Misplaced Pages

Featured article issue

Heya Raul, if you could take a look at that'd be great. Thanks. --Improv 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reschedule?

Could Sesame Street be rescheduled for any other day that the 20th? I don't usually access WP on Sundays, and I don't want it turning into a sprawling mass of trivia, as it has become at many points in its existance. -- Zanimum 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have rescheduled it for the 21st. Raul654 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

35 mm film FAC question

Hey Raul,

I know you're busy so I'll keep it short. I have an FAC up for 35 mm film right now. It seems to have gotten some good comments, most of which I've been able to address, but mainly...editing traffic on the FAC is just slow. I'm not certain enough people have commented or supported to give enough scrutiny to qualify for FA-status - personally, I'd rather have lots of opposes votes with tons of advice of what needs improving. Could I ask if you might have any advice on how to rescue it from this limbo? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a question

I noticed you promoted 11 FACs today and passed over Padmé Amidala. The article's been there 11 days and has three objections: one for less images, one for more images, and another calling for a monstrous list of references. Which one of these do I need to address for this article to be promoted? Thanks. Dmoon1 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a little confusing; usually Raul is able to sniff out the "rock and hard place" nonsense objections (I.E. oppose more images, oppose less images, oppose needs 3x+1^6 - KB of article/6 references), but I guess he wants to see a bit more time on the FAC for this one, which is completely understandable and I respect his decision. — Deckiller 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

your removal of Bulbasaur

I'm not in on the specific issues, but perhaps a note on the FAR discussion page explaining why you removed this listing? The edit comment needs elaboration. Tony 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Abbie is Watching You

Teke 04:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Inline audio link pop-ups

As you're one of the people who commented about formatting/clutter on the {{audio}} template, I'm wondering what you think of my proposal for a javascript popup instead. I fixed the "clicking on the icon goes to the image page" problem a while ago, but there is still the "overloaded interface"/"too many click targets" problem, and I'm proposing we use javascript to hide the extra links until you hover over it. You can try out the mock-up yourself by adding this to your User:Raul654/monobook.js:

document.write('<scr' + 'ipt type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/audiopops.js'
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></scr' 
             + 'ipt>');

This would be a site-wide change, so everyone would see it, and it safely falls back to the current design with several links on browsers without javascript. I would be happy with any kind of support, suggestions, or criticism; right now I feel like I'm talking to a wall. — Omegatron 18:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother - Michael Dale (user:Mdale) is doing a google summer of code project to impliment a java-based player for mediawiki. I saw a demonstration of it at Wikimania - it was *GREAT*. Not perfect, but miles and miles ahead of what we have now. Brion Vibber said it was a "hack, but a good one", which coming from him, is very high praise and means it will very likely be included in mediawiki sooner or later. So leave things as they are now - I'd prefer as much uniformity as possible when we have to make the switchover. Raul654 19:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with this proposal. Can you point out a more detailed description of the player? — Omegatron 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if your proposed javascript implimentation doesn't required any changes except to the global monobook.js file, I suppose that's OK by me. Raul654 21:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would need to go into a global .js file, which doesn't exist, or into wikibits.js, which I don't have access to. But yeah, it's just a bit of javascript that goes into a global file. I'm still interested in knowing what this player does to audio links, though. — Omegatron 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the sample. It's not polished or finished yet, but it will probably look something like that. I like it a great deal. Raul654 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's really awesome. We've been waiting for that for a long time. If the framed inline players are used for every video and audio file, the inline {{audio}} template, {{listen}}, and {{video}} templates would be abandoned. I'm not sure if people will want that, though. — Omegatron 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... We could actually merge these two ideas and put a minimal java player right inside the pop-up. Then we can have inline audio files with instant listening and without any clutter. — Omegatron 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Xanadu House from Today's featured article requests page

The removal isn't justified, just because its been on the Main Page before doesn't mean it can't again. Only I think TWO days ago, Cynna Kydd was on the Main Page again. That article was already on there before earlier this year. What gives? — Wackymacs 09:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken - Cynna Kydd has never been previously been the main page FA. In fact, we have never repeated a featured article, and I do not intend to start now. Raul654 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Hello Raul. I notice you removed Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Bulbasaur. Your edit summary is "this review is nothing more than an attempt to appeal the FAC". Yes, indeed, that's exactly why I wanted it reviewed. I think it was erroneuously accepted as a Featured Article, and it does not meet the FA standards. What is the proper procedure for appealing this? --P3d0 12:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

None. The FAR is not to be used to appeal FACs. Raul654 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok so what is to be done then? Does the substandard article simply remain a Featured Article indefinitely, until someone cleans it up? --P3d0 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul, you're the expert here. What is the difference between an "appeal" and a "review"? What is the proper procedure for a featured article appeal? When can I bring up Bulbasaur for review without fear of having the review removed as an appeal? Thanks. --P3d0 17:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no magical length of time - an appeal is a review which rehashes the same issues covered in the FAC. A review is for addresses issues which have occured since hte FAC took place. Raul654 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. Well I don't think we were rehashing the FAC because the FAC never mentioned the fact that almost the entirety of the article is "in-universe". Is it ok to have a review for an article if the supporters of the FAC missed a crucial part of the FA criteria? --P3d0 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indochina Wars

What's your reason for this? --Ionius Mundus 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Raul654 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the diacritics. How's this? I will stop with the diacritics on pages thet do not already use them, though I still believe that they belong in use. Please inspect my new change to Indochina Wars and see if it suits you. --Ionius Mundus 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The new changes are OK with me. Raul654 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --Ionius Mundus 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben Building

Thanks for the help in removing the vandalism revisions. How did you do it? I was in the process of ticking 500+ little boxes, when I saw that you had already done a selective undelete. Is there a tool that I don't know about that does this, or are you just increadibly fast at ticking boxes in the conventional UI? -- The Anome 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Click the first box, hold shift, click the last one, and they all get selected. Then, selectively uncheck the ones you want gone. Raul654 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's 500+ clicks I'll never have to do again, then. Thanks!

By the way, I noticed that the IPs you blocked are in ipt.aol.com space, that is, dynamically assigned, rather than proxy addresses. Were the vandals connecting directly, or is MediaWiki now using XFF headers from the AOL proxies? If AOL are now generating XFF, as promised, and the Misplaced Pages setup is enabled to trust the XFF records, it's probably time to -- at long last -- indefblock all the AOL proxy ranges, since no users should be appearing to come from them any more. -- The Anome 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of the story in the signpost I wrote, based on what I learned at Wikimania

In short, about 1/3 of AOL users are using the new XFF enabled system. The other 2/3s are not. I do not know which ranges are which. Raul654 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a pity: so close, yet so far. Do you know any more about the progress of this project, or who's driving it? -- The Anome 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Greg Maxwell (user:NullC), for the most part their network infrastructure is "very weird" and they couldn't send us the XFF data if they wanted because they lose it in transit through their network. The newer parts of their network are more sane, which is why some (but not all) of their network does XFF. Beyond that, I know little. Raul654 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As to who is driving it - I suspect AOL has been getting a lot of angry calls from their customers complaining that when they try to access Misplaced Pages (the 16th most popular site on the internet) they get all kinds of warnings or blocked messages and are pissed off about it. Raul654 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I can imagine the sort of things that might do that: a lot of AOL/Compuserve's architecture was put together whilst they still used proprietary protocols over dial-up, if I recall correctly. If there are still any legacy-protocol components in the network being gatewayed to/from normal HTTP access, this would cause exactly this sort of problem.

I wonder if there is any way that AOL can change their equivalent of proxy.pac to say "don't use our proxies when accessing domains ending with wikipedia.org"? -- The Anome 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

{{featured}}, {{featured article}}

Hi,

I noticed that New Carissa achieved feature article status today; I've one procedural question for you. I note you put {{featured}} on the talk page (likewise with five other new FAs), but not {{featured article}} on the article itself. Should the editors of the article do the latter? Or should you, or someone else who is officially part of the process, do that?

Thanks, --EngineerScotty 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If people want to put Template:featured article on the article, they can; however, when promoting articles, I don't, because I firmly believe that template violates policy (which is why I opposed its creation in the first place) and it's one more unnecessary thing for me to do. Raul654 23:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FA concern

I realize you are probably unaware of this, but...I have real concerns about Final Fantasy VII's path to FA. Ryu Kaze crossed out other users' objections without their knowledge. See . I never said my objection could be crossed out nor did I say I wouldn't come back. In fact, I said essentially nothing he said I said. As far as I'm concerned this is fraud. You can find other cases where he crossed out people's objections, such as: . This person is not a new user, he should know not to cross out other's comments. IMHO this FAC in this case is seriously tainted. Please advise.Rlevse 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrm.... Raul654 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse, I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment about disregarding your objection. I asked you to come back and explain where you were coming from, and you did very clearly express that you had no intentions of doing so (nor did you come back, which reinforces that which you'd expressed). That being the case, while I'll apologize for misinterpreting your comment, I don't think your claim that what I said was not at all indicative of our brief discussion is fair.

The "so be it" part of what you said appeared to be directed toward the idea of your objection being disregarded. I apologize for striking it out if that wasn't how you meant it, but given that you weren't making an attempt to explain where you were coming from and had said "so be it", I didn't see any other obvious way to take it at the time. I didn't realize that you meant it in an uncooperative fashion (it was meant like the "Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it" comment from the FAC?).

As for the other comment I struck out, I don't see what's wrong with that one. I linked to the discussion on the article's talk page where the unregistered user said "Ok man whatever you win", said they weren't going to debate the matter any longer, wished us luck, and bid farewell. This was four days ago. This looked to me like they were withdrawing their argument with how it was worded and due to the fact that they left.

Even were I attempting fraud here, it wouldn't have been very sensible for me to link directly to these comments that seemed to be withdrawals, but I did. I apologize if I was incorrect in striking either argument — and I can now see why I might have made a mistake with yours, Rlevse, if it was meant as an uncooperative "so be it" — but this wasn't an attempt at anything dishonest, I assure you. Ryu Kaze 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I said "That's ok. So be it". This does NOT mean "He's expressed that he isn't interested in coming back to explain his reasoning further and that his objection can be dismissed". How on earth did you stretch 5 words into over 20? You NEVER strike out someone's else's objection, that's their repsonsibility, not yours. If they leave it alone, so do you. It is the Raul's job to disregard an objection that may be invalid, not yours. Finally, you did this strike out thing more than once. Rlevse 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See response to this and the rest below. Ryu Kaze 00:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you look at User:Angr's talk page (this user having the most long-standing objection that was actually broken up by more than one visit), you can see that I made every attempt to discuss this matter with them and respectfully let them know that I was willing to accept them not striking their objection. Once they actually told me that they no longer felt that the article violated policy or fell short of FA criteria, I asked them to go back and strike their comment. This is hardly indicative of me being on a mission to poison the FAC process.

With your comments in the FAC, Rlevse, you objected on the basis that the article was too long to be about a video game instead of a real world subject (not that the article didn't stay on the subject; just that the subject was from the wrong category), had expressed prior disregard for cooperating (even acknowledging that your objection wasn't necessarily based on FA criteria with the "Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it" comment), made it clear that you weren't coming back, and worded your response such that it appeared that you didn't care about your objection standing. I didn't think there was much point in asking you to go back to strike the objection when you'd displayed contempt for the process already. With the unregistered user, I've not made a habit of leaving comments on their talk pages, as those IPs are often shared and could belong to a public access terminal, in which case that particular user might not necessarily ever see the comment. With them expressing that they weren't going to continue to object, and the possibility that I'd not be able to contact them at that IP anyway, I didn't see an issue with striking the apparently dropped objection. I apologize to everyone if that was a failure in judgement, but it was not intended in a dishonest manner.

Also, once again, I linked to what I was referring to. That's not a very sensible course of action when trying to warp things. Ryu Kaze 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way once more, neither objection that was ultimately struck out was even based on the FA criteria (spoiler tags aren't in the MOS, and video game articles can be as long as the article for World War I if that's how long they have to be). How is the FAC somehow corrupted on the basis of comments that weren't conducive to constructively reviewing the article? Not that I'm saying it's okay to have struck them if it was inappropriate to have done so, but I don't see how striking those particular comments damaged the process somehow. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu Kaze...How you stretched "That's ok. So be it." into your 20-or so word interpretation is beyond me. You NEVER strike out someone's objection, that's their job, not that of you and your interpretations of their intentions. If they leave it alone, so do you. It is Raul's job to disrgard objections, not yours. You did this striking out of objections more than once and the result is a non-objecting slate, which is far from the case--whether you think they're invalid or not. You and your supporters essentially brow beat users with comments like "We refuse to succumb...", put words into their mouths, and changed their objections--and if you don't see the problem in that, I feel sorry for you.Rlevse 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like argumentum ad hominem to me. I'll acknowledge (again) that I made a mistake. I will even apologize once again for it. However, what does this have to do with whether or not the article merits its FA status? And, no, this isn't based on what I personally think is an invalid objection. You can read the featured article criteria and see that there are certain universal characteristics that apply to a featured article. "Length based on category" and "warning people not to learn" are not either of them.

You're not even acknowleding what I pointed out previously, such as the matter with User:Angr (someone whose criteria-based comments I'd have had far more reason to "corrupt" than yours or the spoiler tag-related objection), or the fact that you did express absolutely no interest in coming back to explain your objection. You had eight days after that, during which time you were plenty active, yet you never once came back to say "Wait, I didn't intend that as a withdrawal", nor did you even make an attempt at explaining yourself. In fact, your last comment in the FAC was one that expressed contempt for the entire process:

• "The featured article criteria makes no mention of the 'recommended length' thing. That's simply a stylistic suggestion, not an actual rule, and one that openly admits that there will be exceptions to how strictly it should be considered. Few, if any, FAs would make it if there was a rule that we couldn't exceed 32kb." Ryu Kaze 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it." Rlevse 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just a little suspcious that you waited until right after the article was accepted to FA to bring up "concerns" — and with Raul instead of me, no less. Call this assuming bad faith if you want to, but I'm not seeing much reason to assume good faith, nor did what you said here sound much like you were assuming good faith.

By the way, it seems like you're changing the basis of this "FAC review" from "The process was corrupted" to "You and your posse provide powerful, no-nonsense counterarguments". Thus, why I began this response with argumentum ad hominem. Where did I "browbeat" you? Deckiller and I got a little annoyed with a couple of people during the process, yes, but we acknowledged this and apologized, and based on what we said to you, I don't think you were one of them. Where was Deck putting you down by saying "We refuse to succumb to that sort of cutting down on our FACs"? Seriously, I'm curious. Unless the failed FACs you were making reference to were caused by you, that wasn't even a criticism of your practices, mustless your person.

Even Angr, whom I had harsh words with a couple of weeks ago, is now someone whose input I've come to appreciate and respect. But we actually talked. You made no effort to do that. Let me repeat that so that you'll understand why I might be a little annoyed: you made no effort to talk about this issue and then come riding in with very suspicious timing when you could have done so at any time before. I would have unstruck the objection if you had said something as simple as "I hadn't withdrawn" — despite the fact that you had made no effort to participate in a constructive discourse or be present for something you supposedly were concerned about.

I can't say I appreciate the very selective manner in which you've brought forth your "concerns", or the fact that you displayed contempt for the FAC process during that article's nomination, but now are so eager to "protect its integrity". Finally, I don't appreciate the fact that you made zero effort to discuss this issue with me, the article's main editor (not even to explain why you were objecting on grounds not related to FA criteria), but found plenty of time and sufficient motivation (whatever it might be) to bring it up with the FA Director. This reeks of personal agenda, and I'm not happy with it at all. Ryu Kaze 00:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Raul, I'd like to apologize to you as well for acting on bad judgement. I'll make a point not to bother doing that again, even if someone outright tells me to go strike their objection. Also, sorry for carrying on a slugfest here on your talk page, but I was quite pissed off, so... I guess there's nothing more to say than that. Ryu Kaze 02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu, it's not your fault; this slugfest should've occured on the FAC talkpage or your talkpage several days ago. — Deckiller 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Ryu here; Raul promotes articles based on a clear consensus, and even if those comments hadn't been struck out, the objection was not actionable enough in relation to the FA criteria (especially to be taken with more weight than the 90 percent+ support). Striking other people's comments out was not being deceitful, it was a misunderstanding, and in reality, it has nothing to do with the outcome of this FA. Also, Ryu apologized for striking people's FAC comments. I did it for my first few nominations, and others do it, as well, until they realize it's not the appropriate way to handle things. Ryu has apologized and now he knows not to do that, so that issue is resolved. And I agree with Ryu that this is an equally questionable move for you, Rlevse, as you should have discussed the matter with Ryu on his talkpage instead of starting a debate on Raul's talkpage, dropping your issues with the way some of us handle FACs now instead of during the FA when it should have been handled, especially if you wished to see this article fail FA nomination. — Deckiller 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I'm not merely a "supporter", since Ryu and myself both usually do plenty work on these types of articles (FF7 is an exception). — Deckiller 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I never noticed this'd occurred until yesterday as I went and looked at the FAC talk after I noticed it'd become FA. It's not like I have time to go check every edit I make every day. Besides, I shouldn't have to worry about people striking out objections and saying I said things I didn't anyway, which is the point here, not that it had more supports than objects. I highly resent the claim of a personal agenda-in no way was that the case. Raul, thank you for looking into this. As for me, I consider this closed.Rlevse 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

T'ai

I will make sure I get some facts straight and write up the T'ai article soon. --Ionius Mundus 06:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Raul654 06:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Consult on Philly wikimeetup proposal

Hey Raul, if you have a moment, if you could look over Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Philadelphia 1, and see if there are any obvious problems with the proposal or things missing from the page, I'd be much obliged if you could point it out. I'd hate to start advertising a meetup with a glaring error. And yes, I stole the page formatting from your Newark meetup page.

When this happens, you should really come. We'll have a rocking good time. --CComMack (t•c) 06:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask for suggestions for a location - pick it. Decide the time and place, and (only) then advertise it. Raul654 06:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I was a little gunshy because I've never been to this restaurant, just taking the advice of friends that it's perfect for a meetup. --CComMack (t•c) 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be too much to hope that there's an abundance of nearby parking? Raul654 07:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Abundance? It's the city, not the suburbs. However, the restaurant itself describes parking as "plentiful", and Google satellite shows the parking lot referred to, and it's nothing to sneeze at, especially with available on-street parking, but I'm writing up a page (unlnked in my userspace for now, because I won't finish it until tomorrow or the day after) that gives detailed directions including pubtrans and park and ride options. --CComMack (t•c) 07:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cynna Kydd and Notability for front page Today's featured article

I'd like to request a formal criterion for featuring an article on the Main Page - that the article be worthy of representing the Misplaced Pages to the world, not only in the sense that it can't be improved more, but in the sense that it "exemplifies our best work" - an article that, by existing, explains what we are attempting to contribute to the world. In other words, that it also be important.

The Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria don't cover that - they merely try to make sure an article is the best that it can be. But the subjects of many articles are, frankly, not among the most important articles in the encyclopedia. By displaying such on the front page, we are perpetuating the image that the Misplaced Pages is primarily lightweight; for trivial, obscure topics, and any articles on actually important, world-changing, issues that it has, are merely accidental.

Cynna Kydd, unfortunately, epitomized this, as it was nominated for deletion for non-notability even as it was being featured on the main page. The article writer basically admitted as much in the peer review, and in the Featured article candidates/Cynna Kydd led off with: "I think I've done about as much as is possible with this one". He's right. It's a very well written article, no one could do better with the subject matter, it fully deserves the highest "grade" of quality we can give the article on its own merits ... but compared with any number of other, detailed, weighty topics featured the very same month, that were also equally well written -- Sikhism, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Azerbaijani people -- it's just not what we want to be the world's introduction to our encyclopedia.

We want to change the world with our project; the article on the front page should be about something that does. AnonEMouse 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that we have broader or deeper coverage than other information sources is not something we should be ashamed of or hide from.

The featured article criteria don't mention importance as a requirement. This was not an accident. As I have previously stated, I do not want the featured article candidates becomes another AFD cesspool. So, to that end, we assume that all nominated articles are 'encyclopedic', and if someone disagrees with that assumption, they are welcome to nominate articles on AFD (and let me go on record as saying I oppose using an article's featured status as a reason to keep it). On the other hand, nominating a featured article for deletion in the 24 hours it is on the main page displays a serious lack of good judgement - to the point where I considered temp blocking MatthewFenton for disruption. (I see I'm not the only one) I'll also note that the result of the AFD was a speedy keep.

To address your main point, the 'weightiness' of the articles featured on the main page, I'm going to note four fatal problems with your proposal. (1) There are simply not enough weighty featured articles to have one every day. Go to the FA promotion log for this month. That's a record of all newly promoted featured articles since the beginning of the month, 24 days ago. Although obviously subjective, I count roughly 15 "weighty" articles. 15 articles in 24 days means we are falling far short of the one per day necessary for your proposal. (2) The second problem, as I just said, is that 'notability' is a totally subjective concept, and if AFD has taught us anything, it's virtually imposible to define. (3) The third problem with your proposal is philisophical and pragmatic. The chance to have your article featured on the main page at some point serves as an incentive to people to write featured articles, and a rather large one at that. A requirement that main page FAs be 'weighty' very effectively destroys this incentive, and will result in far fewer total featured articles being written. (4) The fourth fatal problem, and probably the most insurmountable, is the observation that people write about what they want to. They are not going to write weighty articles just because you tell them to. (-Raul's 3rd law) To ignore this is to ignore reality.

Frankly, I think you misinterpret the reactions to those niche featured articles. Go to google blogsearch and search for wikipedia+"featured article" and see what you get. Here's what I saw:

• But today's "featured article" really grabbed my attention --- and got the biggest WTF? of the week --- it's about Nas' Illmatic album. How cool is that?
• Yay! Today's Misplaced Pages Featured Article is Nas's Illmatic! Hell yeah. This album is crazy. Probably one of my favorite albums of all time. It's a pretty good, lengthy article with quotes and all.
• (Regarding bulbasaur) the Pokemon board has like a hundred threads about it. -
• I love it—the Misplaced Pages featured article today is Bulbasaur.
• (And the list goes on and on)

I think it's safe to say that many (most?) people enjoy those articles. Don't assume people are morons - I think they're smart enough to realize that Misplaced Pages has both weighty topics and niche ones (especially since we feature both, often on consecutive days). Raul654 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response. I have to say, though, that every single one of the 42 on the log you cited seems weightier than poor Cynna Kydd. The Illmatic article says "one of the most celebrated and most influential albums in hip hop history." and lists high chart positions from 8 countries on 3 continents. The Bulbasaur article says "the first of the 407 fictional species of Pokémon creatures ... these games and their sequels have sold over 143 million units". Sure, they're not all the Battle of Moscow, but they have influenced the lives of millions of people. Cynna Kidd is noted in a minor sport in one country. Note all the 28 references are from Australian papers, the most prominent one described as "a tabloid". Notice the only image is a small relatively poor quality shot, because, as the author writes, "I could only find one image of the lady": (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cynna Kydd) - and this is while she's currently active in her career. Notice the article doesn't even say she's considered a particular landmark in her minor sport - she is only mentioned as one of 25 others (mostly redlinks) in Netball. She won one award, and note what it says about her getting that award -- "she was a surprise choice" Cynna Kydd#Career peak -- in other words, she was no Tiger Woods, seen as setting a mark on the sport that would last generations. Notice that award says: "While the Commonwealth Bank Trophy is an elite competition, it lacks the attention and sponsorship of the three main football codes". It's debatable whether Netball is even of groundbreaking importance to Australia, and it's debatable whether Cynna Kydd is even of groundbreaking importance to Netball, and the article doesn't mention her notability in any way other than netball. Weighing that against the Misplaced Pages's goal of being an encyclopedia for the sum of all human knowledge leaves it wanting. And not even when compared to Satyajit Ray ("widely regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of 20th century cinema") - even when compared to Mandy Moore, and yes, the much maligned Bulbasaur. I'm not suggesting restricting the front page to something that would be acceptable to a stuffy academic - I'm just asking for something that influenced a lot of people's lives, and, correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't think Cynna Kydd did. AnonEMouse 18:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I understand what you are saying, and I vehemently opposed Cynna Kydd becoming a FA. However it did become a FA, so consequently has as much right to be on the front page as any other FA. The front page is to showcase what Misplaced Pages has to offer at its best. The majority if Wikipedians obviously feel Cynna Kydd exemplifies wikipedia's best, so the page's day of glory is probably not the best moment to attempt to bring a page down, there are due processes for that before and after the main page. However I don't like seeing pages FARCd (or whatever it is currently called), it upsets the principal editors (usually good established ones) and in truth benefits no-one. Cynna has had her moment of fame on the main page, it is doubtful she will be there again, forget her, and concentrate on the present FAC page and the continuing raising of standards to ensure the main page always reflect the projects best. Giano | talk 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cruel Choice for Main Page Featured Article

Hi,

Call this a semi-serious complaint. Displaying Mercury (the new smallest planet) on the day after Pluto's "demotion" is really "rubbing salt in the wounds" of those of us (astronomical professionals, lay-people, and school-children everywhere) who were Pluto-backers! :( Fresh controversies aren't good main page fodder, are they? Best wishes, Xoloz 02:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (whose brain lives on Pluto)

Once again our article is more up to date than Britannica's - is this something to be ashamed of? Raul654 02:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I also find it amusing, as it displays our rapidfire updating. — Deckiller 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, everybody who reads Misplaced Pages already knows we whip Britannica... but the Pluto issue is still fresh, simmering and emotionally-charged. I'm sure I wasn't the only Plutonian who was made sad by today's front page. I'm just pointing out that, in this case, being topical could be a double-edged sword in a way one might not realize. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article/requests?

I don't want to sound like I'm whining or being pushy etc, but may I ask why there is such a huge backlog on the TFA/requests page? I'm not sure how everything works but isn't someone meant to schedule FA's to appear on the main page & remove them from the requests page? It just seems there is a huge pile of unassinged FA's there, including one of mine. The suspense to see when mine is featured is killing me... I'm not asking if you're superman, just asking if there's a problem. Who knows, maybe I could help? Thanks. Spawn Man 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge backlog because people are filing requests far faster than the rate they are removed at. Raul654 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And some are chosen from the FA list that aren't there. And some need removed, the list probably isn't up to date with the schedule. Cheers, Highway 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. I guess this shows that our articles are getting better faster! Thanks, 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser backlog

Hi there,

I'm sending this message out to the 6 active admin with CheckUser priveleges. Just wanted to let you all know that there is a lengthy backlog on the CheckUser page and it has not been checked since August 21, 2006. According to the CheckUser site, it says that user records expire within a week or so, so it would be great if one of you could go through it sometime soon. Thanks, --Palffy 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note....

You don't have to worry about VoABot giving notices for protecting subpages, any page with a "/" in it is ignored.Voice-of-All 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very nice. Thank you. Raul654 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this has been there for a long while, in response to you regularly protect FA templates per procedure. I suppose I just didn't mention it :-).

By the way, as an RFCU clerk myself, if you have the time, I'd appretiate it if maybe you could check WP:RFCU.Voice-of-All 00:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to John Bruton 100% correct

Super Jumbo's edits to John Bruton were 100% correct and breached no ardcom ruling. The ruling and the MoS allow changes where the local usage is clearly in one date format (whether American Dating, International dating, etc). Ireland never uses American Dating. His changes to that article were 100% correct. Users are perfectly entitled under the MoS and the arbcom ruling to ensure that American articles are written in American English and American Dating. They are also perfectly entitled to apply International English and International Dating to British, Irish, Commonwealth, UN and European topics, all of whom do not use American English and American Dating. That is the rule on WP. That is the rule laid out in the MoS and in the Arbcom. It has been policy for a number of years. Your threat to block a user for obeying the requirements laid down in the MoS and the arbcom ruling was a breach of procedure. If you make such a threat again yourself risk being blocked. FearÉIREANN\ 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of that particular Irish article, he happned to be right. - "For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually 17 February 1958... Elsewhere, either format is acceptable." His tendancy not to limit himself to such articles (such as French and Suriname related articles, just to name two that I saw) do, in fact, violate the Sortan ruling, and if he continues to do so, yes, he may find himself blocked. Raul654 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so. And if he was, many admins would unblock him instantly, I suspect. As one of those involved in the debate that produced WP policy, I can say that the list in the MoS is of examples. It is not a case of "only these coutries' articles must be written in ID". AD is actually used in only a handful of countries. France does not use it and takes offence is American Dating and American English is used. He does not, and never has, violated the Sortan ruling. The ruling required substantive reasons justifying a change. If a country universally uses one format, then that is a substantive reason for ensuring articles relating to it are in the correct format. We all have been doing that for years and will continue to do it. All that is happening is a periodic clean up. While ID users in my experience are more than willing to use AD on American articles, AD users, to a disappointing degree, insist on AD-ing article and AE-ing articles all over the place. So every so often articles are copyedited to match local usage. Super Jumbo's editing in this way has been debated at length on the ANI. The consensus view was that he was doing nothing wrong, merely doing a copyedit clean-up. As I have said, we all do it, whether changing American stuff to AE and AD, or changing European stuff to ID and IE, or changing Irish stuff to HE and ID, etc. Super Jumbo has the full support of a lot of users (I can count those complaining on the fingers of one hand and there are still fingers unused!) and any admin blocking him would be at strong risk of being blocked themselves for abusing their position. The vast majority of users are agreed that Super Jumbo is a decent hardworking individual who is doing sterling work in cleaning up dating messes. He is not on some kind of anti-AE vendetta. (In fact one of his critics complained that he changed an American article to mm/dd/yyyy!) So less of the threats, please, against a user doing a necessary cleanup fully in accordance with the arbcom ruling and the MoS. FearÉIREANN\ 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In short, Jumbo has decided that "American" articles must be in "American" format, and all other articles must be in the British format, which he prefers to call "International". Though it has been pointed out to him that this is controversial, certain others, probably also countable on Jtdirl's one hand with fingers left over, have encouraged him to persist. To justify this, they point to arbcom rulings designed to prevent such date diddling as justification for diddling dates. - Nunh-huh 02:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The ruling required substantive reasons justifying a change. If a country universally uses one format, then that is a substantive reason for ensuring articles relating to it are in the correct format. - no, it's not. The Sortan ruling and MOS is quite specific in this regard. For non-US, non-British topics, the MOS explicltly says either format is acceptable, per the above quote. The Sortan ruling is also very specific in this regard. Your decision to simply ignore them (both the manual of style and the arbcom ruling), and claim that SuperJumbo was "merely doing a copyedit clean-up" is hollow. Raul654 02:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the MoS, we see the lead sentence in the relevant section stating, "If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country." I have followed this precisely. I have sought guidance on WP:ANI, the MoS talk page, the talk pages for various articles and on user talk pages. If you could familiarise yourself with the discussion in these places (easily followed by looking back over my contributions), you will see a pattern of support for my actions and only one editor who persistently disagrees.

Looking back over my watchlist, I see that you have reverted some of my careful work. May I ask you to review the discussion on this topic and undo your reverts, please? --Jumbo 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That an editor "may choose" when writing an article to use the date format used in that country does not authorize making mass, focused changes specifically for changing dates. Also, you keep mischaracterizing previous discussions; there is no consensus favoring your actions and, for example, there are at least four administrators who disagree with your actions, not "one editor". —Centrx→talk • 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a change to the date format to match the format used in the country, then I may make as many as are needed. Saying that in (say) France "either format is acceptable" is plain wrong. France doesn't use American Dating at all. What we should have is a list of countries showing which formats are used. Canada, for example, uses both major formats, so I leave Canada alone, except for wikifying dates. In the case of Canadian articles, the style chosen by the first major editor would rule and under Jguk I would have no good reason for changing them.

The pattern is plain. Nunh-huh complains to someone, they take a quick look at the diffs he shows them, and they drop me a warning based on Sortan. After discussing the subject, looking at the sources, looking at the pattern of my edits, they fade away and say no more. You're pretty much the first person to re-enter the debate.

I'm not going to stop doing what I do so long as the substantive basis of the complaints is that "SuperJumbo is changing every date in non-American articles to British format". That is patently untrue, as anyone may see after looking at the whole of my contributions. I rationalise the date formats to correct wikidates according to the format used in the relevant country (if there is one), and that is useful work. --Jumbo 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have complained to no one. And Raul knows this, as he knows I did not complain to him. You really need to stop making things up and reconsider your actions. You are the author of your continuing difficulties, not me. - Nunh-huh 21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any difficulties. I have stuck to the Manual of Style, I have consulted with other editors, I have made sure that I am in the right at every point. On the other hand, the changes here and here are clearly not supported by any guidelines. Sortan only goes so far; a look at the ArbCom evidence and decision shows that Sortan must be read in the context of Jguk, otherwise we would be unable to make any edits on style, and I don't think that this was the intent of the Arbcom. --Jumbo 06:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are not changes, they revert your changes, keeping what was before. It is not at all analogous to your changes, which you are initiating. —Centrx→talk • 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So Sortan demands we keep "19 June 1793" in an article about a U.S. railway magnate, and "July 17" in an article about a British noble? --Jumbo 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sortan demands nothing about content or format; it governs behavior. Specifically, it was meant to prevent campaigns of "reform", such as your own, covering date formats. - Nunh-huh 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a reuqest for clarification with the arbitration committee on this matter. Raul654 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Longwood Gardens

I hate to bring up the issue of copyright, but I'm dealing with the same issue. You took a string of pictures at Longwood Gardens in 2005 and posted them on Misplaced Pages under the GFDL. Now I've been meaning to do the same thing, but I am concerned with the this page on their website: . They explicitly forbid photography without signing a form and do not permit commercial use, directly contradicting the GFDL. As a result, I'm not sure if the images uploaded are in violation of copyright or not. I thought I'd bring it up here, since I've taken similar pictures as well (however, I have not uploaded any). Perhaps you've already been approached on this issue, perhaps not. — Ram-Man 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I never signed any such form, nor was I asked to. (Nor, for that matter, do I recall seeing any signs prohibiting photography). And, for that matter, while they can prohibit people from taking the pictures, once taken, they cannot claim copyrihgt on them (unless they can claim that their arrangments thereof are copyrighted) Raul654 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. I just wasn't totally sure, you know? Thanks! — Ram-Man 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:FA/BeenOnMainPage

Hi Raul654,

you should not have reverted me on Template:FA/BeenOnMainPage -- instead, you should have fixed your CSS to work with it. The way it is now, it causes invalid XHTML, which is why I made the change. I am not going to go into an edit war over this, but please explain to me how to properly handle this situation. ("Don't care about XHTML conformance" is not an acceptable answer.) — Timwi 10:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The only purpose of that template is to allow people to see the featured articles page with the already-used articles in bold (I need it because it would be inordinantly difficult to schedule main page articles without the bolding). If you can provide CSS that works with any changes you make to that template, then by all means make your changes. (I can't because I don't know CSS) But breaking the template is not an option. Raul654 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe 'class' instead of 'id' should be used if multiple things are to be tagged with the same thing to recieve the same style. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

All that needs to be done is for people to have this on their personal CSS page:

 span.has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }

instead of:

 span.featured_article_metadata#has_been_on_main_page{ font-weight: bold; }

as is currently suggested. The only issue is finding people who are using this and making sure they update their CSS pages; Google doesn't reveal any of them. Perhaps a note on Misplaced Pages talk:Featured articles and allow for some transition time? --bainer (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect very, very few people use it. I've updated my sockpuppet's monobook.css (I prefer to use classic skin on my Raul654 account so I use a sockpuppet to view the FA list when doing scheduling) and it seems to be working, so it seems everything is good now. Raul654 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Atomic life filter's Main Page template

I saw the template you set up for Semptember 2, and I thought I could improve it just a bit.

The new version, at User:Rmrfstar/Workspace, is a bit longer, and I fixed some awkward phrasing in it. Also, it might be best to include the three different types of atomic line filters (bold in the article), if the template is not too long. What do you think? -- Rmrfstar 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the blurb accordingly. Raul654 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

3!

Gibraltarian's IP ranges

Please note that Gibraltarian's ISP is Gibtelecom (formerly Gibraltar Nynex Communications), and this is the most commonly used ISP in Gibraltar. Its IP ranges are 195.244.192.0/19 (195.244.192.0 to 195.244.223.255) and 212.120.224.0/19 (212.120.224.0 to 212.120.255.255). Many of these IPs are dial-up IPs, which explains why they're dynamic. Although G usually edits in the latter range, he did make a few edits in the former range as well. Scobell302 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked five class C's in the latter - 212.120.224.x, 212.120.225.x, 212.120.226.x, 212.120.227.x, 212.120.237.x. After getting an email from user:Gibnews telling me he'd been caught up, I unblocked the range he fell into. Afterwards, I checkusered the ranges, and Gibnews is the only regular who edits from those ranges. Raul654 02:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to block 212.120.236.x as well, since that is also a common class C for G to use. With respect to 212.120.227.x, you could reblock it as anon only while still allowing registered users to edit. Scobell302 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, I should probably do that with all ranges - unblock, and reblock with anonomyous edits and account registration disabled. Raul654 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Halfbeak FAC note

Hrm, I left a note on the person's talk page about possibly using unpublished research. I'm not sure if it was or not. I was just wondering if you thought I was too harsh or anything... RN 07:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Peculiar FAC problem

Hi! There is a FAC template in the talk page of the article West Bengal, but the FAC is not listed there in Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates. The template was added to the talk page on 3 September by W123 (talk · contribs). May be the user forgot to place it in the FAC list. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of this I think. RN 11:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

AMA bad faith

I was sorry to see your edit on the AMA and your lack of faith in it. As an admitted WP noobie compared to many, including yourself, I have two questions:

1. Does the same lack of faith extend to most "upper level" Wikipedians? Is it widespread?
2. It is based on your past experience with the AMA or the AMA's core purpose? (to work one one side of an issue, supporting a user who wants to follow policy, rather than as a strict sole supporter of policy)

(1) I suspect most other members of the arbcom - at least the ones who have had to deal with AMA antics - have the same very low opinion of the AMA that I do. (2) I have no problem with the AMA's core purpose; my disdain for the group has to do with multiple bad experiences - the fact that their past advocacy has done nothing but slow down and complicate every arbitration case in which they have participated. Raul654 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Plautus Satire - Round 3

Hi! Plautus satire 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So I see you've sat out your second full year ban. The first time I see you make a bad edit, I'm going to block you for a month. Raul654 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten me, I don't respond kindly to threats from overinflated doughboys. Plautus satire 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for a week for personal attacks. Raul654 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raul...thanks for reverting the Sports/Video Games split...

Hey there. I felt really annoyed with having to clean up the mess that was made when sports and video games were split. It was REALLY poorly done and I felt really angry at the fact I had to make multiple edits to complete the merge correctly only to have second thoughts about doing this in the first place and blah-blah-blah, yakety schmackety. Thanks for undoing all that because I wish I had never had to deal with doing all those damned edits...I feel really embarrassed at the fact I even felt like making them at all. -- transaspie 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome Raul654 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if you could...

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone appears to have done it already. Raul654 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That Was Easy! --Cyde Weys 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL Raul654 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

SuperJumbo and dates

Hi Raul. I blocked SuperJumbo (his second block on this issue) for resuming his project of changing date formats in articles to match what he believes are the appropriate 'local' formats. (I have offered to unblock if he is willing to forego further date changes until the matter is formally resolved.)

He has stated that your position on this issue is that these changes are appropriate where the article topics are UK/Commonwealth-related. I'm not sure if that's a correct understanding of your interpretation, and I would appreciate it if you could comment directly at User talk:SuperJumbo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replied there. Raul654 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on his talk page. I am somewhat concerned about the way he has been treated. It appears to me that he is a good-faith editor who has genuine reason to be confused about what he should be doing. He has had conflicting strong advice from different admins, and there have been inconsistent reactions on the occasions when the issue was dealt with at AN/I. With all respect, I'd find your latest advice confusing if I were him. It says at one point that the edits for which he is currently blocked for a week were acceptable under a strict reading of the policy (though I actually find this a bit difficult to reconcile with something you say earlier about the need for a good independent reason for editing an article, such as substantially expanding it or removing inconsistencies). Even if the edits are within policy, there might still be a reason for him not to make them, e.g. to preserve the status quo while a contentious issue is being thrashed out by ArbCom or whoever has to do the thrashing, but I don't see anywhere where it has been explained to him that way. In the circumstances, the imposition of a second week-long block seems unfair. In any event, I'm sure that he'd do whatever you think correct if you give him a clear, unequivocal explanation. It's not as if he's responding disrespectfully in the discussion on his talk page. There must be a way of getting this evidently sincere user on the right track other than by hitting him with week-long blocks. Metamagician3000 03:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, looking at ArbCom's ruling from a few days ago, it quite clearly does not deal with edits of the kind that he has made that resulted in his current block. That was not the scenario for which you asked for a ruling. Again, perhaps he should be backing off even from edits of that kind, pending resolution, but I don't see how he can be said in those mre recent edits to be acting against what ArbCom said a few days ago. Perhaps ArbCom needs to expand its ruling to consider the circumstances in which it is allowable to change a date from British format to American format in an article about an American topic (for example). If being allowed to do this is restricted to situations where either (1) the current dating format is inconsistent within the article or (2) the article is short and many new dates are likely to be introduced in the process of expanding it, I think someone should say so authoritatively and unequivocally. If it's allowed in a wider range of circumstances, that should also be stated authoritatively and unequivocally so that Jumbo can work within the limits and people will know no to revert him or take admin actions against him. Would you consider raising this with other ArbCom members if you can't definitely rule on it yourself? Metamagician3000 07:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for slotting caffeine as TFA for September 16. Knowing how swamped with requests you already are I hadn't intended to request main page placement, so naturally I was quite pleasantly surprised by your decision. If I may ask, what prompted you to place it so soon after its promotion? Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because it's not a pop singer, hurricane, or architectural history topic, for once. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• And what may I ask BoG is wrong with architectural history topics? - many people (including myself) find them fascinating! Giano | talk 08:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Starting on Sept 12, I wanted to feature a bunch of articles in a row with 'name recognition' - things most people would recognize. Caffine seemed an obvious choice. Raul654 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - don't forget the the obligatory Australian fauna Raul654 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well-known topics? Not wishing to subvert Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests, how about: Seabird · ASCII · Enzyme · Cochineal · Krill · Phishing · Quantum computer · Spyware · Iranian peoples · Kitsch · 35 mm film · Phonograph cylinder · Mauna Loa · Mount Rushmore · Nepal · Yosemite National Park · History of Puerto Rico · History of the Netherlands · History of the Philippines · Supreme Court of the United States · The Adventures of Tintin · The Lord of the Rings · J. R. R. Tolkien · Globular cluster · British House of Commons · Olympic Games · AK-47 · Battle of Midway · Invasion? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Did that help? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it did. Raul654 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary of declassified Aman/Research report

I'll be translating it in the near future. I think you'll find it interesting. Regards, El_C 11:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Enjoy. El_C 04:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. Very nice job, El C. Raul654 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think any of the newly declassified material has been translated (not on the web, at least). Only on Misplaced Pages! :) El_C 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian flag response

I forgot the image prefix. I fixed this. I have marked the old version with a {{Db-noncom}} tag. Jesse Viviano 04:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I should have noticed that too. After you mentioned it on your talk page, I fixed the Yom Kippur War article accordingly. Raul654 04:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu References

Hi , just a heads up that I'm planning on editing some of the Davidson references - in particular replacing a few with Fall - (A good 40% of Davidson's own cites are to the Fall book for the Dien Bien Phu section) I've access to several other secondary sources as well so will try to make the reference list less homogenous. --Cj tyche 09:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vrba

Raul, thank you for putting it on the front page, and on this date. It's been a good day. :-) SlimVirgin 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. I hope the flurry of main-page related edits didn't overwhelm you. Raul654 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I found this to be quite amusing. Good on ya... Joe 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Raul654 02:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mass changing on style issues (dating)

I've archived your request for clarification on this subject, concerning user:SuperJumbo, at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Sortan.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for informing me. :) ~MK (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome. Raul654 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're on TV

Dude, just watch Nightline. Titoxd 05:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard about it a few hours beforehand (The producer emailed Amgine, who in turn emailed the rest of the press committee). I can't believe, out of the whole interview, that's the quote they decided to use :( Raul654 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaguar

I'm wondering what happened to this page, as the link is still up on talk but it's been removed from FAC and not archived. It was at nine support and zero object, with all outstanding issues essentially taken care of. Cheers, Marskell 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant to promote it (which is why it wasn't archived - I put it into the promotion log ). Somehow I looked at that list and skipped the bottom one. I've fixed it now. Thanks for letting me know. Raul654 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Marskell 08:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/September 24, 2006 Raul654 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Longest FAC

Hi Raul654, I'm simply curious here, that's all. What is the longest an article has been on the FAC list and made FA and the longest one has been on the list and not made FA? Rlevse 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not something I keep strict tabs on. If I had to guess, Bulbasaur was up there in 3 consecutive nominations and/or resets. Tack them together, and it probably spent nearly 2 continious months on the FAC before being promoted. As for unsuccesful nominations, I honestly have no idea. Raul654 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just curious. I know there are some successful nominations that spent slightly more than a month on the FAC list (only one FAC round, not multiple like Bulbasaur). Rlevse 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Scheduling of Aleksandr Vasilevsky

Hi Raul,

Sorry to bother you with this, but as I see you selected FAs for almost all September, can you please schedule Aleksandr Vasilevsky on September 30? I requested the article almost 2 months ago (on July 24 to be exact) so I guess I was first :P and it would be actually quite nice and symbolic if it would appear on main on this anniversary date... :)

Thanks in advance, Grafikm 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

September 28

Hey Raul, I've noted this elsewhere, but could I just put Torchic up for September 28? Cheers, Highway 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC of West Bengal

I am forwarding the following to you from my talk; it looks plausible IMO that the FAC in question is still making progress. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be a bit premature to close that FAC. The fac nom was placed by someone who wasn't a regular editor (wasn't noticed by most editors until a few days ago). I have voted "oppose" but was working with another editor in finding out the gaps and mistakes. The other oppose votes are not hard opposes, and work was going on to fix them. So, I request you to reconsider the close of the article, and re-list it as the discussion is still ongoing. Thanks. --Ragib 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Thank you very much for the promotion. Sure was nice of you to take a random request at 4 in the morning on IRC. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit late...

Perhaps this message comes a bit late, but I too have received Plautus Satire's mass e-mail last Monday, regarding the actions you and Phil Sandifer have taken against him. I just wanted to inform you that I fully support your block, that Plautus has deserved it, and that I don't intend to take any action in this matter. And that I hope this message won't feed the troll :) Aecis 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On the brighter side, I did get myself a nifty new IRC nick - "A Man Among Men" Raul654 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I somehow liked "an overinflated fat toad" better ;) Btw, what does an inflated toad look like...? Aecis 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of inflated toads, is it a coincidence that the only obese toad in Toad is an American toad, or is it systemic bias? ;) Aecis 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please move this page ] which is hardly worth an article, to here ] which is also a general talk page related to Kerala? Not there, when I looked closer. Rather here, ]

Cyclops64 question

How much money has been invested and spent on this project so far? --NEMT 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I do know it was on budget, except for one item (a serial <-> ethernet chip which apparently is proving to be far harder than evisioned) Raul654 06:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So if some crazed billionaire wanted to buy it, you couldn't give him a quote? --NEMT 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't work for IBM, and they're the best ones to direct those kinds of questions to. I can tell you that the chip will, in fact, be available as a commerical off-the-shelf product, and (I'm totally guessing here) I suspect the price will be competative with a modern Pentium IV class processor. Raul654 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating, I had no idea IBM planned to market the end product to consumers. Will they offer any kind of x86 compatibility, or is it geared towards a drastically different market? --NEMT 06:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by x86 compatability. As a totally different architecture, it will be totally incompatible (except through code recompliation). Also, it's geared towards the supercomputing market, which x86 is not really a major player in (except in as much as x86 processors can be used in clusters and on the grid in applications that are embarassingly parallel, or nearly so). Raul654 06:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying activites by NPOs

Hey Mark, you asked me about lobbying activities that are allowed by NPOs at Wikimania. Here is a link to some official IRS stuff on that (and the related campaigning/free speech issues): http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html --Alex756 09:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ogg video

Starting with this information I have tried to produce some video in Theora Ogg format. I cannot get VLC (Mac) or mpeg2ogg to work. I got Super to run but it produced a video that terminates part way through. I think what I really need is a tutorial that describes how to convert .mov video files to Ogg video. There seem to be many people who want to sell file converters. The documentation that I have found for free file converters is very poor. Can you aim me towards a good source of information? --JWSchmidt 20:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Super will take care of my needs. The first file I tried to convert had a very complex data structure. Super seems to work fine for most normal video files. --JWSchmidt 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

RAUL

LILO DIED. GET ON FREENODE--CableModem 21:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Syria in 1973

Hello Raul, I noticed you reverted a change in the Yom Kippur war article stating that Egypt and Syria did not have the same flag in 1973. Even Syria left the United Arab Republic, it did form a looser federation with both Egypt and Libya called the Federation of Arab Republics. All 3 countries in the loose federation (more of an alliance really) had almost identical flags. See Flag of Syria (historical section) and Image:Syria-flag-changes.svg and http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/sy-his2.html, the current flag of Syria was (re-)introduced in 1980.208.131.191.252 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Something strange...

Hi there. Very recently, anonymous user 172.209.224.104 made a vulgar personal attack on my user talk page. The reason I am telling you this is because the culprit appears to have signed his comment with your user name . I thought you might like to know, in case someone out there is trying to frame you. Cheers. Pobbie Rarr 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not amused. I checkuser'd the IP, but with one meaningful result - 13:06 (User creation log) (diff; hist) . . Raúl654 (Talk | contribs | block) ((New user account)). The impersonation account is now blocked. Raul654 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

POTD

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Aloe aristata.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on October 9, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations!

FYI, when this was promoted to Featured Pic status, not all steps were taken, otherwise it would have been POTD a few months ago. Anyway, better late than never. ;) howcheng {chat} 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. That happens to be the day I'll be using Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, as the main page FA, so both features that day will be mine :) Raul654 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there three other sections on the Main Page that you could aim for too, you know. It should be relatively easy to write a new article for WP:DYK, and something is bound to happen that deserves to appear in WP:ITN. WP:SA will be the hardest. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

big blue blanket looks tempting to write, but it's probably too obscure (I have no idea where I'd find a citable source) Raul654 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a technique devised by Jimmy Thach to ward off kamikaze attacks. Fighters would fly in radius of up to 80 miles from their carriers, and (using radar coordination) would intercept incoming kamikazes long before they could attack ships. Raul654 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah - I see: interdict the suicide bombers them at arm's length, before they are a problem. Google finds pages on a New Zealand band of that name too, but I doubted that was what you were referring to. Anyway Google is your friend - "big blue blanket"+kamikaze turns up some decent links. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Net neutrality

Looks like a bad case of The Shills! What to do about it? -Ste|vertigo 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Charizard FAC

Sorry, I just wanted to get some clarification in relation to Charizard's FAC, and the validness (like that's a word) of the objections. People are arguing over the quality of the "poor" quality of the references, and it's a few steps away from Bulbasaur.

On a side note, can I wave a small flag for Torchic for September 28? Cheers, Highway 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The objections to the reliablity of certain sources are debatable. I'm not sure if reliable sources on individual pokemon exist (I suspect those pokefans who say they do not exist are correct). Assuming they do not, do we allow FAs on such subjects, where there exist no highly reliable sources? I'm inclined to say yes (because I personally am reluctant to put in place rules that bar whole subjects from becoming FAs), but I recognize that there are others who take more principled, less pragmatic approach. So, to put it bluntly - I'm not sure. It's a corner case we never anticipated.

On the other hand, there are other valid objections (such as Sabine's) that definitely should be addressed. Raul654 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's reassuring. I will get around to Sabine's notes, I'm swamped ATM, and the WP:PCP has done a runner. Nice to know they'll be back to take the credit. Highway 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for leaving a message, Highway 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what time would you determine as long enough? It's just, I don't see similar restrictions placed on other FAs. Sorry, Highway 19:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lion King

Hello!

I have a couple of questions about The Lion King's FAC.

1. Do you believe there are too many fair use images? I have had some objections regarding that.

2. What do you think of the references? Do you believe there are enough to get this to featured status?

I apologize if you are the wrong person to come to, but I'm new at this FAC thing, so bare with me! Thanks for your time. PlatformerMastah 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

William Clarke College

Hey Raul, when you get a chance could you use oversight to remove the following?

I have the list of edits at User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/William_Clarke_College. Thanks mate!

Ta bu shi da yu 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:218.186.9.3

Hi -- thanks for helping me with the Microsoft vandalbot. There's an unblock request at User talk:218.186.9.3 now, though, saying that it's a Singapore mass hub (probably a Starhub address). Could you please unblock it or just block it for 15 minutes or so? I hate the reality of the situation too, but I'll keep watch over that IP until I log off. I realize this may not be the formal way of requesting an unblock, but it does look like that IP needs to be unblocked very quickly.

Thanks again -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How about I reblock it to allow registered users (but disallow anon editing or new account registration)? Raul654 07:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's alright, it's already been unblocked. I think soft blocking/disallowing anonymous edits wouldn't really address the problem, which is really just that occasional vandalbot, moreso than punish the legitimate users. Thanks for helping stop the vandal, though. I think everything's okay now, and I'll keep watching that IP for a while. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC Jake Gyllenhaal

Could I please ask why you failed this article? It had 4 supports and 2 objections - one objection was by an editor who had had his concerns addressed and had not replied when I contacted him. The other was from a a writer who also did not reply. 4-2 seems like consensus to me and the objecting editors had had their concerns addressed. Dev920 09:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please could you reply soon? Dev920 11:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

4-2 is (IMO) not consensus. Feel free to renominate it in the future, though. Raul654 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

35mm main page featured article

Hi Raul! I'd like to thank you for promptly scheduling 35 mm film for a main page feature on September 29th, but as a primary editor of the article and its FAC nominator, I would also like to request that this be indefinitely postponed. Basically, there are still some areas that I think could do with a little bit of tweaking and expansion, but I'm unfortunately not as able to do the required edits as I'd like to be for another month or so due to work dominating my life at the moment. I do definitely want this to get to the main page, but I would feel bad knowing that it could easily be even better. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Girolamo Savonarola 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested diff

TIA. -- Longhair 02:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Diff erased. Raul654 02:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured picture delisting

I've nominated your Featured Picture Image:Camouflage.jpg for delisting. Please see Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Image:Flounder camo md.jpg for the discussion. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A provocative edit summary

Looking at this diff, I must ask where is the style change you supposedly reverted? I'm not complaining about your edit, which looks fine to me, considering the subject, merely your edit summary, which is, at best, misleading. --Jumbo 10:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you to take offense -- I meant that edit was both cleanup and revert the dating style (two seperate things in the same edit, which is why I seperated them with a semicolon). I rewrote parts of the article (breaking up the paragraph, adding the birthdate to the intro, splitting a compound sentence, and several other minor things - aka, cleanup) as well as changing the dating style. Raul654 13:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't revert the dating style. I've been going through, wikifying dates of the "xxth of January" variety to "xx January". These are easy targets for wikification. In this case I missed the fact that it was an American subject, so I have no problems with you changing the format, but it seems to me that you are being imprecise in your attempts at explanation. --Jumbo 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. You are right about that - I apologize for the mistake. Raul654 13:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Barney Gumble

Hey -- just wanted to let you know I've undone this block. There was an edit conflict going on, sure, but no discussion was attempted with this user. I gave a warning, but undid the block. Mangojuice 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/October 4, 2006

I saw you edited the article. Next Wednesday? Thank you :))) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

October 4 Today's Featured Article

Hi, Raul,

I kindly draw your attention to the request for the October 4 slot to: Misplaced Pages:Today's_featured_article/requests#Lost_.28TV_series.29. That seems to be the most appropriate day, as any later and the article is liable to experience fan-entropy. Much thanks, --Leflyman 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See the section immediately above. I'm sure that the Rhinoceros would be entirely happy to cede its position to Lost, although query whether the day before the third series starts (i.e. 3 October) would be better than the day itself? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, ALoan. I missed your note prior to posting. Since October 4 UTC actually starts on October 3 in the States, I thought it worked well, to match the expected interest in Lost's season premiere-- and wouldn't appear as "promotional" if it were earlier. Durer's Rhinoceros is quite interesting, but doesn't seem to have a particular date associated with it. (Well, except perhaps for May 20, but that's a way off.) --Leflyman 16:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• And much thanks, Raul, for reviewing that. -Leflyman 03:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan on the Main Page

Hi Raul, the current scheduled POTD for October 2 is Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png. Seeing as you control the FAs (and have deliberately kept Misplaced Pages off the Main Page as a blatant self-ref), I thought this might interest you. I've brought it up at Misplaced Pages talk:Picture of the day#Wikipe-tan as POTD? any comments would be appreciated, thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god... absurd.... Raul654 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy tag for FA

I was wondering if you think this idea makes sense. Marskell 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

JayJG and date styles

Could I ask you to take a look at User_talk:Jayjg#Let.27s_make_a_date.2C_mate this discussion and work something out with JayJG, please. I'm sure he thinks I'm deliberately provoking him, and I'm just trying to get a consistent opinion, which shouldn't really be this hard. --Jumbo 21:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)