Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dweller (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 10 August 2007 (Topic ban). 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
• Archive 13: June 2007 - August 2007

Your comment at Bishop Henry

I was delighted that you stepped in to directly advise a nominator in that way. Doing that from time to time is probably a powerful way of keeping discipline. Tony 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing a nomination

I am been flirting with the idea of withdrawing my nomination of John Mayer. Is that even possible, and, if so, how would I go about doing it? --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible, and you do it by asking here on my talk page. Raul654 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice as to how to proceed on the article on Food Irradiation.

I would like to hear your advice as to how to proceed on a current deadlock on the article on Food Irradiation. After an edit war the article was blocked and heavily discussed on its talk page each fraction accusing the other of NPOV violations. Personal attacks were common and the Mediation Cabal was brought in for mediation. The mediation page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Food_irradiation/Mediation_discussion was created and the only user User:MonstretM who presented a differing viewpoint to the rest of the group abandoned mediation citing lack of experience and bias of the mediator. The underlying issue as I see it is that either party feels that the other would like to guve undue weight to a minority position. There are also issues with out of context citations etc. on the article. My question to you is if you feel if formal mediation might be a helpful step prior to asking for abribitration or if there is additional steps that we might pursue. My gut feeling is that there is a lack of good faith assumption on either side of the debate. Thanks for your advice. RayosMcQueen 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oscar (cat)

Why was this AfD closed within one day (more specificlly, 15 hours from inception to your closing)? If i'm not mistaken the deletion policy states it must run for a full 5 days before the votes are tallyed and then closed. I am most confused.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In a case like that (where there is an overwhelming sentiment one way or the other) we don't have to wait the full 5 days. Raul654 14:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed Proposal

I and a few others are proposing an alteration to the number of edits that must be made prior to being able to edit semi-protected articles. That is, the number of edits a user must make prior to being auto confirmed. Currently it's 0 and having it set to about 30 would drastically improve the protection of semi-protected articles from vandals while at the same time increasing openness due to less articles having to be fully protected due to repeat offenders. Check out the talk page and add come comments, talk page. We're trying to get attention to it, it has a consensus but nothing is happening. Thanks. Wikidudeman 12:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your old user page design

I just wanted to let you know that I am using your old userpage design, if you want you can look at the wiki code and point out any mistakes. I mainly came here to ask you for advice on how to find and fight vandalism.  Tcrow777  talk  23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:(

Paul August ☎ 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's very upsetting. I've emailed ALoan about it. Raul654 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick change

Hi! I'm User:Nyo it. Could you change my nickname usurping the User:Nyo account? It seems he's no longer active. Thank you. --Nyo it 12:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. --Deskana (banana) 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAS

The page formatting at FA Statistics is messed up. Someone changed it, I changed it back, s/he changed it back. Maybe you know how to fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

HTML/CSS is one language I don't know well (or two languages if you want to be picky) I asked in IRC and Reinsis fixed it. I think it's acceptable now. Raul654 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Except it's now completely missing the template, fapages, which is used on all FA pages (and was causing the problem). I'm sure they'll work it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't missing - you may need to scroll right to see it if your browser window isn't wide enough. Raul654 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, now it's way off my monitor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's really only two ways to fix it - either have it aligned next to the table (and some people will need to scroll over to the right to see it), or have it at the top of the stats page, above the table, on the right side of the screen. The problem is, if we do it the latter way, there's a huge empty space on the left side of the table. Raul654 18:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing notes

Raul, are the closing reminders (e.g.; Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Io (moon)) helpful? For example, Io (moon) has already been on the main page, so when you add it back to WP:FA it needs the main page template. Since many are coming back, I thought the notes would help you keep them straight as you add them back to WP:FA, so we don't have a repeat of (I think it was?) Pluto, which got re-scheduled for the main page, even though it had already appeared. We've got two more coming through soon. I'm going to correct Io moon now at WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaguar was the one that got rescheduled for the main page.

I didn't realize Io had a reminder (I didn't know to look for it, so my eyes just glanced over the red text). Yes, those are helpful, but with so many coming back, I'm bound to make mistakes. Raul654 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep adding the reminders, but also keep an eye open as a backup. I fixed Io (moon). Octopus card is at FAC now, and Autism is coming back soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A Small Number of Individual Scientists

I looked through the talk archives on Global Warming and saw that this issue has been discussed extensively, although the best description I can give as to the resolution was that it appeared to be another "the foot has spoken" scenario on the part of some familiar users. I was particularly interested by some actions taken by William M. Connolley in the course of the discussion .

I'm not pointing any fingers, but I was just wondering how many credible scientists would need to be on that list before it no longer qualified for the 'few' descriptor. For 37 people, it just seems inappropriate to me. ~ S0CO 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that previous discussions have pegged the number of people who could reasonably be called climatologists in the 10,000-20,000 range, 37 out of that number (0.37% or 0.185%) is a vanishingly small number. "A few" is, frankly, giving too much credit to point of view held by a trivial (but very vocal) few. Raul654 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Would you happen to know the exact number of signatures on the IPCC assessment? Since the article rightly focuses so heavily on the findings of the IPCC, perhaps that would be a more reliable number to weigh them against over a rough estimate. ~ S0CO 01:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact number, but if you include both authors and reviewers, it's huge - in the thousands (in other words, a very statistically significant portion of all the climatologists in the world) Raul654 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This says there are "hundreds" of authors, reviewers, and contributors; not tens of thousands or even thousands (page 3). That's a pretty major statistical discrepancy, and I think it's safe to say the issue needs further research. In the meantime, I'll see what I can find in terms of solid numbers on the IPCC's website. ~ S0CO 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here they refer to it as thousands. Raul654 01:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the IPCC is in a little bit of disagreement with itself, then.

The wikipedia article on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report says there were about 600 authors and 640 reviewers (still looking for exact totals, though). That's still a far cry from tens of thousands. I'll keep looking for a solid number or (better) a list.

I promise not to edit war or push for undue weight, but if reliable numbers can be found, it would be crazy not to include them. A solid reference outlining how many contributors signed on to the IPCC assessment (and possibly a ratio comparing the number of skeptics which meet all qualifications for inclusion) would make a good addition to the article. Numbers, even approximates, are better than weasel words. ~ S0CO 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting this "tens of thousands" number for the IPCC. The 1200 number does seem about right though. The IPCC is (by a wide margin) the most authoritative document in climatology. And, for that matter, I can't think of anything that authoritative in any other field either. Raul654 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your prior estimate, but beyond that, it would still be a valid addition to the article. I'll run the signature list past you if I find it. But still, 2.25% of scientists being skeptics (with the present ratio of 37/1240) is not completely insignificant. ~ S0CO 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Participants don't formally "sign on" to the IPCC reports, except maybe at the highest levels (I was a contributing author for the TAR and AR4). There are various levels of authorship plus the reviewers but formal approval is at the governmental level. Note also that there seems to be a little confusion above between the number of IPCC participants and the total number of climate scientists; the latter obviously is much larger than the former. Your 2.25% figure is off, because you're comparing the total number of dissenters on the page (some of whom are not involved in climate, and others of whom can only be called "scientists" in the most charitable use of the terms) with a subset of climate scientists. As far as I can see IPCC participation is broadly representative of the community and does include some of the skeptics, such as Lindzen and Christy. Raymond Arritt 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick review

As a neophyte admin I'd appreciate a quick check on my handling of this. . In a strict sense the guy did violate 3RR, but given the infantile behavior of all concerned I thought it best to either block everyone or no one. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I thought what you did was entirely sensible; and once you've decided to protect the article the an individual block (which is supposed to be preventative not punative) was unnecessary. --BozMo talk 08:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your message

I was unaware of their counterproductive nature, and I apologize. Cliff smith 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you reveting?

Curps may actually be dead. We should look into this more, though. Trynton Shines 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because, to be blunt, you're a user whose been here 5 days and made less than 2 dozen edits. I don't believe you. Raul654 02:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my new Misplaced Pages life. I have in truth been here for a very long time. I've just has a bad past, I was here back when Curps was editing, and I'm here to report his possible death. Trynton Shines 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I requests his account be blocked for now, but if he e-mails us and says the email was false, he should be unblocked. Trynton Shines 03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, I have reported this claim to the noticeboard. -Yancyfry 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC of Tool (band)

Dear Raul, I am writing you to ask you to re-open (or re-initiate, I am unfamiliar with FAC protocol) the candidacy for Tool (band). Prior to being closed last night, a fellow editor and me finished what we thought was a revision of the article that addressed all the concerns raised earlier and posted a notice. After posting, one of the two opposing editors withdrew his opposition since his concerns have been addressed, and according to a quick chat at LuciferMorgan's talk page, he has only some minor concerns left. Please reconsider, and contact me, or other involved parties if you need further information. A big thanks! Johnnyw talk 10:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you have the time to take another look at the FAC, and restart it, if possible. Contact me if you have any doubts. Greetings and thanks! Johnnyw talk 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look

Raul (or an admin) please have a look; I hesitate to intervene. Green Owl (talk · contribs) just added two FACs, already has one up that hasn't been addressed, and is entering very strange comments throughout WP:FAC. For example, can the comment at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Autism be removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I independently noticed the Autism comment and just now asked asked Green Owl about it. Something strange is going on there all right. Eubulides 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And, regular editors are requesting that The Simpsons be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Bisognerebbe is Italian. Epbr123 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most of his edit summaries are Italian. He withdrew The Simpsons, but archived Eubulides' question about Autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your support re: climate change denial. Given your interests and edit history, I'm hoping you might be be interested in signing up with this task force several editors have recently started. Come by and have a look!

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Cyrusc 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Restarted nomination

I notice that you have "restarted" my nomination of Confederate government of Kentucky for FA status. As this is only my second-ever FA nom, I am not sure exactly what this means or why it was done. I'm not necessarily opposed to the action; I'd just like some clarification on what it means. Thanks. Acdixon 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It means the old nomination had a lot of back-and-forth discussion, and it was difficult for me to tell what the outstanding objections were. So all the old supports and objections are wiped away, and the nomination starts out fresh. People are free to bring up their old objections, if they think they are still pertinent. Raul654 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree with that decision. I was just trying to see if I need to re-add my support, or if restarting disqualified those who expressed opinions in the original nomination or what. Thanks for the restart then. Acdixon 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aug 9 TFA

Hey Raul, looks like the article chosen for August 9 has already been featured. This is according to Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans and Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/May 10, 2007. -- SmthManly / / 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

D'OH. Thanks for letting me know. Raul654 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No Problem, just doing my... job, I guess? lol -- SmthManly / / 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

CM Punk

Hey, I notice you are the one who decides what featured articles become Misplaced Pages's daily featured article. I'm really curious about that, because my little peeve is the History of Professional Wrestling, and I've joined a WikiProject called WikiProject ProWrestling. An article, called CM Punk was recently added to Featured Article status, and it is well-referenced, clear, and passed all the criteria. However, I feel that the article is really a disappointment, because the editors who obsessively added enough references to get it together and reach FA still made it too arcane, uninteresting, and esoteric for me to read, and I'm a wrestling fan. Essentially, they got the facts right, but the subject is really not important, relevant, or known to many people.

My question is as follows: how do you deal with that? What if a group of complete nerds put together an article on World of Warcraft or some anime title that you know has a very limited appeal? Do you put that on the "Today's FA" or can you scoff it off? I'm sure some of those guys probably get up your ass about not having anyone read their boring page because you won't put it up, and they think it is the coolest thing in the world. Like, I'm curious, because I've seen nothing but interesting FAs, including Ben Franklin, historical figures, science, and i'm wondering about these "FAs that shouldn't be" (at least in my mind.)

As you can probably guess, I admire your job, because I would have a difficult time compromising a website's respectability for the demands of complete losers. --Screwball23 talk 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

omgs

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did to User:Sceptre, you will be blocked from editing. Will 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:-p Raul654 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka

Thanks for the note, Mark. It was clearly no consensus. Less than 70% (by me, even if it were less than 75%) and so many firm and elaborated opposes can hardly be called consensus. I wanted to close this one quickly as the amazing rancor of the "camps" needed to have a period put to it, at least in terms of the RfA. Cheers, Cecropia 15:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ornithology question

Hi Mark--can't see the bird but I think I recognize the song. Is this Enviroknot? It has that stink of "banned user" and it's Comcast from Houston. Just curious, since when I'm blocking banned users I like it if I know. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Very likely a banned user. If memory serves, Enviroknot liked to use TOR, so I can't say if it's him or not. Raul654 02:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Hello. According to this article's talk page, you're overseeing its FA nomination. I have two questions. First, is there enough consensus now to give it FA status? And second, how much longer is the discussion going to continue?

Thank you. The Clawed One 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was unaware that being a Featured Article and being on the Main Page were not the same (I was under the impression that once an article acquired FA status, it joined some sort of "waiting list" or something to appear on the MP). So, if the article does acquire FA status, is there some sort of waiting period or something between the FA passing and requesting it appear on the main page? The Clawed One 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

I'd just like to request a WWE related featured article for Monday. like John Cena, or CM Punk--Hornetman16 18:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The 13th (the date I presume you are talking about) has already been requested for Maximus the Confessor. Raul654 14:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/August 6, 2007

Hello, could you do us all a big favour ? Replace the featured picture (the Brussels chamber) by this view of the Strasbourg chamber. Strasbourg is the official seat of the Parliament and the building is the larger of the two. More infos here : Buildings of the European Parliament. Thank you ! RCS 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A Problem

Hi there; I am a fairly new admin, and have been approached with a problem which I am not competent to handle. I threw it at User:Cecropia, being a bureaucrat with whom I have interacted, and he suggested I should contact you.

The problem: we have a vandal who appears to have an unlimited access to a range of PCs; I am of course aware that an indeiscriminate range block will do a vast amount of collateral damage, probabnly in excess of the benefit achieved. The problem was brought to me by User:Scorpion0422, and if you would look at User:Scorpion0422/Hidden Message Vandal you will appreciate the nature and degree of the problem. Whether there is antthing positive that can be done, I know not. Obviously I can block and delete as new things appear, but that does not prevent persistent new IP vandalism. Any help that you can give would, I know, be much appreciated by the three editors who have spent about three months fighting this guy. --Anthony.bradbury 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Political correctness

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at political correctness. From my perspective, this article was in pretty good shape until recently, but has come under attack from a couple of determined POV-pushers, similar to problems encountered in quite a few articles where I've seen and appreciated your contributions. Of course, YMMV. JQ 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup reminder

Hi. On the page for the upcoming New York City meetup on Sunday, you requested that someone give you a reminder when the date was getting closer, so here it is. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost FAC

I left an example about the peacock terms that I keep finding by just scanning the article. I've been working a lot, and school just finished for me so I had not had a chance to give a thorough review, only skim the surface. I'll try and read the entire article this evening so that I can give a more detailed analysis for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

August

Just a note, according to his talk page, Tony1 is gone for a week, so won't be able to resolve his Opposes. Most of the people who could GimmeBotify the promotions/archives are not going to be available as we get into August; seems just about everyone has something going on. I can try to keep up manually, but I will be on a dialup on and off through mid-Sept. Any ideas? Unless you know someone who can pitch in manually for a few weeks, maybe we could go back to temporarily using the old templates (facfailed, etc.) until Gimmetrow's hopefully back on board full-time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can use the old tags until Gimmetrow comes back. Alternatively, for the time being, I'm more than competent to operate the bot if someone does mind giving me some basic instructions. Raul654 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried something new with this batch: I added the star on promoted, and a facfailed template on not promoted, with an edit summary that a bot would update the talk page. Hopefully, that will eliminate confusion if there's any delay in articlehistory botification. Gimmetrow's situation isn't yet clear; will try this for a while and see how it goes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing fac with facfailed caused some problems with Talk:The Colbert Report. Gimmetrow 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As the bot is currently written, no. The part which deals with a page with a missing "fac" template has parts commented out. I'm guessing there were situations where people removed "fac" without adding "facfailed", and if an older "facfailed" existed the bot was grabbing that instead. I've uncommented that code for now to see what happens next round. Gimmetrow 02:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Sicko (film). Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Misplaced Pages without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not delete an NPOV dispute tag while there is a NPOV dispute pending. Thank you. THF 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I left the guy a note about calling good faith edits vandalism. He however removed the message. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page requests

With regards to the main page request for Aston villa; looking at Arsenal F.C.'s main page pic i saw it wasn't neccessarily an action shot.(although i do now notice it is quite an old main page article) Would this image be appropriate? it shows history of Villa, European Cup, etc and is equivalent to Arsenal F.C's celebratory shot, albeit not a current team picture though. thanks for your consideration. Woodym555 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

HIMDIME

Have anything for August 27? That's the first day of classes at Penn State, so putting this on the main page that day would be great, especially since it will be the first day of classes in the 100th year of the program.

As for the lead, I'll do what I can, but it might be easier to just increase the length of the text in the FA box. --Spangineer (háblame) 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Size of FAs

Hi Raul. Long time, eh? Anyway, there's a few of us trying to move Donald Bradman to FA status. A cursory glance at the article reveals a problem; the man was massively notable for approx 60 years, so the article's massive. We've started hoiking material into daughter articles and ruthlessly editing out anything remotely extraneous, but I'm still concerned over the detail of WP:SIZE as it applies to FAs -what exactly should we be aiming for? Also, the "size" of the article is presumably increased by images, and this is richly illustrated. Is there a size criterion that excludes images? Sorry, that's a bit of a ramble, but any help would be gratefully received. Let's keep the conversation here (unless you're going to point to an existing thread), if you don't mind. --Dweller 09:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be most grateful for a reply... I do understand you're busy. --Dweller 10:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Raul, but if you read WP:SIZE it does not include images, tables, or reference lists. It does seem large, even so, yes. Part of the problem is that the sections that have daughter articles don't seem as condensed as they could be, still being many paragraphs in the main article. Could "1930 tour of England" be a daughter article? --AnonEMouse 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule. Generally, though, size-related objections include only readable text, excluding images, references, citations, 'etc. If memory serves, objections don't usually start until after 60kb or 70kb of readable prose. Raul654 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Yikes. So we've a long way to go. Any recent promotions of very large articles? --Dweller 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Moderation request

Raul, your input on a discussion in the Featured Article candidate's talk page regarding image sizing would be greatly appreciated. Though I seem to be disagreeing with a majority, I believe I am in the right IAW WP:MoS. I am willing to acquiesce to your opinion, though, if I am in the wrong. Again, any help & guidance would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sarah Knauss.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot 00:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia - 17 August...

Hi Raul

Sorry to pester you, but you did suggest a few weeks back I ask you closer to the date to put Indonesia as the articel of the day for 17 August - ie, Indonesia's national day and most important holiday.

Who does the summary? As one of 3 principal contributors to that article, I can put a summary together if you'd like.

Cheers. --Merbabu 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Beagle (TFA Aug 10 2007)

I've changed some of the punctuation in the lead of Beagle. I think it enhances readability; could you incorporate those changes into the TFA blurb? -- Super Aardvark 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:John Walker Lindh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Walker Lindh.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot 01:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sup

Hey mark, what up homeslice? --CableModem^^ 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Spirit Airlines

Hello Raul, it seems User:Diemacher, now blocked, has been making several odd claims and edits regarding this article and its contents, many of these claims countering the official airline website's information, and has recently been attempting to substitute cet official information for his own with little or no sourcing, which violates original research guidelines. After an edit war with User:Sox23 which got them both blocked (though Sox23 has been unblocked since) regarding the validity of his edits, the user came in as an anon and has apparently made claims to be the airline CEO (possibly B. Ben Baldanza) and has supposedly made legal threats through User:David Fuchs, which was the blocking administrator. Regardless of his threats, the claims Diemacher/anon has made concerning the edits and reversions done by Sox23 (as being incorrect and libelous), as well all of his corrections to the article do basically counter almost everything stated on the airline's official website which is our only true source for everything stated in the article, so unless Diemacher/anon is actually the CEO and he suddenly makes some sort of official statement regarding this, or actually updates the website, then I think we shouldn't validate his edits through the original research rules, but I'm contacting you for a bit of outside intervention for this seeing as I have been an active editor to the article. Currently the article still stands as edited by Diemacher until further notice, and there's small discussion regarding what should be done about the edits and steps taken in this entire ordeal. Also, some users are questioning the blocking of Sox23 as having been done in bad faith. Sooo... that's the entire situation. How should this be handled appropriately? Should we revert the article back to pre-Diemacher status, or leave it as edited by the user? and what of the anon's claims and possible future changes outside blocked IPs? -- SmthManly / / 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack and incivility

I think that this goes over the top and that your administrator status does not grant you the right to rant against me like this. I'll answer to your series of non sequiturs and other sophisms soon enough. --Childhood's End 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to that page that removed my comment. In the future, do not remove comments from other. And it's not rant to collect your asinine comments and point out how they differ from reality - and that every word you write is a lie, including "and" and "the" Raul654 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see there's no way I will bring you to reason and civility. Failing an apology, I'll bring it to the admins noticeboard (not that I want to or expect much, but I must by principle). --Childhood's End 13:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You should be apologizing to all the people on talk:Global warming and related pages whose time is wasted replying to your constant stream of specious comments. You will get none from me. Raul654 13:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of AN, I've started a thread there Raul654 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban

I think it might be worth trying some informal mediation first. I can imagine being a lone dissenting voice must be frustrating. Give it a chance? --Dweller 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)