Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:51, 11 February 2008

• 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
• Archive 15: January 2008 - March 2008

Jules Demersseman

I have just completed the translation of the article you requested from the German Wiki. If you'd like, you can add categories, since I don't like to do that part. Enjoy! Scbarry (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Binky The WonderSkull?

Hi Raul, I was wondering about this. . .(link to ? at WMC's page). I couldn't see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry. I assume there's something I can't find, but could you re-check this block? This account dates back to March 2006. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I also had a look and cannot see obvious signs of sock/ --BozMo talk 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence is very conclusive. Binky The WonderSkull, MRN, and Will381976 edit from the same IPs on the same topic. This same IP was used by Wedjj, and other IPs they have used were also used by other Scibaby socks on GW articlces. There is also additional checkuser evidence but I cannot comment on it. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think s/he was able to edit with such restraint. Every indication I had seen was that they couldn't help themselves. It's a little troubling (if I were one to be troubled). Thanks for clearing it up, R. Baley (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The original message I posted follows (orginally posted here )

I'm here on behalf of Binky The WonderSkull. You have apparently blocked Binky as being a sock puppet of Scibaby. Why is this? A check of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser told nothing about Scibaby's case. Binky claims no knowledge of who Scibaby is, nor has any idea why you believed them to be the same person and to have abused this priviledge (it's not against Misplaced Pages policy to have more than one user name as long as its not abused, so I'm assuming you believe there was abuse). Could it be because of a shared IP address? I do know that sometimes users share an address, possibly because they use the same computer at school, a dorm, coffee house, library or even home--more than one person from the same house may be an editor--or even because they are given the same IP by an Internet service such as AoL. Some users also use a service that substitutes an IP to make it more difficult for hackers and others to steal from or corrupt their computer (and, in the case of anyone editing from nations such as China, protect them from their own government's effort to stop freedom of the press). Or is it because they've edited similar articles? That could simply be a matter of similar interests--in the admittedly relatively few edits I've made here, I've ran into the same users over and over again. Whether one of these is the reason Binky was blocked or not, I don't know. But I do ask you to reconsider, and also to see if anyone else may have been blocked who is not a sock puppet. Thank you for your kind assistance. Reverend Loveshade (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'll check here on the history of admin William M. Connolley you'll see the comment:

FWIW, I too can't see any obvious reason to suspect a problem William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are several reasons why different editors may have the same IP, as stated above. Furthermore, even if the same editor uses different names, this is not against Misplaced Pages policy, and is not considered sock puppetry. As it says in Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry, "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies is forbidden." It is, however, acceptable to have more than one account under different names. "Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternative accounts. An alternative account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits.

"There are limited acceptable uses for alternative accounts, and a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternative account may result in being blocked from editing."

You have apparently blocked several users, and as far as I can see have not stated a single violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Would you want to be blocked with no stated evidence? I think you owe them an explanation as soon as possible. Thank you. Reverend Loveshade (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi RL, those sock provisions are for users in good standing. As far as I'm aware, Scibaby is indef banned, and any efforts to sock around that will be met with indef blocks on accounts used to further those ends. If BTWS is actually a different user (and everyone knows that CU is not magic -pending the latest findings on admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson, for example) he should submit private evidence to that effect, to both ArbCom and Raul. He should also make a convincing public statement (on his own talk page) as to his own innocence that does not reveal private info.

I anticipate that this is my last comment on the subject, and have only made it on the off chance (indeed, unlikely at this point, since Raul has double checked) that BTWS is who s/he says, and not Scibaby. That is, perhaps there is mitigating information out there that has not been submitted/considered. R. Baley (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lomcevak

You recently blocked this user indefinitely as a sock of the Genesis vandal/Tile join. He has appealed the block using {{unblock}}. I presume you verified it using checkuser therefore I am not going to unblock him myself, but you might want to drop over there and see what he's saying. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely see what he's saying. His edit history doesn't include any edits to Evolution; he seems to have other interests, and his username doesn't look like Tile join's pattern. And he says he's been editing from a public computer. Mangojuice 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)

An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

podcast

Gee thanks! That means a lot, especially coming from you.

With these episodes you set them up, do the interview, produce it and post online and then.....nothing. There's very little in the way of feed back to see if it's being well received, ignored, suggestions etc. I fly blind to a certain degree in guessing what works well.

I want to be able to contribute to the community but I just can't seem to get my act together to write FAs or things like that. So I'm trying to make my niche, make my contribution, by humanising the community. Because of the way we interact on-wiki/IRC/message board it's very easy to forget there are real people at the other end of the keyboard. I hope that these interviews go some way to ameliorating that. It might make people more Civil too... maybe.

Best, Witty Lama 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Philly meetup postponed

I'm sorry to have to do this but there's only four people signed up to come, and most of the regulars (e.g. Evrik, ike9898, etc) can't even come. I let the person from WHYY know via email. Maybe it's just that we're having them so often that people don't care as much anymore, or maybe it's because there was no announcement at the top of the page, I don't know. I'll wait a month or so and then start the voting for the date again (might as well keep the location). Hopefully I'll get more of a response than now. --TexasDex ★ 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All right. FWIW, I was definitely planning on coming. Raul654 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirtysomething (TV series)

Dear Raul654, There is a problem with the Thirtysomething (TV series). The name was chosen as "thirtysomething" not "Thirtysomething." WP: MOSTM state that it should be always capital when it's a Proper noun even if it was accepted "officially." I object that rule and changed it, because it was causing too many problems. I saw back-and-forth discussions about it on the talk page from a year-ago. The majority agreed with it being lowercase. I changed everything in the article that said it capitalized -- from "Thirtysomething" to "thirtysomething." But, there is a problem I can't fix, the title. I tried changing it and it said that it was typed the same and it didn't work. So I tried typing "thirtysomething (TV Series)" instead of "thirtysomething (TV series)." I was thinking maybe Misplaced Pages would pick "t" up and then I would of just changed "(TV Series)" back to "(TV series). But, it came out like this --> "Thirtysomething (TV Series)" so I had to change it back. Do you know why it isn't working? AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem someone reverted the edit on WP: MOSTM. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey ATC, how are you? Raul is pretty busy, so maybe I can help you on my talk page? I think Wiki articles have to start with a cap, even when the actual word doesn't; I had the same issue with the song by Nirvana, "tourette's". I don't think there's anything you can do about it, although correcting it within the article is the right thing to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of two FAC's

Will you please remove the Shawn Michaels and WWE FAC. I forgot to discuss it with WP:PW before I nominated it, Thanks!!! Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do those now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Happyme22

Hi Raul. I know that I am a new user and that Happyme22 has two articles that are being used as FA's, however, I have reviewed the standards for FAs before reviewing the history of the Nancy Reagan article as well as Happyme22's talk page, and with the history editors who have supported the maintenance of the article as it stands.

In all places, as you can see, there is a good deal of questioning his Non NOPV and possible bias in the writing of these articles and the editor's decisions.

As a new user, I do not know how to proceed but am suggesting that there is potential for an abuse of Misplaced Pages's guidelines here (especially with Ronald Reagan's bio coming up fast as an FA). Could you please advise me how to proceed?

Thank you so much.

207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the talk page and the article edit history, and see no problems. I did find this significant personal attack on Happyme22. By the way, Ronald Reagan took an almost record seven FACs to reach featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, SandyGeorgia. I have apologized to Happyme22 on the discussion page of the nancy Reagan article, and my apology was accepted. I would be happy to apologize to you as well, which you will find on your talk page.

Nancy Reagan Article

Raul654, Moving on to the issue at hand, I have gone through the Nancy Reagan article and have found MANY examples of a writing style and editing work that has been done in a clear and documented Non NPOV, despite the almost record FACs. My points have been clarified on the Nancy Reagan discussion page and I am eager to make necessary changes before the Ronald Reagan article is a FA. Feel free to comment on that discussion page, and/or please advise me how to proceed in this difficult and frustrating matter. Thank you again. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion : "four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions." made on the talk pages of 7 editors by 207.237.228.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is incorrect, insulting, and way out of line. Tvoz |talk 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul, this inference was first made by Tvoz on my talk page here. My responses here indicate and document that my statements were not out of line or inappropriate. In fact, I still believe Tvoz's -and the other editors mentioned- are attempting to use Misplaced Pages policy and procedure to influence editing and opinions about the POV of this article. My goal still remains to bring the article to a more NPOV reading. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Very. I reverted a vandal on Dec. 25th, last edit before that was a trivial correction in October, and I haven't even entered an opinion on IP's concerns. Apparently IP is upset at those who supported the article at FAC, although it's already been on mainpage without major issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have mentioned to SandyGeorgia previously, neither of those edits were made by me. The first edit is not my IP, and the second was a simple grammar issue...to which the reply was "ugh" before a revert. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, in fact, entered opinions 5 times on my talk page, not to mention the hugely inappropriate comment here, to which Tvoz replied -on my talk page but with no consequence to SandyGeorgia - here. And there have been numerous opinions from SandyGeorgia on the Nancy Reagan discussion page. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Before it is stated that there were no major issues with this article when it was mainpaged, please be aware that ClueBot reverted 5 possible cases of vandalism to the article between Nov 1 and Dec 23 2007, but reverted no less than 17 possible cases of vandalism on the single day it was FA...and more since then. Also please note this comment from SandyGeorgia stating "Mainpage day always makes me very uncomfortable; it's just painful to watch any article go through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, please note that a MedCab request is in process for the article in question (re: editorial ownership, codes of conduct, lack of reasonable consensus building, and so on) here. I hadn't the time to complete it the last few days but appreciate everybody's patience. I am awaiting advice from Doug here. Thanks again for your time and patience. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very busy over the next day or two (changing jobs). Will look into this over the weekend. Raul654 (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I intend to finish the MedCab request very late tonight. Good luck in the new position, and thanks again. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

With two article edits since October (I had more in ref cleanup during the first FAC, 28 article edits in total), a grand total of 5 talk page edits, and one FAC support, I won't be getting involved in that situation or mediation. I'm simply not a factor on that article, any more than any other FAC. I can't imagine how my time would be spent if I had to mediate every FAC Support or Object I've entered. Having reviewed the talk page, I still don't know what IP wants to mediate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The only connection I have to this article is that I participated in the FAC discussions as a previously uninvolved editor and did a small amount editing of it at that time - 16 edits - to try to help satisfy some problems that I and others observed. Happyme22 was cooperative, the FAC process went a few rounds, and most of my concerns were satisfied by the time it received FA status. Since then I kept it on my watchlist but made no edits on or about it until I noticed this personal attack on Happyme22 and then, looking further, noticed this much more egregious earlier personal attack by the same IP - his first edit under this IP address. The second relevant edit by this IP (his 4th edit, still before saying anything on Nancy Reagan or its talk page) was to file a Wikiquette complaint against Happyme which was at best ironic, given the personal attacks the IP had made on Happyme. The complaint was rejected. It would appear, then, that this IP picked up where another IP (perhaps 74.73.106.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - see similarity of edit summary before that IP was blocked) or some other username left off. Only then did the IP make numerous posts on the article Talk page: a few of them were accepted, some were rejected, and most were discussed to the best of our ability given the volumes that were posted. There was no collusion or "teaming together" - we discussed and reached consensus on a few changes. One editor from the FAC (Karanacs) who was inappropriately canvassed by the IP (along with six other editors) came to the IP user's talk page to say that s/he thought the complaints were not justified. Discussions are going on among three editors other than the IP about one very small matter, but in no way should it jeopardize the FA status of the piece. When this started the article had not substantially changed since its elevation to FAC other than a few additions and tweaks - I believe it is still NPOV and worthy of its FA status, and see no reason for any mediation, nor do I intend to participate in it. Tvoz |talk 08:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your (and SandyGeorgia's) non-participation in mediation is certainly ok. As far as I can tell there is a dispute resolution process and I have followed it appropriately, and there are further steps to take. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen a Misplaced Pages mediation that accomplished anything worthwhile. (Not denying there may have been successful cases at some point in history.) I support Tvoz in declining to participate in a process that is virtually guaranteed to be a colossal waste of time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Manos" The Hands of Fate

Just wanted to know if you think "Manos" The Hands of Fate could be put up for TFA on the 30th, seeing as you scheduled the date before I got a chance to put it on the request page. It's the 15 anniversary of the MST3K airing, and it has been waiting longer than Motorhead. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sakuhei Fujiw(h)ara

I'm a novice at Misplaced Pages, so apologies if I make any faux pas, but I'd like to give this a go. I hope this is the right place to talk about it. I'm also not a meteorologist. If I have a go at translating, could I ask you for advice along the way? For example, presumably it's not necessary to translate the whole page, half of which is a list of his publications.

Concerning the spelling, I'd go for Fujiwara, which would be the standard contemporary transliteration. Meteorologists may disagree, but he doesn't seem famous enough to justify what seems to be an old-fashioned transliteration (with only 600 hits on Google).

--Rsm77 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 31st

I don't know if you've seen what happened to Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 31, 2008 on your watchlist, but I'm certain you should feel honored. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

Hey, Raul. Not sure if you're around, but I thought I'd summarize for you the situation at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution, in case you want to weigh in or close it yourself. It has 12 supports and 5 8 opposes, one a very strong oppose based on accuracy and three from editors who haven't revisited in a very long time. There's a summary here, and a summary of the outstanding concerns at the end of the FAC (search on Summarizing). Amaltheus (talk · contribs) has made numerous very good suggestions and changes; he's noticeably upset about the state of the article and has felt dismissed and mistreated in the process. He's made valuable contributions and suggestions throughout, and he says that the article is not yet accurate. It's not clear to me how significant the remaining issues are in terms of accuracy or how easily/quickly they could be addressed if the parties communicated well. I asked TimVickers (talk · contribs) to review several days ago, but he hasn't weighed in (he's usually prompt, so I suspect he's not going to). Consensus is well within promote territory; I've let it go several days and tried to get the parties talking to each other again (with limited success), hoping the remaining issues could be resolved without ill will. A restart doesn't make sense, because the issues and positions are clear and it's really only one substantial, significant, oppose. If you want to handle it yourself, that would be welcome, or if not, I'll deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Too tired to deal with this tonight. Will look into this tomorrow or Tuesday. Raul654 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK; in the meantime, they're firing at each other again SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Update, a new Oppose from Tony, comprehensive. In terms of stability, over 700 article edits made since the FAC started, and full talk page archive and ongoing discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice anyway Raul, but it's at AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination). It will probably be no consensus kept, but a substantial number of people don't believe it should exist. I would oppose it on 1e, at the moment. Marskell (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm. Someone should probably look at what's occurring on Amaltheus's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, as you know Raul, is not an untroubling editor, but the harassment he's received for daring to oppose this article has been egregious, ongoing and quite unacceptable. I would deal with the most recent harrassment myself, but have been in recent conflict with the relevant editor (not to mention Amaltheus himself, who seemed to resent a recent intervention on his behalf) and therefore will not involve myself directly. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me from reviewing his contribs that Amaltheus started off with only helpful and accurate suggestions; I believe the first post I linked above was his first on the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These are slightly inaccurate descriptions. Although Amaltheus has made some good suggestions, and is clearly highly educated and intelligent, he has been sometimes extremely difficult to work with. Two editors who were handling the edits related to the FA quit Misplaced Pages because of his badgering and uncivil uncooperative behavior (User: Random Replicator, who even had his page and account deleted, and User: Wassupwestcoast is on a long break). Several others, including myself, distanced themselves from the article and talk pages and FA pages rather than participate and be the target of more invective and hostility from Amaltheus.

The bottom line with Amaltheus' complaints is that they are either (1) often vague and poorly explained, so that it is difficult to know how to implement them, and he sometimes declines to give specific examples or sample text or edits that can demonstrate what the problem is and (2) his edits often involve an effort to take an introductory article and make it as advanced and complicated as the main evolution article, or moreso, obviating the reason for its existence. When this "sophistication creep" occurs over many cycles, the article ceases to be accessible and meet its original reason for existence, as explained by User: Tim Vickers: .

I have not intended to harass him, but engage him in friendly conversation, given that he has successfully driven off all others involved in this FA attempt except for SandyGeorgia. I will confess to being frustrated when I found out that our main workhorses on the project, Random Replicator and Wassupwestcoast had been driven to quitting, mainly because of interactions with Amaltheus, and I wanted to discuss the situation with him. However, he began blanking my additions to his talk page, so I eventually realized that I should just leave him alone, which I did.

I did not follow the situation in detail before last night, since I had been avoiding the page for weeks because of fear of confrontation and further difficulties with Amaltheus, but I would be surprised if I found any evidence where he was treated in any hostile or dismissive manner leading up to the defection of the two other main editors he was involved with. I would have to see the evidence for myself, but I would be extremely surprised if Amaltheus was harassed in any way by the others working with him on Introduction to evolution. --Filll (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

my experience at Intro to evol

I'm breaking my wiki-break to document my experience at the Introduction to evolution page. My first interaction with Amaltheus (talk · contribs) was cordial enough on the Talk:Introduction to evolution under the the sub-heading ‘#8 Line by Line Veto --- use of text books’.

All of my first interaction can be seen at this diff

• 22:59 7 Jan

no edit summary

Then, Amaltheus inntroduces the infamous ‘sex’ dispute. S/he doesn’t drop it, ever, from now on.

The argument begins under the sub-heading ‘Wording’ on 10 Jan. Amaltheus escalates from “so you should mention sex somewhere” to “Sex is not an "overcomplication." It is essential.” to “Sex is MANDATORY.” & “…and omitting it is a serious error.”

At this point, user Random Replicator finds the emphasis funny (as I do). And, Amaltheus is told by several editors that it simply is not correct. Sex is not necessary for evolution. Sex itself evolved. And, it is probably inadvisable to mention sex in an article targeted at children.

Now, Amatheus starts to claim a personal attack.

“I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above, and the attempt to find multiple contradictory reasons to dismiss me by first saying I'm making it to complex, and now I'm dismissing bacteria (I had left out prokaryotes to respect the tone of the existing article and its emphasis on eukrayotes), and I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force. “

From now on, Amatheus claims he is being personally attacked.

All of the sex discussion can be seen at this diff.

• 4:50 12 Jan

I've dropped the idea, no need to use this page to attack me

Nine mintues later, Amaltheus registers an 'Oppose' at the FA page and emphasizes 'personal attack'.

• 4:59 12 Jan

object if the writers need personal attacks to support their ideas it will be a problem on the main page and probably inaccurate

Later that day, I reach out to Amaltheus and welcome him

• 20:02 12 Jan

welcome and be bold

It is spurned.

By

• 16:26 13 Jan, Random Replicator was alarmed enough to post a message on Raul's talk page

Please Please Stop the Madness

From then on, I am constantly accussed of personally attacking Amaltheus. Just cast your eye down my talk archive for Jan: see User talk:Wassupwestcoast/Archive to January 2008.

Of course, I'm not the only editor who was attacked but Amaltheus sure didn't like me. I barely interacted with him. You can check the diffs on his talk page. But the whole experience is so miserable, that I'm not returning to the project until March and I won't ever return to the evolution pages. I'm going to enjoy myself when I get back. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

me too

If it helps I can provide diffs for all this - though it is time-consuming to do so because it happened across several pages, including some unlikely places, in a confusing manner - and it probably wouldn't help much anyway. For the moment, I'll confine myself to a brief description. My experience is like that of others. Coming back after a few days away I made a comment on the row that had broken out at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution, said that Amaltheus's "strong oppose" to FA status seemed to be based more on an apparent sense of being hurt/rejected by other editors than any substantive objections to the article itself, suggested that as far as I could see it was a "nitpicking" objection, and asked Amaltheus to restate the core of his objections to the FA status. The response was a pretty meaningless "what part of what I said don't you understand?" I went to his talk page and asked in a friendly way to have it explained, and was rebuffed with a quite unwarranted accusation that I was getting personal. I tried again to engage with Amaltheus and find out how he thought the article should be improved, but met with increasingly intemperate rejections and accusations of personal attacks. Throughout, Amaltheus has been incredibly quick to take offence at the slightest perceived slight. Others (including, briefly, myself) have fallen into the trap of responding to his personal attacks - but it is very striking that Amaltheus is the only one who has had difficulty working with this group of editors in over a year, and striking how quickly he escalated a minor disagreement over content and style to an all-out war with anyone who dared to question him, let alone disagree with him. Is Amaltheus the only one in step? In over three years of involvement with WP I have never seen anything like the torrent of abuse that has come from that source. Snalwibma (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for the link! I really enjoy reading the history articles and when it come to somthing I don't know about I ask and read all about it! I specialize in the areas of Texas history,early america, and I am currently studing the civil war. Thanks so much and keep up the good work! I am new to the community so if I make a mistake I am really sorry! If you need to send me somthing like the link please put it on my page!Historybuffc13 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Troll

User:Raul654 I would like you to take a look at this Talk:Troll_(Internet)#Wikipedia_Troll. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TFA Long range request

Hope you don't mind a drive by question: just want to know whether or not you pay any attention to Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/Long range requests? Ta. Carre (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this correct?

Raul, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations says, "Archives are organized by nomination date. Thus a discussion that took place, for example, from May 27 to June 3 would be in the May archive." Is that correct? I've been archiving according to the month the nomination closes, since that's how we keep stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. It should say they are organized by nomination closure date. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done (don't know why the next poster took emoticons off of some of my earlier posts, maybe I use them too often). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You might think this is funny

Aside from him being annoying and having a final warning for disruption, he did make this funny edit. I think you might enjoy it :P Yamakiri _C § 01-29-2008 • 23:10:40

Very amusing :) Raul654 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User rename

Hey, I requested to change my username. Before I knew to do that I moved the page on my own and goofed it up. I feel like a huge fool. —Burningclean  00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't pretty, but I managed to stitch back together the page histories, and rename you correctly. Raul654 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the screw up. On my userpage I don't know how to get rid of or move the REDIRECT thing or the Template:Userpage from it, do you? —Burningclean  05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave the redirect in place - your signature is the problem. Go to "My preference" and restore the default settings. That is to say, make sure "Raw signature" is unchecked and set signature to "Burningclean". Raul654 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I got it. When is the next batch of FAs going through? —Burningclean  05:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not planning on doing any archiving for the next few days. Sandy might. Raul654 (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With seven supports and four objections, would the article be promoted? The Alice in Chains FAC has been going on for a long time, and I think it is almost done with. —Burningclean  05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

? —Burningclean  06:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't speculate on these things. Raul654 (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FA, retards and an expert

Fowler&fowler is a new breed, a rare specimen, what not even a Dbachmann can make. Don't you see how he is being treated in the FA process? . . I don't know know if he loves being called a troll by retards but I would like to know if WP naturally abhors scholarship. 59.91.253.139 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please be a bit more descriptive. Pointing me to a talk page that is (literally) 25 printed pages long isn't all that helpful to me.

Anyway, Fowler&Fowler makes an interesting point (about Obama not being an "African-American" in the cultural sense). But as the others there, I object to any attempts to modify the article to distinguish this point. "African-American" has a pretty clear english meaning, and others have pointed out that attempting to differentiate the African-American in the cultural sense from the common usage of the word is POV pushing. Raul654 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Raul, who ya callin' a sockpuppet

Raul, my account is User:IthinkIwannaLeia. I registered it from Wookiepedia. I am currently at a public library and am unable to edit pages when I am logged in. I get a message saying I am a sockpuppet of User:Coach wears a skirt. I don't know who this is.

Well I can tell you, I am not a sock puppet. This is my primary account, and I am a responsible user of Wookie and Wiki. At first I assumed that it was the IP address of the Library that was being blocked, but I realized I could edit a page when I was not logged in. I can only assume that it is infact my account that is being blocked. (I have no other accounts, so I can not tell if it happens when anyone logs in at this IP.

I hope you can help me reactivate my account. I would also like to know how my name came up linked to this Coach wears a skirt. I do not think that my account has been compromised or hacked, but you never know. Since I cant log in here, please contact me or reactivate my account and on my talk page explain what happened. thanks. --IthinkIwannaLeia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.114.10 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. One note: I never used a public computer--I used my laptop and connected through the Libraries wireless. If it was an IP thing at the library, don't you think you should have blocked the IP and not my account name? I don't really know how it works, and I know you have a difficult (and unpaid, right?) job, so I won't give you a hard time. No harm done. Thanks for the fix. Happy wiking IthinkIwannaLeia (talk)

Front page criticism

Although I have no problem with today's front-page featured article, I have been reading some off-wiki criticism, and I wonder: Has there ever been a proposal to limit the articles appearing on the front page by some kind of an importance or relevance criterion? If so, could you please point me to it so I can see the resulting comments? MilesAgain (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Murder_Madness_and_Mayhem

Hi and many thanks for your interest and your suggestion. I've dropped a line at the Signpost. Let's see how it goes! Students are still a little shy about editing. I'm working on encouraging them... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests - 2/4

FYI, 2/4 request(s) were there before 2/9. If the request + alternate request is an issue, Interstate 355 is essentially withdrawn due to lack of support. —Rob (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gus Chiggins (again, I know!)

Since you are the admin that has had the most, uh, familiarity with this editor, I thought I would come to you. Gus is currently bringing up a frivolous RFC because he "doesn't like" the use of the word incorrect when describing the views of Duane Gish. Check it out on the talk page, its intriguing. It's basically the same general behavior as before, but on a new article. Should I just go ahead and move this to the Incidents noticeboard and let the community deal with him? Baegis (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene (2005)

I thought I'd bring this to your attention if you were unaware.

There seemed to be an edit war that was developing right on the FAR page over Hurricane Irene (2005) and its status as a featured article. It was between the nominator Nergaal and Hurricanehink. There edits they were both doing to the pages were both hard to follow. Now the discussion seems to be removed from the FAR page but still the template is on the discussion page (when I last checked). I'm personally not involved in the situation and do not have any knowledge of the area so I decided to stay out. Just letting you know. If you could tell me the outcome on my talkpage I'd be greatly appreciated Medos (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Marskell closed it as a keep. Titoxd (talk · contribs) hasn't been back to Wiki since December 13. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PR stats at FAS

Raul, no one seems to know what to do with the PR column at WP:FAS; do you know anything about that number, or should we drop it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-noms

Raul, I'm not sure how I should handle immediate re-nominations when issues weren't addressed; I don't want to get into a tug-of-war with nominators by removing premature subsequent noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackface

Raul, I believe I've never asked you to look in on anything related to a FARC before, but could I ask you to take a look at my comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Blackface and possibly also look in on what's been going on in the article? I feel like a lot of people want this de-featured not because of any deficiency in the article (there are some deficiencies, mostly related to citation; several of us are trying to address those), but because they really don't like us having an article about white appropriation of black culture. There has been some pretty hostile attitude on the talk page and in the form of edits that try to lop large chunks out of the article. It has made working on fixing it a pretty miserable experience. I don't particularly think there is anything that you can do, but I want to call your attention to what is going on, because eventually you will have to evaluate the opinions about whether to keep this article featured, and I think there may be people participating the process whose issues have little to do with the quality of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment on the review. It won't be closed while you continue to work. Marskell (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost suggestion

Just a little blub about Misplaced Pages:Image renaming would be a good idea. Ive been testing on commons with no issues and thought that en.wiki would benifit from it. so any help in spreading the word would be welcome. β 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Kittens!

Hi. I'm trying to help out at the Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten article, regarding the Gonzo image (Image:Img146.jpg). Dicklyon suggested that I should bug the uploader, but I'm completely unsure of how production differs from copyright, or any of the fine details regarding image use in WP. So I was wondering what you'd advise, or whether you could fix this problem more rapidly than I. Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about TFA

Hi. I'm hoping to get Melodifestivalen onto the Main Page in March, but there's an outstanding request for proofread on it. I think that most of the problems were ironed out during the candidacy and just after. Is that likely to be a sticking point on the TFA requests page? Should I be worried? Thanks, and all the best. Chwech 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley FA

Seven days and six hours is the quickest I have ever seen a FAC closed. What gives? I was making progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Three opposes, seven days is a standard close; five days with a lot of support or oppose are also typical closes, and there always have been many of those. As soon as you've addressed the issues, you can re-nominate (I see you're reviewing with Karanacs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

Hey Mark, there's a conversation going on at Talk:Main Page right now, it started out as a job application by an [[Special:Contributions/211.49.236.44 |anonymous IP]] for the position of Today's Featured Article Director. That evolved into a discussion concerning the validity of the role itself, with a few, including myself, advocating the current system, and others, including the anonymous IP, advocating a possible unspecified change. The anonymous IP has just stated the lack of a comment from yourself. Can you do me a favour and way in? Pay attention to my response from the anonymous IP's comment (quoted below) when you do so as well please.

Conspicuous silence from the boy himself on this matter. Does he fear for his position of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, its quite the opposite I guarantee it. If he feared for what you refer to as a position of power, he'd be here arguing his case. Raul has many responsibility's here at Misplaced Pages, and he doesn't want to get in the way of the community deciding if its working or not. I could ask him here to comment if you'd like, but he frequents this page regularly and I guarantee he's aware of this conversation. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance Mark. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already replied there. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, whenever your ready though, and if you want to, (don't feel obliged), could you add your position on the topic at hand? ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Long range TFA requests

Hey Raul - How do I request that an FA not be placed on the main page for a specified time period? For example, I'd like to have oxygen be the TFA for August 1st but the request page is only for items that are a month out and that type of article is likely to be randomly selected for TFA before that. I ask because you don't seem to look at the long range request page (why you don't bewilders me since it seems like a great resource vs having to research and decide all on your own). --mav (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page request

Since yet again the limit of five has been hit on the normal request page, and since my previous request received no response here, I'm politely requesting once more that Bobby Robson be considered for main page inclusion on February 18, his 75th birthday. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds

I noticed that you have participated in Misplaced Pages:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Genesis vandal again

User:Uuger, only one account so far. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock-auto request

A user that has been caught in an autoblock is requesting an unblock. Since you handled the original block, perhaps you could review and see if an unblock is appropriate or not. See User talk:66.215.8.39. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an autoblock, it's a rangeblock. - Revolving Bugbear 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All quiet here

Sure has been quiet here :-) I know you've been awfully busy with the job change, so please let me know when you have time to review a new FAC award idea that's been bouncing around; I don't want it to move forward without checking with you. Nothing urgent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC recusal for you

I'm going to recuse at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company and let you handle it; it has Support, but I'm just not comfortable passing it, although you may be. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Farrell

Since when does Mike Farrell get to write in an OTRS ticket and say he hates a high quality photo of him that is not ultra-touched up, and it gets taken down and replaced with an ultra-touched up 9KB Mike Farrell shot? If he wants to release a high-quality, Michelle Merkin-esque photo of himself for GFDL, great. But since when do notables get to write in and simply ask that work we invest in obtaining GFDL high-quality images can be taken down simply because they don't like the way they looked that day, or whatever? Is celebrity vanity really going to be what dictates our media? David Shankbone 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:70.183.187.249

IP is asking to be unblocked, and I'm afraid I don't quite understand the original block reason. - Revolving Bugbear 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That IP has been used by several user:Raspor socks - Showerrug, BobLMartin, Patonq, and Hignit - and nobody else. Leave it blocked. Raul654 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is suspicious too. I've done most of the Raspor RfCU's. Something fishy going on around here. OrangeMarlin 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:VacuousPoet

This user is asking for an unblock and a review of the sock allegations against him. He has asked for you by name if that means anything. It seems strange to be asking for an unblock after a year out. Woody (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it. There are at least 5 different RfSS's for this guy. About the only reason to review it is to make the block even more permanent, but since it already is, enough said.OrangeMarlin 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody still needs to review the block and close the template. CAT:UNB is actually quite full at the moment. Woody (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange to be asking for an unblock after a year out. - It makes absolutely perfect sense to me. You wait for all the checkuser data to expire, and then ask for the block to be reviewed. I'll look into this more, but frankly I'm inclined to call this one in favor of the duck test. Raul654 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I simply asked you as he has specifically asked for you to review it. I know nothing about it though I am happy to decline the unblock, just thought I would ask you first. Woody (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why he thinks I'm friends with him. I've done just about every Sockpuppet and RfCU against the him, his puppeteer User:Kdbuffalo, and every sockpuppet that has shown up. This guy is bad news. OrangeMarlin 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see no evidence linking VacuousPoet to Kdbuffalo based on the one IP currently in the system, but that's not saying much. Raul654 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was about a year ago when we found him. OrangeMarlin 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mehola Junction bombing

See Talk:Mehola Junction bombing. -- 212.199.49.9 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FA

I wasn't fishing, but I won't say no!!!. I think the one with the most global appeal would be Barn Swallow. Thank you for the offer, it's probably the only Valentine Day present I'll get. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. A little back, after a Talk page discussion, I placed this graph on Global Warming with "Relative weight of warming/cooling radiative forcing components as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" as the description, and I had given some thought to have the description clear and brief for non-experts. But that was later changed by UBeR (while I was blocked) to "The radiative forcing in 2005 relative to 1750 as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," but I think this description is not as informative, if not being outright cryptic, for a typical user of Misplaced Pages articles for this type of subject. I had created a new Talk page section proposing changing the wording back to its original, and asked for comments. Only UBeR responded a couple of days later with just I like my wording, actually. I asked him to explain that but he didn't and after a couple of more days, I finally changed the wording back to the original. He then almost immediately reverted me. I reverted back and explained on his talk page how he had ample opportunity to comment before hand but didn't. But he only reverted again, and appears not to want to get into a serious discussion. I have to avoid even a hint of getting into a revert war (which he knows all about), so I'm just requesting some other GW regulars to stop by and offer an opinion on the wording if they have one. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)