Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:06, 17 August 2012

Template:Multicol

• Archive 1: August - November 2003
• Archive 2: December - March 2004
• Archive 3: April - July 2004
• Archive 4: August - November 2004
• Archive 5: December - March 2005
• Archive 6: April - July 2005
• Archive 7: August - November 2005
• Archive 8: December - March 2006
• Archive 9: April - July 2006
• Archive 10: August - November 2006

Template:Multicol-break

• Archive 11: December - February 2007
• Archive 12: March - May 2007
• Archive 13: June - August 2007
• Archive 14: September - December 2007
• Archive 15: January - March 2008
• Archive 16: April - June 2008
• Archive 17: July - September 2008
• Archive 18: October - December 2008
• Archive 19: January - March 2009
• Archive 20: April 2009 - June 2009
• Archive 21: July 2009 - September 2009
• Archive 22: October 2009 - March 2010
• Archive 23: April 2010 - November 2010
• Archive 24: December 2010 - April 2011
• Archive 25: May 2011 - December 2011
• Archive 26: January 2012 - April 2012

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)

• http://www.SPAMFILTEREVASIONexaminer.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikipedia-features-cartoon-anal-probe (delete SPAMFILTEREVASION)

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

• • Oh no. Greg Kohs doesn't approve of the job I do and bad-mouthed me in a column that nobody will ever see. However shall I cope? Raul654 (talk) 11:48, 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

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: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Misplaced Pages Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	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:

• RMS Titanic - 430,012
• Sinking of the RMS Titanic - 177,040
• Titanic (1997 film) - 132,054
• Passengers of the RMS Titanic - 38,273
• RMS Carpathia - 33,952
• Wreck of the RMS Titanic - 30,051
• Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic - 13,270
• List of films about the RMS Titanic - 10,226
• Crew of the RMS Titanic - 9,541
• RMS Titanic in popular culture - 8,418
• Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster - 4,095
• Total page views for articles linked from FA box - 886,932

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:

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)

PMA

I'm based in London, but am happy to advise & work remotely, by Skype etc. Or there is the Misplaced Pages:GLAM/US, with User:Smallbones the local rep. Or some combination. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, let me follow up on a few things and I'll get back to you. If you haven't heard back from me in a few days, give me a poke. Raul654 (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PMA NO WiR

I'd love to work with PMA, but couldn't work for them (not qualified among other things). Leave contact info or e-mail me. Thanx. Smallbones (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Email sent. Raul654 (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it - will send something to WW tonight or tomorrow - or should I clear it with you first? Smallbones (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My plan was that I would send him an email introducing you and Johnbod and CC the both of you. Raul654 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Smallbones (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I do need your email address to do it. Raul654 (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

SMEs and the EP

Raul, I want to suggest something you might like to bear in mind for the future with regard to the SME discussion. I thought I'd post here rather than at WT:FAC or the education noticeboard since this isn't really a contribution to those discussions, just something I thought you might like to consider.

Currently the education program is a bit controversial -- I don't know if you've been following it at all, but hundreds of university classes have been run on WP with very variable results. There's a good deal of effort going into the EP, both from the community and the WMF, and I don't know what the EP's future will be like, though I've applied to be part of a group that will help define it. In any case, I've argued for some time that academe is the resource that we need to focus on, more than the students. It seems to me that a successful EP will bring into Misplaced Pages engaged academics who understand how the encyclopedia works. This is a ready-made pool of SMEs -- even more useful in many ways than a completely external SME because they will generally have some understanding or NOR and NPOV, and that will be a great help. This seems to me a good reason to work on improving the EP; and from your point of view it's a reason to keep an eye on the EP and understand what it may be able to do for you in the future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh the places you'll go

You'll love this—the random places one is led on Misplaced Pages. I'm here to ask you for OTRS help on a falsified image ticket, but look at the path that took me there!

Gimmetrow was plagued for years by Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) over citation issues. Gimme was always right but Merridew was after him like ... well ... like a plague of locusts with socks.

In every ANI and other discussion of Merridew's antics, Merridew's trusty sidekick RexxS shows up to defend his friend (those were his words in one ANI-- probably the one after Merridew and his socks went after Truthkeeper88 and several FA writers).

So, yesterday, the Merry Band showed up en masse (almost) to take up a citation war in an article Gimmetrow has maintained for six years. Yep ... none other than the unlikely foursome of Diannaa, Wehwalt, RexxS, and Rlevse suddenly took an interest in Sean Combs' citation style, and make their first ever appearances on an article Gimme has watched for years.

So, after having my say about said cabalism, I wandered off to see what had become of the rest of the missing FAC wreckers, where ...

I noticed an image on TCO's userpage that for sure didn’t look like a Fair Use image to me. Do you think that was the 1911 book cover?

So, after I posted a query to Elcobbola, I was reminded that he (Misplaced Pages's finest image reviewer) is missing in action, which could lead to a full-on rant about that horrid Education Program and the damage it's causing everywhere, with the blessing of the WMF, but I digress. Oh, this whole post is a digression. But I digresss ...

So, I click on the image info myself to see if I can figure someone else to ask, and lo and behold, ...

I find the image is linked in my talk archives, where ...

I find that TCO admitted he falsified the OTRS, exactly as I suspected (the book is old but the jacket cover isn’t!) And, he lied in claiming it was his photograph, when he took it from a website.

So, from one small interaction with Merridew's supporters, look where I end up ... here to ask you, since Elcobbola is gone, if you know how to deal with OTRS or get someone to remove that copyvio'd image. The little turd not only lied about it being his image, he lied about the date, and then he bragged about it on my talk, where (everyone now knows), I hardly ever read a word the child wrote.

They're such a nice group of editors, and it's so good of them to stick together. Isn't Misplaced Pages great, where everyone can find a kindred spirit. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's more: He falsified it twice, fights to keep it twice even after admitting what he'd done, amazon.com seems to indicate it's a 1943 image ... games. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(Watching) Sorry, I don't get it: following the link to Sean Combs I find a discussion about date format in citations, no more. What do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the German spy story you started, DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to get it deleted; not me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon!

Please join us for the second Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event will focus on Smithsonian history including the history of the Institution's museums, archives, research centers and the people behind them. This will be a great opportunity to learn about the Archives, work within them & with staff, and learn more about the world's largest museum complex. We hope you'll join us on Friday, May 25. Please sign up here! Sarah (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Note: You received this message because you were listed here. If you no longer wish to receive messages of this nature, please remove yourself from that list.

May 10th Main page FA

On the TFA requests, someone made a suggestion for 1997 Qayen earthquake for May 10th. However, no one went ahead and actually nominated it. It would seem to be a more important candidate than another video game article. It would have 5-6 points, focus on a non-Western event, and Geology is under represented subject. Would it be possible to change it? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change, and sorry for being a bit of a pest about that. One last thing. The "(more...)" is currently a red link. It links to Qayen earthquake when the article is called 1997 Qayen earthquake. Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 10, 2012--Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made Qayen earthquake redirect to 1997 Qayen earthquake which seems to solve it.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see Bencherlite fixed it first, but that does lead me to another question -- why is this article titled 1997 Quayen Earthquake instead of Quayen Earthquake? If the year is superfluous, it probably shouldn't be there. Raul654 (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know whether there's a written-down convention, as sadly MOS:EARTHQUAKE is a redlink, but a quick flick through Category:Earthquakes by country's subcategories (e.g. Category:Earthquakes in New Zealand, Category:Earthquakes in Indonesia, Category:Earthquakes in Quebec, Category:Earthquakes in California) and a peek at Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Geography and places#Earthquakes shows that the year is generally included regardless of a possible need to disambiguate. Bencherlite 23:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Err... sorry. I was the one that added it to the list, but I gave up trying to make a prompt for it after several attempts. It's a skill I'd like to develop, prompt writing, but at the moment I neither have it nor have any idea how to go about acquiring it. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus, 5 June 2012

Transits of Venus are among the rarest of predictable astronomical phenomena. They occur in a pattern that repeats every 243 years, with pairs of transits eight years apart separated by long gaps of 121.5 years and 105.5 years. There will be the second of a pair occurring on the 6 June this year visible in the US and briefly in the UK and although the Transit of Venus article has appeared once before as a TFA in 2005 it would seem a pity not to mark an event that won't happen again in our lifetimes. Although 6 June would be the obvious date for it to appear I see there are some other TFAs proposed for that date. If it was to appear on the 5th June (which has no other proposals yet) it would allow people to make preparations to view the event the following day. What do you think? Richerman (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll consider it. It's still a bit far out so remind me as the date gets a bit closer. Raul654 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Richerman (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the transit will be visible from North America on the evening of June 5th and Europe on the morning of June 6th so June 5th would be the best day. Richerman (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I fully agree and would like to request that this be TFA on 5 June 2012, starting at 0:00 UTC, so that everyone who might run into it will have plenty of time to prepare for it and find a way to view it (online or offline). The more advance notice that people have, the better. For instance where I live (Hawaii) the transit is at 12 Noon on 5 June. This extremely rare event is the most important astronomical event of this entire 21st century, and it will never happen again in our lifetime -- not until December 2117. (I have taken the liberty to edit the title of this thread to the correct start date of the transit.) You might even consider making it the TFA for 4 June instead, to give people that much more notice. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we've been upstaged by the Queen's Golden Jubilee. Richerman (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrm, I wonder if either of those (The queen or the transit) can be rescheduled plus-or-minus a day. Raul654 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The bonus Bank Holiday in the UK to mark the Diamond Jubilee falls on Tuesday 5 June, but there are commemorative events during all four days of that weekend (not a phrase I get to use often!): see here – e.g. the Thames pageant on Sunday 3rd, the beacon lighting on Monday 4th. Bencherlite 00:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've rejiggered the queue. The queen is now June 2 and the transit of Venus is June 5. And for the benefit of any wiki-historians watching, that should make it the second article that's been refeatured on the main page after Barack Obama in '08. Raul654 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that someone's going to ask for it *again* in December 2117, don't you?! Bencherlite 21:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think I'll be around to see it on the main page at third time. But if Misplaced Pages is still around 105 years hence, I suppose then that would qualify as one of those good problems that Marlo was talking about. Raul654 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you'll be here in 2117 - you're really a sentient bot, are't you? As long as someone keeps paying the electricity bills, you'll be here for ever... Bencherlite 23:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And they'll be asking again 8 years later! Seriously though, thanks very much for your consideration Raul. It would be a shame if Misplaced Pages missed such a rare event, even if a Royal Diamond Jubilee is even more rare. Richerman (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote from WT:FA

You stated in a recent discussion, "...frankly, there is very little reason for anyone to edit this page except for myself and my delegates." Do you approve of my addition of a random Featured Article tool? Interchangeable 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrmm. Need to consider that. What I might do is bump it to the side panel, Template:Fapages. Raul654 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As I recall there used to be a "Random Featured Article" button. Is that correct? Interchangeable 18:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever been a button, but there's a tool here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus is correct - random featured article has never been a built-in feature of Mediawiki; it's always been a tool on the toolserver. Raul654 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean I think that template used to have a button that said "Random featured article". Interchangeable 22:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think interchangeable is right. There are various templates and lists around that generate random featured articles. See Portal:Featured content for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Update

I was asked backchannel a while back if I had any conditions under which I would accept a Rlevse/PumpkinSky unblocking. I said the same thing I said publicly, which is that he needed to stay away from FAC, and stay away from DYK, where the copyvio issues continue because there is not sufficient accountability to prevent it. I suggested that Rlevse wasn't a person who should be opining at DYK, as he was part of the problem and didn't seem to recognize the extent of the problems. Not only is he not doing that, but the same Merry Band that went after FAC is going after Gimmetrow. Alarbus/Jack Merridew had a long-standing beef with Gimmetrow. And now I see a group at WT:FA (apparently unable to find WP:TFAR). It's curious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I recognize that Rlevse/Pumpkinsky is trying to make a fresh start, but you're right that, at the very least, he should be mindful of his past actions (to wit, the harassment) and take care to avoid doing anything that could be seen as a resumption of his past misbehavior. That's obviously not happening, at least insofar as his comments at WT:FAC. This situation is clearly not acceptable.

I'm trying to find a middle ground here between ignoring it and coming down on him with a sledgehammer. I've had two drama free months, and I'm rather enjoying it. Raul654 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Raul. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long-time user blocked with no discussion. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 17:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Chutz

Have a great time hunting him down, Mark! Mark Pollogrino (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 5, 2012

Hi! You recently listed Transit of Venus as an upcoming TFA, but it was posted on May 7, 2005. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware - I commented on it on this page a few sections up. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Had left a note on User talk:Dabomb87 before. Why should this article will given the rare privilege of being a TFA twice when it can easily accommodated on "On this day..."? --Redtigerxyz 08:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it makes wikipedia relevant to what's happening and it can't be accomodated in "on this day" because it's never happened before on that date. And honestly, does it really matter to you that much that one FA for a very rare event get's on the front page twice? I don't think the five pillars of wikipedia will come crashing down because of it. Richerman (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Richerman. "On this day" doesn't do "Today", it does "This day in previous years". You might have meant to say "in the news", which might give it a line in between recent deaths, elections and the sports news, so I think that an exceptional TFA repeat is warranted by an exceptional event that we know (no crystal ball required) won't happen again in our lifetime. This is one of those situations where Raul can ignore his own self-imposed rules at no harm to Misplaced Pages and with the benefit of marking a major event. Bencherlite 12:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Another point is that this is the first TOV since Misplaced Pages became established as the pre-eminent source of information (the last TOV was in June 2004, and the next is in 2117). The transit is much more than an oddity—it was the first mechanism used to estimate the size of the solar system, and it is highly suitable that it be featured on June 5. Johnuniq (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it can go in TFA where Towel Day is mentioned today or Christmas on yearly basis, the section where we talk about "today". I remember that there was a long discussion about Obama being featured twice somewhere and after that the community decided in favour of an exception. When we break the rules, it opens a Pandora's box. So when Queen Elizabeth becomes 100 for instance, will she be featured again? Will we make an exception for Halley's Comet every 75 years? There are many articles which are featured for years and are not on TFA. --Redtigerxyz 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean "On this day", not TFA, and that line is for holidays, national days of observation, religious festivals and the like - not "such and such one-off or extremely infrequent event is happening today". (I'd rather it didn't have things like "Towel Day" but that's not a discussion for here.) I think that talking about this decision opening "Pandora's box" is ridiculous hyperbole: in the 3.5 years since Obama was featured for a second time, no other article has been, which shows that Raul is easily able to restrict duplication to exceptional circumstances (which he, and I, and others, think this event is). As you said earlier, it's a "rare" privilege, and rightly so. It is a good example of WP:IAR, in fact. I'm sure that Raul, his heirs and successors will be able to decide whether to re-feature Elizabeth II in 2026 or Halley's Comet in 2061; we don't have to decide that just yet, but I hope my grandchildren get to see Halley's Comet on the main page and aren't fobbed off with some poor excuse like "it appeared on the main page fifty years ago". Bencherlite 16:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, On This Day is not a good fit for Transit of Venus because (a) they are not recurring events like holidays (b) nor does it they fall on a particular date like anniversaries. It could reasonably go on the In The News section, but one sentence there gives it far less exposure than does TFA.

I remember that there was a long discussion about Obama being featured twice somewhere and after that the community decided in favour of an exception. - No, actually that was my call. The community discussion came afterward and was supportive, but the community doesn't make these decisions. I do.

So when Queen Elizabeth becomes 100 for instance, will she be featured again? Will we make an exception for Halley's Comet every 75 years? - If I'm still making those calls 14 and 49 years hence, I'd say maybe to the first and almost definitely to the second. Raul654 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

100% support for Raul's action here. Ed  01:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

BUS M-28

I had asked Dabomb87 to unschedule the article. My schedule has been quite full lately, and there's the request to have Ontario Highway 401 as the TFA on July 1 for both Canada Day and the highway's 60th anniversary. My trip to Milwaukee from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan got aborted today at Fond du Lac, WI, over a transmission that only knows neutral. Imzadi 1979 → 01:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it. Raul654 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Alarbus

• User talk:Amalthea/Archive 6#Jack Merridew / user:Uncontroversial Obscurity

Leave my old user pages be; you're edit warring with others who know better. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny, when I asked Amalthea about user:Uncontroversial Obscurity (in the very same discussion you just cited) she said it was that account which was being used in compliance which the arbitration committee resolution, which limits you to one account. Yet here you show up, using a different account. So which is it? Were you violating the arbitration committee limit with that account, or with this one?

What's funnier still is how none of this was mentioned when this very subject was discussed on ANI two weeks ago. Your current account was created two days later. The timing for that is quite a coincidence. Something fishy is going on here.

I await your explanation with baited breath. Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Created in December, actually. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Taht like WP:BAIT, or with bated breath? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the arbitration committee about this and I expect my next stop will be arbitration enforcement. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a week behind; tehy knowz. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless they passed a new resolution changing the terms of your previous sanctions, the one account limit still applies and you are violating it, regardless of whether you notified them or not. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

moar tahn a week, actually. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Raul, the last motion directed Barong to edit solely from that account. Arbcom has not changed that remedy on-wiki, so it remains. In light of the sequence of other accounts, do you think AE would work? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That wording of that remedy looks ironclad to me. He's obviously editing and obviously not doing it from the Barong account. Their own demonstrated willingness to turn a blind eye to his misbehavior not withstanding, I don't see any way for the committee to twist their way out of that one like they did the other one. Go for it. Raul654 (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless you want to do it. May take me a while. It's interesting that after being limited to 1 account on June 2, 2011, the user socked with at least 10 accounts. The "Obscurity" account was OK'ed by arbcom on 18 July, but it stopped editing on 25 July. This was followed by more socking with at least 8 accounts. Some of those socks were blocked 28 to 30 March 2012. Then the "Obscurity" account was used from 7 to 9 April 2012, "scuttled" shortly after this post. Interesting. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikki's 'helpful' post had nothing to do with it ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Diff of User:Uncontroversial Obscurity
• Previous revision of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
• Diff of Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee
  that doesn't prevent him from changing account on a weekly basis if he likes

Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you're relying on an interpretation from your on-wiki friend with whom you were having a conversation about me days ago. And funnier still how she never recused herself. Raul654 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not as funny as you're looking ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep digging. Raul654 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

u2 ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so we're 100% clear. Merridew - under any account - is banned from any pages in my userspaces. If a message is really necessary, Merridew knows plenty of contacts who can drop me a message. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That a balk? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

TFA requests question

When a request has been added to the queue, should I take it off the request page, or leave it? Oakley77 (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please take it off. Raul654 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Joey Santiago

Why isn't he on June 10, which is his birthday? The article currently there is nonspecific, so it would be an easy switch. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed his birthday was close. (I don't normally go out of my way to look for anniversaries like that) I've made the switch. Raul654 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool! I also just noticed by chance. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Non-parallel net force.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Non-parallel net force.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. User:Zscout370 05:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

An old mate

Hello, I've been reviewing your posts about a certain Mr PS and wonder if you've seen this? http://other.skepticproject.com/forum/292/a-portrait-of-plautus-satire/ (this can't seem to be accessed from within here)

Check out Liz'es post in particular. (I've belatedly noticed that this goes on for 10 pages, and contains such witticisms from PS as ""Why don't you show up at my house, I'll put you under my garden". It really is quite a read.) Arno (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've actually seen it before :) (I was bored a while ago and wanted to see what he's up to these days) There are some laugh-out-loud descriptions of him there too, like after he claimed to be a medical doctor: "I think Plautus Satire is the Dr. Nick Riviera of Crazy Town. Without the degree of course," and he's "the male version of Orly Taitz with less credentials. "

And I'm actually mentioned by name on page 5 of that discussion. They link to an interview I gave to the guardian back in '06 where I described Plautus as "the most disruptive user in the history of Misplaced Pages." Plautus makes a dig at me on page 7 where he says that Furthermore, I was called the "most disruptive user", by one wikipedia admin who was being panned in an article about wikipedia. If you read the entire article, it basically paints a picture of this guy as a loser who lost his wife because he spends like fifty hours a week editing wikipedia.. The irony, of course, is that my girlfriend was sitting beside me at Wikimania when I gave that interview, which is clearly mentioned in the article. (And, I should say, we got married last year) His reading comprehension skills are as sharp as ever. Raul654 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I found the Skeptic Project article the other day, when like you, I got curious about what he's doing these days and did a Google search. The answer is after several years, he's pretty much the same. He still had that same knack in 2010 that he did in 2004 - and no doubt still does - to set off lots of controversy and anger. He managed to chalk up 10 pages over 48 hours on the Skeptic Project blog. 'Liz' had something to say about Plautus'es background, and I wanted to highlight that to you.

I hadn't realised that was you in that interview. To be honest, the Guardian is not exactly one of my favorite media outlets, and I hadn't learnt about that interview at all until now. Congrats on your marriage! Arno (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo usage

Hi, I've been working on a small game built around animal quizzes and I wanted to let you know I've used some of your pictures.

I found your pictures here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Cephalophus_sylvicultor_sylvicultor2.jpg I attributed this picture as described on that website: Raul654 with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Raul654 and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Pteropus_vampyrus1.jpg I attributed this picture as described on that website: Raul654 with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Raul654 and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

I hope you're happy with it, please let me know if this is not the case. You can find the game here: http://apps.facebook.com/animalalbum Or through here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/AnimalAlbum/156339584490672

Kind regards, Garfunkel Jansen

P.S. Thanks for taking the pictures and making them available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfunkel Jansen (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Love your cat ...

... on your user page. She looks so contented and secure. Pesky (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for JSTOR access#Status update. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

FAR nom of Iwo Jima flag raising

I have nominated Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PumpkinSky talk 11:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is there a mechanism or system or something by which it's possible to indicate that a FAC was abandoned, or that archiving was requested? The closing here, not promoted, seems to indicate that's it not worthy of promotion, which is now part of the permanent article history. Clearly there's more going on to make me walk away from a 4000 word article about a short story. Anyway, just wondering. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My full response here. In a nutshell, TK, your request for archiving is still there at the bottom of the FAC page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Would that work? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That works fine for me as far as the initial closing note goes -- does the bot recognise "withdrawn" as opposed to "promoted" and "archived"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Justin Bieber on Twitter/archive1

Can you close this as failed candidate? Someone requested a withdrawl. --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Renomination request

I'd like to renom Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive1. I've addressed all issues weeks ago, and notified reviewers on talk, but they never came back to express clear support or opposition, and nobody else commented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

IANAD, but FWIW, even though I've been giving Piotr a hard time lately, I support relisting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree all comments were addressed, after which the nom just seemed to languish. No reviewer suggested wholesale revamping so as a delegate I have no objection to a re-nom before the standard two-week buffer period is up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

FAC for Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

The review on that has essentially ground to a halt, and nobody has really raised any objections which have not been resolved. If you could promote this, I would be grateful. Wer900 • 00:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mail!

Kazuo Sakamaki and Phillip Willis

In the event you might be interested, I found an interesting tidbit of information that links Kazuo Sakamaki, an article you created over eight years ago, with Phillip Willis, a witness to the Kennedy assassination. It's not yet cited in either article, but it appears that Willis led the unit that captured Sakamaki. Cheers! Location (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Urk!

See Talk:Main_Page#No_Olympics.3F, if you haven't already. What do you think... closing ceremony? First day of competition? First day of track and field? --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on doing anything Olympics-related, since ITN usually covers it quite thoroughly. Did you have a specific article in mind? Raul654 (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that -- I did want to run Stamata Revithi on the day of the women's marathon. Raul654 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some articles suggested at Talk:Main Page. I've not checked if they're all current FAs that haven't appeared on Main Page. I also noticed there's a relevant one currently in the bubbling under list on WP:TFAR for Sep 6th. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Masterpiece Museum Edit-a-Thon!

"Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum

The Smithsonian American Art Museum and Wikimedia DC present the "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon. Drawing from their vast vaults of art, the caretakers of the Smithsonian American Art Museum have meticulously drawn forth canvas jewels to import into Wikimedia Commons and Misplaced Pages articles. The museum directors and staff are excited about this project, and would love to have experienced Wikimedians help in the effort! Kirill  18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC) When August 10, 2012, 10 AM - 4 PM Where Smithsonian American Art Museum, 7th & F St NW, Washington, DC Signup Details & signup

Barack Obama FAR

Your assistance is requested at Barack Obama Talk page1 and 2. There is a consensus that a FAR is needed, but several editors want to delay it until the election is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're an uninvolved outside admin, right? This whole process here seems kind of off - see this. The above IP editor has reverted the removal of the FAR nomination, calling one of the regular editors a vandal. I've urged everyone to just hold on pending some guidance and perhaps a calm voice. If that's not you, please let me know and I'll either try to make peace myself or bounce it to AN/I depending on whether people stop edit warring. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why you think my description of the process seems "off"? I am also an uninvolved outside admin... Dana boomer (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm not familiar with the process and your description seemed familiar. I was just saying that the procedure that was happening on the page seemed odd - first proposed on the talk page by an admin who felt the article was too pro-Obama immediately after failing to gain consensus for a rather obscure (and by American standards, left-leaning) accusation that the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden was illegal, supported by that editor and others mostly on that basis, and then nominated (and edit warred) by an IP account, all the while accompanied by accusations of editor collusion and whitewashing, and with absolutely no specificity as to what parts of the article could be improved. Sour grapes invocation of an inapt procedure that could waste many hours of editors' efforts could and should be summarily reverted. The article's been nominated for quickly aborted FAR several times before in similar circumstances, and accusations of whitewashing, censorship, and article ownership by accounts new to the article (many later confirmed to be sockpuppets), and edit warring that arose from them, were primary reasons for article probation in the first place. Perversely, the fear and hostility towards hot-headed newcomers and other suspicious editing patterns has produced the opposite of what they're agitating for in the long term, as it created an impasse that slowed down any real attempt to update an improve the article. So who knows, the edit warring newcomers may be right as a matter of content. The article could indeed have degraded to the point where it needs major maintenance to remain featured. As an editor who's long tried to keep the article stable and talk page copacetic, and been hauled before a rather cluless Arbcom for it, and because I don't really know enough about featured article review to know what that implies, I thought it would be best to leave it to an uninvolved admin to take a second look, and restore order if necessary. I wanted to ask for that without advocating one way or the other, just pointing out that the procedural history was odd. The nomination was later reverted by another of the article regulars, and for now that seems to be sticking. Sorry to be so long, and thanks if you've made it all the way through that paragraph! - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong here: "absolutely no specificity as to what parts of the article could be improved." Before you do anything else, reread the discussion that I had to undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the expanded explanation! The procedural history of the article has been quite odd, and I think this is mainly due to numerous editors initiating FARs without first fully working through or understanding the process. I have no opinion on whether this article is neutral, properly referenced, or well-written - to be honest, I don't think I've ever actually read it in its entirety. My post was simply trying to make sure that the editors calling for a review realized that a vague, poorly explained FAR, without actually trying to work through issues as part of the talk page step, was simply going to be closed. The talk page step is not (at least in this instance, because there are interested editors) merely a formality - it is a chance for interested editors to improve the article without the stresses of a full FAR, and I was not seeing that happen in this case. Also, like I said, FAR is not well-equipped to handle intractable content disputes between groups of editors. At this point, I'm going to stop talking and let Raul have his talk page back :) I do still plan to keep an eye on the Obama talk page (first time I've ever had a politician's page watchlisted, I think...can't wait to unwatchlist it, really) to try to make sure that any procedures relating to FAR (as well as general policies such as edit warring) are being properly followed. I would appreciate other admins doing the same thing :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe reconsider?

Hi Raul, I saw that you pulled the nomination for CenturyLink Field to be featured on August 8th saying "we've had lots of sports articles lately". I wanted to offer(only this once, I promise) a counter to your position. In the days since June 1 (including TFAs scheduled that have not yet run) 66 articles have been TFAs. Of those, there were three sporting BLPs (1, 2, and 3), one covering a regular sporting event (1), and one covering a baseball team (1). Therefore, only 5 of the 66 (or 7.5%) were sports related and none of them covered any kind of sporting facility. Also, there has been only one (1) generally architectural or edifice related article in that time (possibly the monestary counts as one too). So my counter points are that there haven't been too many sports related articles and even less in the same genre as CenturyLink Field. I apreciate your taking a moment to consider these factors and possibly allowing it to still run.

As I mentioned in my nomination note, there was a strong point total (4), but there was also a special relevance for the date (though I conceded not enough to be worthy of a point). My underlying motivation was to drive awareness for an event being held on that day. If you believe it can't run this time, it will likely be some time before I nomintate it again (not a big deal, I just want to be clear that I'm not going to turn around and tenaciously nominate it again next month).

I obviously yield to and recognize your ultimate authority on the matter as the FA director and I don't want to waste your time belaboring the point beyond this one plea. I just wanted to ask you to reconsider after I provided some additional context. Thank you for your time and attention either way. --SkotyWA_C 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I reconsidered my earlier decision and scheduled it as you requested. Raul654 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --SkotyWA_C 23:54, 7 August 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 August 11, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/August 11, 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:

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, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

Hi, Raul. Something tells me that this is the first time we're talking to each other. It's nice to meet you. I got a message warning me that José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco will be a TFA on next 15 August.

Right now I have a FAC about Pedro I of Brazil, one of the main Brazilian national heroes, the founder of the Empire of Brazil and most importantly of all, the man who declared the Brazilian independence from Portugal. You must be wondering, "So what?". It occurs that on 7 September Brazil will celebrate the 190th anniversary of its Independence. Less than a month from now. Since everything indicates that the article will pass, it would be probably a far better option as a TFA than the one about José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, a statesman in the Empire of Brazil. Since articles with similar subjects aren't welcome as TFAs when appearing too close to each other, I believe my suggestion would be preferable. What do you think of it? --Lecen (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - assuming it passes FAC, just remind me here and I'll schedule it for the 7th. Raul654 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. I appreciate it. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway - TFA 18 August 2012

Hi Raul, I am writing to you with a mixture of glee and dread. I am, along with Ssilvers, the main editor of the above and it's booked in to appear on the main page in August. I was very happy to see its selection for TFA but I am worried that it's appearence will warrant a lot of unwanted "improvements", as experienced on Georg Solti earlier this month. I feel that there is a witch hunt currently going on involving a few certain editors who are forcing their pro-info boxes views on those articles that do not have them. Holloway, does not have one and, as far as I know, has never had one. I am very worried, what with all of the discussions going on at he moment, that Holloway will also feature the same amount of criticism and forced opinions from these people thus inducing some sort of edit warr. It is also going on at Peter Sellers FAC (where I am co-nom) and on his talkpage here. On 21 June, another article in which I was heavily involved with, Dan Leno recieved the same treatment. Can I have your advice? -- Cassianto 04:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See WT:FAC#Infoboxes. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dank. -- Cassianto 18:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFA/R

I kindly request that you unprotect it. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect to keep it protected too long. And it's going to be at least eight days before any requests can hit the main page. Raul654 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Favor

Hey Mark, how are you? I hope you are doing good these days. I need a favor from you... Can you please move Loud (Rihanna album) to Loud (album) cause Loud (Timo Maas album) was moved to Timo Maas article so it's the only Misplaced Pages album article with the name Loud. Thank you :) — Tomica (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Not done – "It's the only Misplaced Pages album article with the name Loud", the premise upon which your request for a move is based, assumes that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Loud (Half Japanese album) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Loud (Wicked Tinkers album) will result in the articles being deleted, and that's not a certainty this early on in the deletion discussions. If they were to be kept simply as redirects to the bands, there might be an argument that keeping the general disambiguation page "Loud (album)" would still be worthwhile. Bencherlite 11:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TFA 19th August image issue

Hi Raul, when you selected Rus' Khaganate you didn't include an image, and there's a discussion at talk:Main Page#Image for a forthcoming TFA - opinions requested as to whether including one would be a good idea. You might want to look in on it if you get a chance. Regards, Bencherlite 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps ask someone who is active? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He's not inactive based on that diff, really. What's your point? Doc talk 11:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda, but I had seen Raul's comment before I left the message. Nevertheless, I'm not going to leave out notifying Raul about a TFA image issue just because he hasn't edited for 24 hours or so - it's not as though he's abandoned Misplaced Pages entirely, is it? And who else do you suggest I notify apart from the TFA author, Raul and the person with whom I'm having the disagreement? (Don't bother answering that, it's a rhetorical question and Raul won't thank us if his email is pinging all the time on a side issue between ourselves about a small issue in the grand scheme of things). In any event, Talk:Main Page is a visible enough location, and plenty of people have this talk page on their watchlist as well. Bencherlite 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shadow hegemon cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shadow hegemon cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 12:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Featured article process and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Rschen7754 09:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also noting that I am sending an email, as Raul seems to be on a Wikibreak. --Rschen7754 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil is now a Featured Article

Hi, Raul. How are you? You asked me (see here) to tell you when Pedro I of Brazil becomes a Featured Article. It has just been promoted (see here). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody remembers

This is teh reason he's doing it. His behaviour hasn't changed. 64.40.54.52 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)