you wouldn't put them under the cat "pseudoscience". It may be your point of view that it parapsychology is pseudoscience, and that's certainly a view shared by some, but it's not the view shared by all in the scientific community (as shown through the references in the parapsychology article). I think a "paranormal" category, whether it is an addition to an existing category or a new one, would be sufficient (though, again, Martinphi doesn't agree). --Nealparr 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the talk page, psychiatry is seen by some to be pseudoscientific. Actually all of psychology has been called pseudoscientific at one time or another. Did you intend to mix up psychiatry and psychology? Psychiatry is medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Doh, I meant psychoanalysis : ) I need to refresh my coffee. Psychoanalysis is often considered pseudoscience though it fits under psychology. But yes, besides maybe behavioral psychology, all of psychology has been considered pseudoscience at some point by someone. There are even some groups of people who see only natural science as science and anything else as pseudoscience. --Nealparr 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, But once Homeopathy reaches FA status, Where will it go? Wikidudeman 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an imminent issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be FA soon. Wikidudeman 18:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Better get busy cleaning up those references, making sure they are the highest-quality sources available, and pruning and cleaning up the external links (and don't forget to peruse WP:DASH and WP:MOSCAPS#All caps); that's my 30-second appraisal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a "Fringe science and alternative theories" cat, though there'd be few articles to start with. --Nealparr 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We do need a category which includes "paranormal." This is because there will be more articles, (like say Reincarnation research, which made good article at one point), which will make it here. But Parapsychology is a special case. After many months of work and a very contentious Arbitration in which Raul's viewpoint was eloquently expressed by many, including Wikidudeman, the Arbitrators wrote this:

...there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way...

This is not really open to interpretation; parapsychology is serious science, and deserves to be recognized as such- at least if other aspects of the field such as psychoanalysis are also recognized.

However, I understand Raul's reluctance to put the article under hard sciences such as Biology. I think what is needed is a heading Anthropology, sociology and psychology. Parapsychology would fit under that, with the rest of the questionable sciences (and I live on the Navajo Reservation, I know that Anthropology is very questionable(-: )

But parapsychology does not fit where it is. I have no idea why biology and psychology are lumped together. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

toadstooly thanks

Well, that main page stint for Amanita phalloides certainly resulted in some lively editing and debate. Is that par for the course or was it particularly busy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Time between FA promotion and appearing on the main page

It seems very inconsistent. Today is a good exsample. Dungeons & Dragons has been a FA for just two weeks while Wednesday's FA, Thou, had been a FA for almost 4 years.

Now I understand that articles are being promoted at a faster rate than they are apearing on the main page and that can only be a good thing. So as time goes no articles will have to wait longer. Sadly some users fail to understand this as show by the request page. So for the mosst part I have no problem with some articles going on the main page before others. FA shouldn't of coruse be placed on the main page in the order they are promoted. But the above exsample really puzzles me. So I have two questions.

Is how long an article has been a FA a factor you have ever taken into account when selecting TFA?

If not would you consider making it one in very extreme cases? For example, an artcle cannot appear on the main page until it has been a FA for X weeks and article which have been a FA for X years are given priority. Buc 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanford prison experiment

The Stanford prison experiment article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Misplaced Pages Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're name

You probably didn't notice this post above, but if you didn't see it,

I was reading recent changes around a hour ago, and I was wondering about you're name. Is it pronounced like Rahul, or is it Rawl? Just a curious question. And what's with the 654? You don't have to answer that part, it's just random...

Yamakiri on Firefox 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)