• 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

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 / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this goes over the top [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

My experience with mediation (as both participant and arbitrator having to clean up the mess afterward) has been uniformly negative. Furthermore, I think it has no chance of success in this case because, to be frank, Childhoodend's actions have made it quite clear that he is not editing in good faith. He is a POV warrior through-and-through, and mediation is not going to fix that.

Also, for the record, he is not acting alone. There is an informal group of anti-science (primarily anti-global warming) POV warriors who mutually support each other. This group includes (but is not limited to): Childhoodsend, Iceage77, Rameses/Britannia (proven sockpuppets), Rossnixon, UBeR (although Raymond Arritt holds out some hope for him), Mnyakko, RonCram, Oren0, and a few others. Raul654 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Shame. POV warring is very difficult to unpick, one man's POV warring is another man's balancing an article, lol. Good luck with it, whatever. Hope no-one ends up blocked. --Dweller 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except when confronted with the fact that his statements do not match reality (as reported by reliable sources such as the NY Times, the Washington Post, Greenpeace, 'etc), Childhoodend simply attacks the sources. And as far as hoping no one gets blocked - blocking problem users is the best way to deal with them. Far better than the alternative - letting them continue to edit, burn out good users, 'etc. I've been here long enough that I've seen the results of unchecked trolling and it ain't pretty. Raul654 15:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, I'm doubtful mediation will be very useful in this instance. I also agree with you that CE deserves a ban (and probably a number of the rest) although given how messy any such attempt is likely to get, I don't think I'll be joining. But good good luck Nil Einne 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, I've left a response at AN for you. Regards, Navou ^banter 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've taken your advice. Raul654 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I was a little peeved last night, but I'm not soured at all. Overall, I was delighted to get the painting on the main page, and the helpful edits it brought outweighted the few instances of vandalism and all the main page talk hassel. I have no regrets, and I appreciated the opportunity. Ceoil 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I emailed you earlier about help with uploading a picture. I did that before I knew you were on OTRS (I knew you were an admin, that's all). Anyway I saw that you had an account on metawiki OTRS, and was wondering if you could look at the pic I uploaded and the email I sent to permissions@wikipedia.org. The subject heading for the email is: Re: Glenn Greenwald portrait and license permission. Added link for URL of photo on commons

The relevant pic on commons is: here

The page I wanted to add it to on en.wiki is: Glenn_Greenwald

I'm hoping you can look at the email I sent to permissions and verify that I have the appropriate consent and add to the permissions section, of the uploaded image, a ticketid. Or in the alternative, let me know if anything is lacking. Thanks in advance for any assistance. R. Baley 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. . .R. Baley 05:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, please ping my email. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have one set in your preferences (so I couldn't use email-this-user) and from a quick check I don't have your email in my address book. Raul654 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. I set up a separate account for Wikipedia stuff. Raymond Arritt 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again - This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users. Raul654 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, see what you mean. Now it should be fixed. Kinda weird; I assumed it was working as someone managed to email me anyway and that's a brand-new purpose-specific address. Raymond Arritt 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sent. Raul654 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the whole process in voting for the selection of FA in the WP:TFA/R is biased. I don't like the procedure of placing only five articles for date requests. Atleast all the article that want to show up on the main page may request for a date, which is within the 30 days from the date of request. Hope, u will change the procedure. Thanks. Smile, as a smile costs nothing. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I set up the date requests system on TFA/R like that so as to prevent me from being swamped with requests. (The list itself, which is nigh-useless now, is currently running around 130) At the moment, those 5 slots are doled out on a first-come-first-serve basis, which is perfectly far - anyone can take it, provided they show up at the right moment. If you can think of a better system for arbitrating between conflicting requests that doesn't involve me being swamped, I'm all ears. Raul654 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for it, so here it is: your reminder for the NYC meeting in Central Park August 12 Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. The weather should be all right. Flew in from Orlando last Wednesday so I should know. Avb 04:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to WP:BRD and discuss reversions on the talk page. Per WP:MOS#FILMS, a content summary should be 400-700 words long, and this one is 1200 words long. THF 15:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when you were going to show this article on the main page? It's been there for a while (And probably other have been there longer), doesn't your main page selection go on time of being featured or requested? If it goes on topic, then I'm sure you haven't had a fossil dino-bird on the main page for age eh? :) Anyway, just some answers would suffice, but I'd ratehr you took care of those ahead of me first - wouldn't want to try an jump the line. Anyway, cheers, :) Spawn Man 07:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! :) Spawn Man 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page where one came nominate a Featured lists be on the featured contents page? I see the page for requesting a FA, but not a FL.--Ccson 14:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - featured lists don't go on the main page. The reason is that a list doesn't really have the content to retain viewer's attention for very long - it isn't sticky content Raul654 15:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark - can you help in trying to establish some kind of "press credentials" for Wikimedia so that we can more easily gain access to events? I know Wikinews has such an accreditation system, but they strongly refuse to issue such credentials to anyone who doesn't work on Wikinews (they are pretty unceremonious in telling non-Wikinewsies to bug off). It would make it a lot easier for us to work on getting images. I'd be happy to try and set something up, or lend a hand in doing so, if need be. --David Shankbone 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to vouch for you, but I'm not sure who is in charge of the accreditation process for Wikinews. (1) Can you find that out for me? (2) At the moment I am utterly and completely swamped. If I don't get back to you soon, can you poke me again sometime after next Monday? [Or better yet, the week of the 27th, when I should (hopefully) be less busy.] Raul654 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there is no rush on this. More so, can we establish a separate program outside of Wikinews? Marinate on whether that is possible, and I'll bug you at the end of the month. I met with Stanley Aronowitz today and did his portrait. He is part of my Most Dangerous Professors series of photographs. --David Shankbone 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sitting on The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest for a couple reasons. I'll try to keep this brief. Most of the show's history is well documented, except for the early period of development under Peter Lawrence and Dick Sebast. This is also the most important period of development, since Lawrence (despite being fired) masterminded the ultimate product and primarily created it with Sebast. Most of the insider information from later material comes from Lance Falk, who handled continuity, wrote 9 episodes, and did other production stuff. But he only came in after Lawrence was fired, leaving this history sketchy.

I was able to contact Peter Lawrence, and in his first few e-mails he gave me a picture of what went on. Since July he's been busy writing for a television series, so he hasn't been able to respond to any further inquiries yet. That's why I've been waiting. I've also contacted Lance Falk to clarify a few other nebulous points in the show's evolution.

The problem is that this new information, despite being directly relevant to the subject, is going to have to be presented on my QuestFan website and thus be original research. Ordinarily, I'd try to sneak this through the FAC process in service of the ideal of more accurate and varied knowledge. I'm concerned, however, that on top of use of the writer's bible and Lance Falk's previous commentaries, the Lawrence material might be too much in the original research category and get a visible OPPOSE. That, coupled with waiting for more important Lawrence answers, has stalled work on the article. Do you have any advice for the problem of using their important commentary? Zeality 05:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, about 2 hours ago, you removed 34 articles from FAC. I would really like to know why so I can determine whether or not to continue with the review of one or more of the said articles. Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 of those were promoted, the rest were archived. Gimmebot should be along sooner or later to close all of those noms. Raul654 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul! I was wondering if User:Mwmalone and User:129.116.86.126 is a sock-puppeteer. It began with these two edits in Thor (Marvel Comics) in defense of one another:

• as Mwmalone
• as user 129.116.86.126

Some time later, I received a message on my User Talk Page, edited subsequently as one or the other user (disregard the edit by David, who was tagging the response as unsigned):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Now, someone just forgetting to sign in is one thing, but both users seem to have lengthy edits; moreover, the edits in Thor appear to be complimentary and supportive of one another, without clarification that they are the same person. While not really knowing what makes one user a sock and another not, I am not sure if this is a pattern that repeats elsewhere. Your input would be invaluable. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent checking reveals the aforementioned pattern. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:this edit - yes, 129.116.86.126 is Mwmalone's logged-out IP. They are the same person. It's not sockpuppetry though - there's no rule saying you have to edit while logged in. Raul654 12:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your post on Gmaxwell's talkpage - if you want a geonotice, check out RFGN, the process for it. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not necessary - I already told him in real life exactly what I need. Raul654 21:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this nomination closed before consensus was reached? The reasons for both oppose comments had been addressed and neither one could count towards consensus. Why wasn't the nomination kept open? Noclip 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I archived it because it had been on the FAC for a month and (at the time I archived it) it no support. But I'll tell you what - normally we tell people to wait a a few weeks nominating again. If you want, go ahead and renominate it now. Raul654 12:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting this link -- to be blacklisted. Has this ip :- 59.92.63.176 and this Aysha2k6 repeated adding that link to this following articles Visa (document) and Country. It would be kind if that site is blacklisted at once. Thank You. --SkyWalker 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. :-) --SkyWalker 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul. Thanks for putting Indonesia onto the front page for 17 August - the country's national day. The summary looks great, but another editor (User:Indon) and I have two suggestions:

1. Do we really need to spend approx. 30 words listing its neighbouring countries when summaries are limited in word count? We've already said it is in South East Asia.
2. I think it would it help to state in the summary that the 17th is its Independence celebrations (ie, that's why it's on the main page that day).

To make it easier, your complete summary page with my mods is here - changes I propose shown here.

hope you can help, kind regards --Merbabu 12:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the list of border countries. I don't think it's necessary to explicitly connect the article with the August 17 date. Raul654 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, OK. But many thanks for all the rest. Cheers. --Merbabu 12:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raul,

Normally, will not write nor ask anyone to look into a problem, but in this case I feel that I must. I believe that User:Beneaththelandslide has stepped out of line by continually adding what I consider insulting remarks to the following FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hispanic Americans in World War II and by making what I believe to be an anti-Hispanic remarks. I know that these things are to be expected and I have told the user in a nice way that he already cast his vote and opinion and that he should just let go, but he continues. However, with his behavior I'm afraid that he is attempting to disrupt the natural voting process and trying to influence oppose votes with his words and uncivil manner. Is there anyway that he can be told to "Stop". I don't want him to instigate a dispute. Thank you for listening. Tony the Marine 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where both of you are coming from on this. A lot of what he's saying is inflammatory, however, some of what he says is constructive. Concentrate on the second and third sentences of his initial comment, which I consider to be constructive feedback: Gives disproportionate weight to what was, in terms of numbers and impact, a small minority. Singles out individuals to give a distorted view of the group's contribution to the war, therefore fails to give a neutral and broad view. I checked the article - it says "According to the National World War II Museum, between 250,000 and 500,000 Hispanic Americans served in the Armed Forces during WWII; the exact number is unknown.". While this might seem like a large number, to put this in context, the US had somewhere around 10 million men in uniform (give or take 2 million; I've seen 8 million and 12 million in print). So Hispanics made up 2 to 6.25 percent of the armed forces. Beneaththelandslide thinks that it's important that the article make this distinction, to put it in context, and I happen to think he's right about that part.

As for the second point be makes ("Singles out individuals to give a distorted view of the group's contribution to the war, therefore fails to give a neutral and broad view"), it might be useful for you to look at 100th Infantry Battalion (United States) and 442nd Regimental Combat Team to see how they handle the issue (if at all). Raul654 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you PLEASE Change my name to "HIYO" please please please!!!!!!!!!!! Clonetroop125 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what WP:CHU is for. --Deskana (banana) 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There, i did. What happens Now? Clonetroop125

Responding on users talk page so as to not annoy Raul with new message bars. --Deskana (banana) 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of by Andrevan. Raul654 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At FAC and FAR talks, I've called for volunteers to act, informally, in the role of disinterested closers of Featured Sound Candidate nominations. There's a backlog and no one seems to be doing it. Tony 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates to my watchlist, although I can't make any promises how often I'll be along to close nominations. Raul654 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I've lengthened the lead and updated old links and access dates, so this one is ready to go as far as I can tell. Let me know if the lead still needs to be longer. Like I said, it'd be great if it could be featured August 27, but that's obviously up to you. Thanks! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 12:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why? Buc 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Raul654 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you speedily reverted my edit on the An Inconvenient Truth article. I'm trying to get a discussion going about this over on the talk page of the article. Please come over and participate in the discussion as I believe your input would be helpful. Thanks! Elhector 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on that talk page. Raul654 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've scheduled Plug-in hybrid for this month. There are two independent Japanese automobile industry journalists who say Toyota is going to introduce their plug-in at the Tokyo Motor Show which starts on October 26th. I think it would be so much more effective if the appearance on the main page was coincident with that Toyota announcement. Would that be okay instead? ←Ben^B4 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see User:SmthManly did that. I guess I should ask him instead? ←Ben^B4 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmthManly tags talk pages for the dates I choose. I'm in Florida with an extremely slow dial up right now, so I'll look into this Monday or Tuesday. Raul654 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken plug-in hybrid off the queue and put something else in its place. If you want plug-in hybrid featured on October 26th, remind me about 10 days beforehand. Raul654 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Raul - User:Nandesuka has taken issues with photos of mine that have been on pubic hair, glans penis and Frenulum of prepuce of penis (the last article User:WJBScribe put on the photo). He has reverted Glans penis four times since 7:00 last time, when there is some Talk page consensus to use the photos, and they've been up there for over a month. Then he canvassed User:Jakew to join him in an edit war over the issue, so now the two are tag-teaming reverting. --David Shankbone 15:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David's message implies that I have violated 3RR. I have not. I have removed some of David's images, notably those that are of poor visual quality, that improperly isolate their subject, those that detract from the articles they are in, and those that are only of tangential relevance to the article they were placed in. Images of David's that are relevant and of high quality (for example, his fine picture in Scrotum) I have left alone. All of these articles suffer from the constant addition of many, many images by people who want to exhibit images that they appear in (or that they have taken -- I'm aware that David is not his own model). Cleaning out the worse images is nothing more than standard editing. David should take this in stride, and accept that all material submitted to Wikipedia is edited mercilessly. I suggest that he is too close to the source material, as its creator, to evaluate its quality dispassionately. Nandesuka 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's being taken in stride, dear Nandesuka, perhaps you should take it in stride that there is disagreement, and specifically on Pubic hair there is consensus here to use the image. You are taking your opinion and you are canvassing friends to back it up, friends who have never edited these articles before, and asking them to join you in a revert war. Perhaps you are not taking this whole thing in stride, and trying to discount my opinion simply because I took the photographs has no basis in policy or guideline, just your opinion. And this personal attack doesn't make you look like you are taking this in stride or handling the issue maturely. --David Shankbone 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I redacted that. What can I say, I get snippy when people start publically accusing me of "violating 3RR" when I haven't. Nandesuka 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read your own edit summaries as a good lesson in what causes people to get snippy. A little less snarky priggishness and a little more good faith would be welcome, User:Nandesuka. I see no reason for us to be locking horns, and your edits summaries are what got my goat, as the case may be. That, and you canvassing your friends. And relying on old consensus that was trumped by new consensus. --David Shankbone 16:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with the above thread, I'll look into this on Monday or Tuesday. Raul654 16:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a broken section link from tomorrow's featured article blurb, though I'm not sure if it should be removed completely or replaced with Architecture of Windows NT#Executive, as I don't know whether or not we normally remove section links from the blurbs. Please take a look, if you can. --- RockMFR 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Raul654 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul654, recently you restarted a FAC candidate see here. Having already completed the comments raised by the users before it was restarted, the FAC is now getting virtually zero constructive comments. Should I just wait until it gets some comments? Davnel03 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure that nothing further can be done to address comments raised prior to the nomination being restarted, then yes - all you can do is wait for further comments. Raul654 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging this up for the main page earlier this week. Hope everything is well. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul. I noticed a thread at WP:AN about images in the TFA archives (see WP:AN#Non-free images in project space), and that prompted me to do another sweep through the TFA archives for old TFA blurbs with redlinks. The results (nearly finished as at time of writing) are at: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Images in TFA archives (redux). I'm also thinking of making lists of blurbs without images, and those with non-free images, but that will come later.

I also noticed this IfD, when investigating the redlink Image:Yom Kippur War 2.jpg. When searching for free images, I suggested Image:1973 Yom Kippur War - Golan heights theater.jpg to replace it in the old blurb. I also looked on Commons, and found a few pics that may or may not be of use: Image:GolanHeights-tank.jpg, Image:HN-Egyptian-123K-TB-1.jpg, Image:Mig-21-Algérie-Guerre-kippour-1973.jpg.

Finally, I noticed that the blurb pic for an upcoming TFA is marked as copyright, and raised the issue here. The painting may or may not be copyright, so you may wish to use the statue pic instead. Carcharoth 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul. How long does an FAC usually take? I've nominated Ronald Reagan six or seven times, all of which have failed, but this time (the current one) I think might work, for we have 10 supports and really one one serious objection, so I was just wondering how long it would take. Thanks, Happyme22 21:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just nom'd Harry S. Truman for FAC. It has two previous FACs. This one: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/Archive1 doesn't have the archive tags on it, so I thought I'd let you know as I don't want to goof it up.Rlevse 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Older files weren't tagged; I'll check that you got everything else right and move things around if I need to. I do that on every FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul - I am having an issue with User:Nandesuka once again. He is edit warring on Pubic hair while we are trying to reach consensus. Generally the argument that sexual acts are illustrated, but the body is photographed has won the day on various articles; hence my series of photos of the body (which is only an exceptionally small part of my portfolio). On pubic hair my photo replaced a bizarre and oddly colored male photo to compliment the current female photo. It was discussed on the Talk page, and consensus was reached. Now, two months later, Nandesuka wants the photo down, not replaced. He is currently edit warring, and trying to intone the lame argument that I should "butt out" since I have a COI (an argument that has never held any water, and is typically used so that an editor gets his way). The photo is --once again-- being discussed. Right now we have Nandesuka, who is against it, Geogre, who wants no photographs, only paintings, me, who wants the photo, and Nick Michael, who in the previous consensus voted for the photo. He has been adding witty remarks to the discussion for now, but since he previously voted to include the photo I feel somewhat safe in saying he is not against its inclusion. Based on that, Nandesuka is trying to take the photo down saying that consensus has been reached against the photo. This is admin behavior? Could you provide any assistance in this hairy situation and perhaps have a word with him? --David Shankbone 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At no time did I ever suggest that David should "butt out," so I don't understand why he puts those words in quotation marks. I did, however, say that I believe obdurately reverting his own works of art into an article is probably a conflict of interest. Kind regards, Nandesuka 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring and you are making up policy and guideline when you can't support your own point of view with either. Act like an admin. I don't know why he keeps linking to WP:COI when he can't quote from it to support himself. --David Shankbone 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rehashing of the age old debate at clitoris, autofellatio, et al. The policy Wikipedia-wide is to include "tasteful" photographs. David is one of our best photographers, and it's certainly NOT a conflict of interest for him to want to keep his photographs in the article. A conflict of interest occurs when someone is editing on a topic that they have a fiscal interest in (e.g, they get paid by an organization and then edit that organization's article in a clearly biased way). Raul654 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raul—first, I'd like to thank you for deciding to make this a TFA. Secondly, Nigel and I feel that the summary currently at WP:TFA/R is more appropriate and of higher quality than the one currently on queue. I've gone ahead and changed the text to the TFA/R one, but if you prefer the first version over the other let us know. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: The ikiroid & I went to some trouble to make the WP:TFA/R more accessible to the general readership (as we imagine it!) than the slightly more technical lead section of the article itself. The text on WP:TFA/R had remained stable for at least a couple of months until you changed it recently. Apart from the presentational aspect I've mentioned, using the lead resulted in two dead links (since they were internal to the article, rather than being wiki-links). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've changed the main page blurb. I've gone ahead and tweaked a few things you changed, but it looks good to me now. Raul654 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate the message! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Raul654 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with your offer of unblocking User:Matthew, as he slighted my username on a different talk page. I have been waiting for this chicken to come home and roost. Rather than offer to him to stop personally attacking a single user, make the offer for everyone he has offended. Otherwise let the block stand. 24 hours is hardly any amount of time, and he has been blocked numerous times before under his previous username. He is very abrasive -Nodekeeper 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize this was the case. Looking into it now. Raul654 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes [2][3]. You weren't kidding. Raul654 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]