Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 17:41, 9 June 2007 (→3RR Warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Copyrightleft infringement?

Seems like this guys (an italian newspaper) are using something really rally similar to the one you contributed and licensed under GFDL. Just to let you know, in the past I've contacted them for similar cases but it wasn't really useful... See you, good work
cb
( here I am, just in case of a response ^^ )

Plant gallery usage

Did you want entries in your plant galleries marked when they are used? I see some images are already in articles, so you or someone else did not mark images which already have found an obvious home. (SEWilco 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

I hadn't thought to do that. For the purposes of browsing them, I'd actually prefer to keep them unmarked. But if it would help people, I wouldn't object to temporarily marking them, or creating a copy and marking that one. Raul654 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page (Slavery)

Although I do think that one can decry slavery exorbitantly, I was amongst those who had occasion to laugh at your "bias" observation. At DoomsDay's quasi-suggestion, then, I bestow upon you a barnstar (although it should be observed that it is not one—<shudders>—that has been approved for use). Cheers!

		The Barnstar of Decapitatory Humor
		For being so funny as to render one editor headless and to cause another to wet his computer, Raul is to be praised (and admonished to be less homicidally humorous in the future). Joe 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you :) Raul654 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Goblet fire cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand 04:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sysop

Hey there Raul, how's it going? :-) Thank you so much for taking the time to close my RfA and handing me my new shiny mop. And since I'm going to leave this message, I might as well thank you for everything you do here. Yes, thank you, Raul! All the best, Anas 15:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ID again

Thanks Raul. Plainly this topic requires ongoing diligence. I get to like the concept of having a separate category for "stable article" or "previously consensused" article more and more as I see the difficulties this topic has had when newer, unfamiliar editors come on board. But for the moment, thanks. ... Kenosis 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

HELP!! I think your ongoing attention would be helpful at the ID article, and maybe an observation here and there on the talk page too. Three editors come in and change a longstanding sentence to read that ID argues for a redefinition of science so it can be included as science, I adapt the language so it works, and now Adam Cuerden is confusing the issues once again. (ID holds itself out as science irrespective of their pushes to redefine science, and its push to change the definition of science is only one prong of their approach.) ... Kenosis 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

I know you already got this barnstar, but I couldn't help but give it to you, to. You have a great sense of humor!

		The Barnstar of Decapitatory Humor
		I, too, award you this barnstar because your comment on Talk:Main Page was the funniest comment I have ever read. As well, Misplaced Pages, the movie is funnier then any Uncyclopedia article! You have certainly brightened up my day. Thank you. - Thekittybomb 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Cult of Raul

Signatories, please sign below:

___________

___________

___________

___________

;-)) ... Kenosis 00:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

dien bien phu

I moved the Castor picture (]) of yours to the Operation Castor article. I've corrected the picture comment as well.

You can select another fair use in the archives galleries I have added in the Dien Bien Phu article (Media Links). Paris By Night 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Date requests

I would like to take a moment to comment on you for allowing date requests on the requests page. I think that you understood where the majority (plurality?) was coming from in discussion, and I see it as a great way for both the users to suggest dates and the FA director to use that input in his/her decisions. I think that the way you set it up is a great way to have handled it, being that you only allowed 5 requests at one time, which is a small number but reasonable nonetheless.

Again, thank you for seeing out what others urged for; being able to listen to suggestions and act on them is an important thing to do when you are the only one in charge. I know from external experience that you get this whole new realm of ideas and possibilities when you mix your ideas with those of others. So I would urge you, whenever possible, to consult with others around you before making decisions (no matter how big) because in the end, it will only make people more appreciative of the work you do for us. Thanks, again. _└┘t  21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Username change please

User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat -- Cat 00:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It took 30 tries (maybe more) but it finally went through. Raul654 00:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS

Mind 3RR -- it would be typical of a certain individual to try and nail you there. This Dkowalski person has been singularly unhelpful, though I don't think he's done anything actionable yet. Raymond Arritt 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Feature article candidate disappeared

The link to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jay Chou just disappeared from the FA nomination page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates without promotion or fail. I'm new to this FAC process. Has there already been a promotion or fail and I'm not looking in the right place? Thanks! Sorry if I'm asking a dumb question. Great work, by the way! SeleneFN 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I promoted it today, along with 13 others. Gimmebot takes care of the talk pages and whatnot, although apparently today there's been some kind of delay in running it. Raul654 04:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Jerusalem

Are you sure it's not a good idea to protect the page? I have been doing a lot of reverting. Most of it is simple vandalism, but I am more concerned about POV edits that completely go against the consensus we've built up. Would reverting these edits violate 3RR? Thanks, nadav (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tariq has posted about this issue on AN/I: . nadav (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin's comments there. I'd prefer to avoid protecting the featured article. With that said, however, it's now 3 AM and I'm going to bed ;) Raul654 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Well, I think the situation is under control for the time being at least. Gnight! nadav (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have sprotected again. I realize the 'ideal' is to leave every FA open to all to create a good impression, but at this point the amount of vandalism is just too high, and that creates a bad impression on the balance. Crum375 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go here

I don't particularly want to get involved, but Rocco keeps asking me to ask this.--Kkrouni 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it the request isn't unreasonable--the unblock template actually does include instructions to remove it after two days in the case of long blocks (news to me, but there you are), and Netsnipe's block notice was still there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is his exact quote not that you'll care "I'm sorry for having sockpuppets and removing templates, and I won't do anything bad on wikipedia again" Cowboy Rocco --Kkrouni 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I had a few accounts extra too, that I never used so I probably deserve a block too, but we are two different people. (why are you so sure we're one person?)--Kkrouni 01:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars on the main page

I would like you to clear up something for me as you do not appear to agree nor disagree with the recent activity over the use of fair-use images on the main page. The two Star Wars film articles (The Phantom Menace, and Revenge of the Sith) that were featured on the main page were featured using fair-use images of the film posters used in the article's infobox. Not a word was said. Recently however, a Gnomebot has going through the Today's Featured Request page and purging it of fair-use iamges claiming that it against WP policy to have fair-use images on the main page. For one, it's been done before. Second, according to your page User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts for "Selecting the image" you don't mention anything about fair-use or free images being allowed on the main page.

This has become increasingly frustrating for me because I have had four (now three) requests on the page at one time. And I repeatedly must venture back to the page to readd posters that I know are allowed on the main page. Now Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is going to be featured on the main page with a small photo of a hotel that was used for filming. An image that I think hardly at all conveys "the topic of the FA with as much specificity as possible, even if you took all the rest of the text away." The only image I think that could convey the topic if you took the text away would be the poster. Would you please place the poster on the main page rather than the image of the hotel? And whether you can or cannot, would you please comment on the subject on my talk page so that I may understand the situation? The Filmaker 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You checked the right page, but the wrong section. See page, User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts#Copyright and fair use. Put simply, I do not agree with the absolute restriction on fair use images appearing on the main page. There are obviously topics for which no suitable free image exists. (By suitable, I mean someone knows what the topic is by looking at the image and not having read the blurb). The lengths people have to go to find free images renders the image itself meaningless. If you don't know what the image is after you've read the blurb, that's a huge problem. There's almost no point in having an image there to begin with (except maybe to catch readers' eyes). Granted, there are a very few cases where this is impossible to avoid, but the topics with fair use images are not those kinds of articles. Raul654 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

• Flora and fauna of Greenland

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Raul654 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Null (SQL) at FAR

From FAR:

"This article was promoted 2007-05-22, but I believe that Raul made a mistake promoting it, as the FAC doesn't show any consensus of promoting the article. Perhaps he meant to fail the article, but moved it to the wrong log. →AzaToth 13:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)"

Did you intend to promote after this? Marskell 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AzaToth is correct - I accidentally put it on the promotion list when I meant to put it on the failed list. Raul654 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I probably would have left that listed for a little while longer. Since it's over with now, just treat it as a failed FAC nom regardless. Raul654 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be traveling, but am going to leave a note to Gimmetrow, since getting the articlehistory correct here will be tricky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Invalid Checkuser outcome

The checkuser outcome of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren is obviously invalid. I suspect the confirmation was made based on all the listed editors being customers of Elion and using its public web proxies, or belonging to the same IP address space. (I am not a customer of Elion but of Starman which is probably why I was left out of the "ring".)

Upon advice from robchurch on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en, I ask that you review the checkuser case. I have also presented the same request to David Gerard; I believe that at least one of you two is too busy to act upon it.

Thanks in advance. Digwuren Digwuren 08:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FA date requests

Hi Raul. I've had my eye off the ball recently, so missed the end of the discussions re date requests. Is there a neat summary of the conclusion somewhere? Want to make sure I play by the rules. Cheers, --Dweller 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a nice concise summary anywhere, so I'll just write one here - the requests were out of control - especially the date requests. I wanted to eliminate the requests page entirely. Other people were unhappy with that. So as a compromise, date requests are now to limited to unpicked dates in the next month, with no more than 5 pending requests at a time. Beyond that, people are still free to request "the next available date" in the section below that on the TFA page as they have always been. Raul654 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope that reduces the angst on this page. --Dweller 07:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment on proceeding on Gracenotes, RfA

Hi Raul,

It's May 29th. In case you have internet access on that sunny beach, and you're willing to take come time from sand and sun, please consider commenting on the below. Thanks and if you don't respond, I more than understand! :)

As one of the Bureaucrats recently active on RfA, I would like your opinion on how to handle Gracenotes' rather difficult RfA.

There are a huge number of opinions (over 200 supporting and over 70 opposing) and a great deal of argumentation. I would like to reserve a "Bureaucrat Chat" for the really, really difficult and unique situations, like Danny. My concerns here are that:

• The bureaucrats should not be put in the position of being "supervoters," evaluating everything the community already hashed over, but at a "higher" level;
• I would like to see this RfA separated from some very strong and quite valid (to the individuals most involved) emotion, as much as this is possible; and
• Almost all the detailed opposition revolves around a single issue that I believe has acquired a life of its own separate from the candidate's qualifications, and I think Gracenotes at least deserves a chance to make a coherent presentation on the issue and allow the community to express their opinions anew in that light.

I had earlier posted a way forward that can be found (with some comments) at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#One_Bureaucrat.27s_Impression. I would like to proceed according to the six steps I suggested, which has the assent of both the Candidate, and the first opposer on the BADSITES issues, SlimVirgin.

I would be most grateful if you would contact me at my talk page with your assent, different solution and/or comment and discussion. Thanks! -- Cecropia 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with Gracenotes. I'll have a look at it now. A summary would be appreciated. Raul654 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to explain (though you've probably heard by now):

• Full disclosure: I voted oppose on this nomination.
• An insane number of people voted for Gracenotes
• An insane number of people voted against Gracenotes, nearly all opposing due to his opinions regarding links to attack sites. There is some concern that his opinion may have been misunderstood by voters, and that WP:BADSITES is not policy, and perhaps a bad idea. Some oppose voters, notably Musical Linguist, have rebutted that it's not just about BADSITES being a policy, it's also about Gracenotes' posts and opinion on Misplaced Pages Review, and his opinion on attack sites outside the policy itself.
• At 73.9%, it's within bureaucrat discretion range.
• Cecropia has proposed the nomination be re-started to allow voters to understand his true opinion; my opinion is that it would be unfair to Gracenotes, but it's certainly your call.

Clearly my opinion may be clouded a bit, so I encourage you to seek other opinions as well. Ral315 » 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Eyes of the Insane" FAC

Hi Raul, when you have time could you take a look at the FAC for "Eyes of the Insane"? There's recently been a citation dispute between the Maths Project and GA / GAR, which now seems to have spilled over onto my FAC. As the director of FAC, can you tell me if you feel PMAnderson's oppose is valid according to the FA criteria? I strongly feel his oppose his wholly invalid, and I don't wish for FAC to be disrupted due to a dispute elsewhere regarding citations. Can you take a look sometime, and get back to me? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to make a pass over the FAC very soon - preferably before the end of the month. But, given that I'm going to be on the road for the next couple days (at a Mitrionics workshop at George Washington University) in all likelihood I won't get to it until the weekend. Raul654 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I hope you enjoy your time at this Mitrionics workshop in George Washington University, and it proves a fruitful experience. The weekend sounds fine to me, so I'll await your verdict as regards whether PMAnderson's oppose is valid / invalid in the "Eyes of the Insane" FAC. Take care, and thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked over it. I think the objection that there might be a bit too much referencing has a kernel of truth to it. The worst offender was the second paragraph in the origins section (with 5 consecutive noncontroversial sentences referenced to the same source). Here's my recommendation - go over the article, and note any consecutive sentences that reference the same source. If they are making noncontroversial statements of fact (e.g, "He read the article on the plane), delete the ref in the first sentence. Beyond that, the article looks ready to promote. Raul654 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do this, though only because of your recommendation. Please note that PMAnderson's objection is in bad faith as can be proved by his edits. If he does such things in future FACs of mine, please don't allow him to do so as I find it quite disturbing. As far as I am concerned, the things he's done of late as concerns GA warrant a block. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 10:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Per your recommendations, I've cut down on consecutive sentences which reference the same source. Could you take a look at my recent edits to the article and check whether they're correct or not? Also, have I now addressed the "overrferencing" objection? Just wondering, because I can address any valid objections one has. Thanks for everything, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. LuciferMorgan 10:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PMAnderson's also objected at "God Hates Us All" (bad faith again, he even called me "illiterate in the "Eyes" FAC, but I'll defer), though Metalhead's addressed his objection. Is this sufficient for his oppose to be deemed invalid at this FAC? Sorry to barrage you with messages, I apologise. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SR 1002 FAC

Hey, thanks for concuring with me on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania). Its been a while now and are you going to close it now because everyone else seems to have opposed it. Besides, you can leave a comment if you think it should/shoudn't deserve to be a FA, if you want. But I don't like waiting, and if you close it, I'm cool with it, i'll just take it to GA. Cheers. -- JA10 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cautious consideration

I'm cautiously considering working to bring Israel up to featured status. I just want to make sure I'm clear on this: the near-permanent semi-protection due to persistent vandalism will have no bearing on the article's ability to reach featured status; correct? -- tariqabjotu 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 should correct me if I'm wrong, but so far as I know, that should not keep it from becoming featured. Near any article should be able to reach featured status, and opposing a candidacy because of semi-protection would not be an actionable objection. ShadowHalo 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Selfish request

Hi. Although I generally believe that people doing this puts unfair pressure on you, and is a tad selfish, after reading your comment here that you "try very hard to defer to the wishes of the article's primary author(s)" I've decided to give this a crack. I am the primary author of three articles that have become featured over the last five months (All Blacks, Crusaders (rugby), and Waisale Serevi) and none have yet featured on the main page. I was wondering if it would be possible to have one of them as Today's featured article some time in June. All of them are related to rugby union and the first two are New Zealand articles. Thanks. - Shudda 07:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We just had a rugby article yesterday, so I'm hesitant to put another one on for at least a couple of weeks. With that said, I'll try to put one on in later June. I can't make any promises, but I'll see what I can do. Raul654 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for considering. That Sydney Roosters article was rugby league, and the three I'm talking of are rugby union. The sports have things in common, but they are very different. Thanks though. - Shudda 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization

SandyGeorgia suggested that I leave a short note to explain my feeling that this discussion is ready for your review this weekend. Her only lingering objection was a question about the reliability of sources. As she requested, I sourced and summarized opinions from a variety of experts, and the consensus appears to be that the sources are reliable. SandyGeorgia is stuck in a hotel with crappy dial-up Internet so she can't review things thoroughly at the moment, but please ask for her input if you have any questions about this. Jehochman 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with the replies to Sandy's concerns about the reliability of the references - that the nature of that article means that web-based references will tend to be some of the most reliable. As such, I've promoted the article. Raul654 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that was much easier than I expected. Thank you very much! Jehochman 04:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My exploding brain

Ack. You promoted a batch in June and added them to June archives/promoted, but then reported them as May at Misplaced Pages:Featured article statistics, which messes with my brain at the Citations list, where I reported the end of May number. ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get them in before the end of the month. The 4 hour difference between UTC and EDT came into play here. I consider the promotions to be in May because my clock still says it's May :) Raul654 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the discrepancy should be removed. Featured articles log lists all the 14 recently upgraded articles in the June month and Featured article statistics lists them in May, so either one of them should be corrected. I prefer you should go with the changing data in the Featured article statistics and make the FAs equal to 1407 in the end of May. DSachan 07:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing them now may create a GimmeBotification mess; I'll look at how you've sorted it out when I'm home. Just trying to avoid having confusion somewhere down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot has nothing to do with the stats page, so changes there would have no consequence. Moving the articles from the June archive to the May archive wouldn't matter either, since the bot isn't going to look at May again, and they're already tagged closed anyway. Gimmetrow 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-request

Hey, Raul. I notice that the FA queue for June is mostly blank, so I wanted to put in an anti-request for some FAs I worked on. I'll be away on a business trip from the 2nd to the 6th, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't main-page Cameroon, George Washington Dixon, Old Dan Tucker, or Donkey Kong (video game) during that period. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bongo (antelope)

Hi Raul. For many months much work has been put into this article by a lot of really dedicated people. The article has previously been a candidiate for FA status but was not promoted for various reasons. After much toil putting right all the concerns I'm asking you to have a look at the article and check out whether or not you feel as if it's up to a candidacy. All the previous concerns have been addressed with many other refinments. We're really working at this over here!

I really appreciate all your efforts and look forward to hearing from you. Yours, Black Stripe 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester FAC

Hi. When you've got time, could you please explain to me your reasons for failing the Sale, Greater Manchester FAC? Thanks. Epbr123 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to your lack of response, I'll assume you had no good reasons. Epbr123 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Hi Raul, as the FAC nominator of this page last time, you might want to contribute to the current FAC discussion. All the best. TimVickers 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia

Hi Raul. This article has just promoted to FA. I understand that you are the man who schedules the feature article on the main page. Indonesia's National Day (celebration of its declaration of independence) is 17 August. What are the chances of Indonesia being made article of the day for 17 August 2007? kind regards --Merbabu 10:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You want Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests#Date requests Raul654 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Or you want to be an admin like Marskell. Epbr123 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaguar

Raul, you've got this one up for Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 11, 2007. It's already been TFAed: Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/September 24, 2006.

If you wanted to be a real gem, you could promote Cougar and throw it up there ;). It's down to the little nitpicks. Marskell 14:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neat - I'll try to make a pass through the FAC soon. Assuming I promote it, I'll have no problems putting it up on the 11th. Raul654 14:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe the article could wait its turn. Epbr123 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be grouchy—there is no set "turn." I have three (including Cougar) that haven't gone up, but I haven't pestered Raul until he accidently reminded by editing Jaguar today. Some birds have twittered and some dinos have rumbled across the mainpage recently, but there hasn't been a mammal since Jaguar, AFAIK. So it would be a fair choice. Marskell 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An FYI and an offer

FYI: I'm now updating the by-year nomination lists (like Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2007) and the WP:WBFAN page with a (supervised) bot I run pretty much daily. The bot notices any additions to the monthly FAC promotion log files and adds appropriate entries to the by-year lists, updates main page appearance dates in the by-year lists, updates FA/FFA status, regenerates the WBFAN list from the updated by-year lists, and makes sure every article in FA or FFA has a nomination history in one of the by year lists (and vice versa). You might find the by-year lists useful for picking main page articles.

Offer: This is all stuff I was doing much less frequently with a collection of scripts, leading to manual copy and paste edits. I've found tying it together with a bot that does the edits makes it significantly faster and less effort. Based on this discussion, I could probably develop a tool/bot for you that would similarly assist your FA activities. It could (for example) list the oldest noms one at a time and prompt for a disposition (pass, fail, skip, or quit), and when you enter "quit" it would make all the appropriate edits for you (showing a diff for confirmation before making each edit). There are some things currently done by gimmebot that we could think about shifting to this tool/bot as well, for example closing the FAC. If you're interested in pursuing this, let me know and we can work out exactly what it should do. To start, you'd have to set yourself up to run PyWikipediaBot. I suspect this isn't anything you couldn't do yourself if you cared to (it is simply programming after all), but perhaps you get your fill of programming elsewhere. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Administrator

Hey Raul. Could you please check this out? - Mtmelendez 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly

I realize you dislike O'Reilly a lot, but please do realize that a lot of the changes in this article are driven by political bias and violate wikipedia's NPOV. Media Matters is not a viable source for commenting on O'Reilly and I would ask you not to cite claims made by them.

A Canticle for Liebowitz

Way back in 2004 you added some analytical commentary to A Canticle for Liebowitz (the edit). Is there any chance that you recall where you obtained it from? Thanks.
04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Random featured article

I didn't really propose the idea, but I just stepped up to say the words to ask for it. Thanks anyway. I'll post it on the Main Page talk page. Powerfulmind _talkme! _atofedits! 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Name switch

Hey, this is my current main Whsitchy 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And this is the doppleganger account. Whsitchy 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, somehow my talk didn't get moved over, could you do that for me? Whsitchy 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle

Removed from FA by Tony Sidaway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you decide it's removed, we'll need to figure out what to do with articlehistory and archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential edit war regarding the Bus Uncle

Since you have been involved in the current debate about The Bus Uncle, I thought I may ask for your assistance on a potential edit war that may take place. Since you reverted Tony Sidaway's edits, another user deleted all that due to it being "unencylopedic" anecdotes and trivia. If the edit were reverted at this point, I am worried that it may trigger a revert war. What can be done about this? (Refer to Talk:The Bus Uncle for more information)

My personal opinion is that the introductions of the characters are brief but not trivial, and the parties involved in that incident should be clearly identified, along with the consequences of the events. After all, it's just like any other current event that is written on Misplaced Pages, and this one's no exception due to the media coverage last June.--Kylohk 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Philadelphia Invite

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Misplaced Pages Meetup
Sunday July 8, 2007
Time: 5:00 pm
Location: It will be in Center City, Philadelphia at 112 North 9th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Tel: (215) 829-8939

Frank K

Is there a way I can privately contact you for the numbers? Or perhaps I'll check to see if he's okay with their release. Anyway, there's been a definite effect, but the tally can't be counted yet as certain pages are still busy. Zeality 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Use the email-this-user function to send me a private email. Raul654 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comments

...on this matter. Raymond Arritt 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Replied by email) Raul654 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh this gets interesting! Raymond is calling in the big guns and Raul has to respond by email rather than publicly! RonCram 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeeboid block

I'm assuming I'm missing something here, because I don't see how this edit warrants a 24 hours block. It seems this point is disputed, as Zeeboid is not the only one removing the word "controversial". Also note the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Zeeboid is requesting to be unblocked, so if you could shed some light on this block, I'd appreciate it. - auburnpilot talk 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And I must say, I really disagree with the block if you are involved in the dispute. - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Zeeboid is one of a cadre of anti-science pov pushers on global warming topics (and has been blocked because of it several times in the past). The Great Global Warming Swindle basically a propaganda peice (said one scientist who now regrets his participation there, the film is "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."). In short, it's a polemic. That's what the article used to call it, until it was changed to "controversial". Now Zeeboid wants to remove that too as Raymond predicted earlier. Frankly, his edit doesn't stand the laugh test. Raul654 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And as far as me being involved - my participation in the dispute happened *after* I blocked him and them someone else came along and re-inserted it. Raul654 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response; that's all I needed to know. I'll head over and decline the unblock request, as it appears 24 hours is clearly warranted. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Shalom

I would like to know if you have any advice about how to become an admin? I have not been active on Misplaced Pages with this account(I never before used accounts), but I know I could better serve the Jewish Community on wikipedia if I was an Admin. AniChai 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Why? I'm basically doing it as a means to find non-complant templates and fix them. TAnthony 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Because WikiProjectBannerShell clutters up talk pages far more than WikiProjectBanners, and many people (including myself) dislike it greatly. As SatyrTN said earlier, the detente that has been established is that article tagged with one will not be converted to the other. Raul654 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want to find non-complaint templates, copy them to a third page (a subpage in your namespace) and modify them there all you like. Raul654 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand it's a preference, and I hadn't realized a "détente" was established, but reverting every one of my like 10 measly conversions seems a little second-grade. I don't think anyone would have cared out of the 3600+ articles that still use WikiProjectBanners. But whatever. TAnthony 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request date

Sorry about that, today has been sort of an off all day. I either missed it or just miss counted when after I saw it. I think it's time for some sleep. Haha. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, I added a request date for Today's Featured Article earlier today yesterday. Bsroiaadn 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle featured article review

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!

I need to talk to someone about an IP user who keeps erasing my factual information in two articles and puts false information in its place. I do not want to continue this battle. I have left a message on his/her talk page, but he/she has not said anything back to me. What can I do? Please help--Thank you! 24.131.113.33 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FPC

Hello! I have nominated an image of yours, Image:Okapi2.jpg, as a featured picture candidate. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates#Current nominations. Feel free to chime in if you have any comments about the image. Thanks for the great picture - it made me happy. --Strangerer (Talk) 14:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Isaac Asimov has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on House demolition. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

(1) I'm only at two reverts (you, on the other hand, are already at 3, not counting the many you've been doing over the last few days). (2) As I said before, your edits have materially changed the meaning of one of the sentences to make it misleading if not outright false. Raul654 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)