• Archive 1: August 2003 - July 2004
• Archive 2: August 2004 - July 2005
• Archive 3: August 2005 -

Hi Raul654 - I'm concerned that Lothal not been promoted to FA despite six days of FAC and having 10 support votes and none opposed, with all concerns addressed. If there is a problem, please lemme know so I can fix it. Thanks. Rama's Arrow 02:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been promoted - sometimes these things take time. Raul654 05:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Diva took ill, it looks like the Checkuser backlog is growing without bound. Is it time to grant that priv to more admins? — ciphergoth 09:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You addressed the backlog in a most unexpected way. I'm not sure that's the right solution; I'd be interested to know more about your ideas for how RFCU should best be maintained. — ciphergoth 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, after a certain period of time, IP addresses leave the database. So removing the old ones was the right thing to do. As far as maintaing it, well, it's a time-consuming thing to do, and there aren't enough people with checkuser access. I'm *REALLY* busy, and I don't have time to maintain it. Kelly Martin did a good job, but quit in frustration at the overall harassment she was experiencing. Raul654 05:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another queury for you. I don't know if you follow the Wikipedia:Good articles process or what your opinion on it is. I personally don't like it because I think it's a backdoor way to get a good content tag without having to go through the tussle of an FA nom. The one argument for its existence that makes sense is that it allows for an acknowledgement of good content on articles that are too short, and will likely always be too short, to become an FA.

A thought I have had previously to address this is a Featured shorts or Featured short articles category. Like Featured lists and images, it would provide an outlet for stuff that can't go to FAC, in this case articles round about 10 to 20K. A Featured short could of course graduate to a Featured article if it achieved sufficient length but would have to be re-nommed. With this in place GA could be scrapped. If you're at all interested, this is the discussion that got me thinking about it on the Good article talk page. Cheers, Marskell 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care for the good articles. I see no point in it. I've seen some good articles tagged as "good", and I've seen some truely awful articles tagged as "good" (if George W. Bush can be tagged as a good article, which it was until a couple weeks ago, then what exactly constitutes a bad article?) Raul654 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're in agreement that GA is pointless what do you think of the Featured Short Article idea? I'm in a minority of one or two criticizing GA on its talk page (naturally partisans of the project are those who stop by to comment) and it would be nice to have an alternative idea to point to. Note, the way things are going Good Articles is becoming a parallel FA process (right down to copying the colour scheme). Marskell 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite frankly, I'd like to see GA abolished and nothing replace it. I consider it a needless expenditure of contributor effort that could be better spent doing other things (like working to get articles up to actual FA status). Raul654 17:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any ideas on how to go about abolishing it (or at least altering it and marrying to some other process where it might be useful) do let me know. Your voice might have a bit of weight there. Marskell 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected this article due to very severe vandalism. I'm letting you know in case you disagree and want to unprotect.--File Éireann 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment at my appeal. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1], the article seems to still be semi-protected; figured to just drop a note. ~ PseudoSudo 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed the sprotection label without removing the protection itself. There's a reason for this, which I'd rather not get into here - contact me in private if you want the long explination. Raul654 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't worry, easily trust your judgement; though perhaps consider dropping an edit summary like 'rm {{sprotect}} template (intentional)' for a potentially ambiguous edit. Awesome, ~ PseudoSudo 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the James D. St. Clair article. I noticed you also created Jim St. Clair as a rdr. If you'll forgive my selfish curiosity, did Wikipedia:Title pairs for future redirects suggest that to you? If so, i'd be grateful for any comments, suggestions, etc. that you'd care to make at Wikipedia talk:Title pairs for future redirects (or for that matter on my talk page). Thanks,
--Jerzy•t 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title and redirects page influenced me. I checked to see what pages linked to 'James D. St. Clair', saw it was a requested redirect, and created it. Raul654 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me: has the Roman Vishniac FAC failed? It hasn't been promoted, but neither has the talk page tag been changed. -- Rmrfstar 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (Violetriga usually handles the failed tagging.) Raul654 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I disagree with the decision not to promote the article. At the time of demotion, the candidate page listed only two "opposes", both by Petaholmes, the latter of which included the first one within it and was posted only an hour before judgement, (so no time was allowed for the simple (and possibly invalid) concerns to be dealth with). -- Rmrfstar 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm (handn't noticed how recent Petaholmes' comment was). OK, I'll restore the nom for the time being. Raul654 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. It's late here, so I'll be turning in for the night, but I'll get right to work on the nom in the morning. -- Rmrfstar 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm soliciting Wikipedia:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm also the Fieldmarshal (ENTJ). So get on it.  :) Kaisershatner 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wondering if you could explain the rationale behind promoting Chetwynd, British Columbia and Hurricane Floyd to featured status recently? There were some quite serious objections on Chetwynd's FAC which for the most part had not been resolved; on Floyd's FAC my points in opposition were minor points but nonetheless I'd have liked to have seen them dealt with and discussed before the article was promoted. And actually the same thing happened with my nomination of Sun not long ago, we didn't get a chance to fully resolve an objection before the article was promoted. Shouldn't it always be the case that any actionable objection is enough to prevent an article getting promoted? Worldtraveller 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Mark- I'm well aware that there were a large number of Legionnaires at Dien Bien Phu; my point is that there is no substantive difference between French soldiers (sensu your definition) and those of the FL- they are all 'soldiers of France'- French troops, if not actually French citizens (although I believe the majority of them are both). A reasonable analogy would be Gurkhas serving in the British army; very few people (in fact, in my experience, no-one) would refer to a battle fought by British and Gurkha troops as e.g. 'British and Nepalese troops'; there is no conceptual distinction. Would you be amenable to a rewording, ie something like 'French forces (including those serving with the Foreign Legion)...'? I have to say, the second phrase ('..many of them not even French...') is a bit more problematic. Frankly, to me it has a vaguely racist undertone, and I'm really not sure what it is supposed to be saying, or why it is relevant. If you can clarify this, I'll happily accept the phrase. All the best (and sorry for the pedantry!), Badgerpatrol 19:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to a rewording, but it really does need to mention the fact that the foreign legion troops at the battle was composed heavily (primarily?) of ex-SS/Wermacht soldiers. Raul654 19:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, just noticed your recent additions to Akeakamai, thank you. Reading your user page looks like you're an admin, so it was nice to see your interest in this article. If I may ask was this a random fix, or do you have an interest in dolphins issues or wikipedia articles? (I've been pondering a detailed fix to the cetacean intelligence and animal language articles for a long time but I'd want to do these right, with both science and npov intact).Santaduck 10:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up there because I'm a David Brin/Uplift Universe fan. 'Nuff said :) Raul654 06:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bet that would have been a support vote if it had been Category:Dead babies who were cryogenically frozen ;P -- sannse (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the sense in freezing them? There's a hungry world out there. Raul654 06:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen that article about you? I didn't read it yet but I read the one about Stilltim. Interesting stuff. gren グレン 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it :) Raul654 18:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're both online if you want to access them that way. Raul654 18:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the long and contentious review, the many hours put into it by several editors on both "sides", and the unresolved objections from eight editors, would it be possible to share your reasoning in favor of "consensus" on this promotion? --Tsavage 02:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm quite surprised to see this article promoted. Little to none of the objections were addressed. BlueShirts 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul, I am quite surprised about the promotion. Given that none of the objections are addressd and that the article is just a plot summary with fan pages as references, I really like to know your rationale for promoting this article. Thank you. Temporary account 03:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think some of the opposition could be ignored, a few of the objections are easily fixable, and should be prior to FA promotion. However, perhaps a deal could be struck where a list of fixable items could be created. These items could be fixed by a certain time; if they are not, then the article becomes a format candidate. Deckiller 03:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sensed this would be a controversial choice, so I took extra care with this one. Despite their great length, all the objections fell into one of three areas - that it "read like a fan page", that the sources didn't match the text of the article, and that it used too much jargon without properly defining them. I read the article top to bottom. This is the second time I have done so - I read it top-to-bottom the first time it was on the FAC, and that time I agreed with the objections and failed the nomination. This time, I did not feel it read like a fan page; Pschemp took care of the referencing problem (along with Aloan's comments wrt one specific reference problem), and although I didn't check point by point, when I read it I didn't feel swamped by words I didn't understand (and I know nothing about Pokemon) Raul654 06:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Does that mean any page about a minor character that contains ONLY PLOT SUMMARY and PRODUCT INFORMATION, as long as it has fan pages as sources, can be FA? Also, it is true that this article doesn't read like a fan page, because it reads professionally (grammar...etc), but it is still a fan page essentially. Please reconsider you decision. Temporary account 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654: Respectfully, you are simply wrong in your assessment that the references were "taken care of". They were not. The References still consist of mostly personal fan pages, as clearly noted in the review. Simply click this for an example of what "the best" now offers as verifiable sources. The "lead critters" quote attributed to Time Asia IS NOT IN THAT PUBLICATION, but it is in the first para of the lead, and that was pointed out. It goes on...as in the review.

Also, I think it's really odd that, when it's apparent from the review that more than one editor has dissected this article and engaged in debated it daily over a period of weeks, you can read it once and see all. Why is your assessment more accurate than anyone else's? It took me at least an hour just to check the references... --Tsavage 07:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "hard cheese" comes to mind. Oh, did I really say that? --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that pojo.com link you are referring to above, that is being used to reference the fact that the Bulbasaur card is of common frequency, correct? I believe someone mentioned in the FAC that the rarity of cards is indicated by a symbol in the corner (circle for common), so I think that you should remove the reference altogether and consider this supported by primary source material if you take issue with it. Pagrashtak 13:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting reply from Raul about plot summary question. Temporary account 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to Temporary accounts claim that the article contains only 'plot summary and product information) - this is flatly wrong. During the first nom, people objected that it contained too little informaiton about the franchise, and that was rectified (hence the Carmen Miranda-et-al comments in the introduction now). This is why not one single person in the second nomination registered an objection along these lines. Raul654 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't there during first nom, thus I can't say anything about that. But if I were there, I would have voiced the same objections. But you'll have to agree that the current form of article is ALL plot summary and product information. And I don't understand how you or anybody else cannot see that. As for Carmen Miranda stuff, did you actually read the Time/CNN article or Tsavage's comments? Did you check ALL the references for consistency and that the quotations are not taken out of context? For a fictional character, plot summmary is clearly not good enough for FA. Even though this character has no rich history, at least we are expecting development history and cultural influence...etc. Further, Goomba (sp) is currently under FARC for the same objections that I and many other have brought up. At the end, again, are you sure that an article with only insubstantial plot summary and product information is suitable for FA? I still don't know your point. Temporary account 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Bulbasaur. I think it's too early to go this far, especially since we're just getting our feet wet with this discussion. Deckiller 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• re Raul654: "that was rectified (hence the Carmen Miranda-et-al comments in the introduction now)" As I've already pointed out elsewhere, the Carmen Miranda addition is one of the worst bits in the article. There is absolutely no reasoned comparison between Bulbasaur and Carmen Miranda in the source, it is the most trivial, passing bit of editorial color, in a passing description of a couple of sample Pokemon, in an article about Pokemon cards being banned in school yards. It was just a "colorful costume" reference, and is barely even trivial, the ONLY possible value to the comment being it was a few words "on a CNN web site". And if that's not poor enough, in the article, which should be developing the lead, "“increasingly exotic foliage" is NOT EXPLAINED, the only rather subdued and obscure further mention is "grows into a large floral bulb". How much explanation is necessary in a FAC review to convey really obvious points, and for what purpose, if it's just overlooked or ignored? --Tsavage 01:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul: Well, the FARC's de-listed, and I just need some clarifications. First, do you think that none of our objections are reasonable? Here's my input, I believe the failure to address the objection does not mean that the objectino is unactionable, it may simply mean that there's a fundamental shortcoming that the article has that can't be repaired easily. Second, is Bulbasaur one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, with only plot summary and product information? Third, what counts as a consensus, because the objections we have were not simple grammar fixes, but important features of FA such as referencing...etc, so what makes you think that there's a consensus? I'd really like to know your answers. Thx Temporary account 02:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that you (the continual objectors) respect the consensus of the community, User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson's and User:Raul654's decisions and kindly move on. The endless continuation of the debate is unnecessary and a waste of our intellectual resources. I think your considerable talents could be put to good use improving wikipedia elsewhere. pschemp | talk 05:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. There's respect here, the objectors never made personal attacks, even under attack from supporters. 2. There's no consensus with substantially unresolved objections (where did you get the idea there's consensus). 3. You don't need to tell us how to spend our time and energy (it's OUR time and energy). Temporary account 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime now... Temporary account 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I to cant understand why when the editors didnt act in good faith when looking at fixes. All oppose votes where dealt with along the same lines of attacking the person who oppose instead of investigating the suggestion. Like you I dont know much about pokemon but was able to find information regarding the suggested fixes from one of the site referrenced(after FAC). It turned out that some of the information is also available on Wikipedia..

• That point aside I checked the copyright status of the bulbasaur image as posted in the article believe it breachs copyright laws. the image owner states No material from this or any other Internet site owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by us or our affiliates may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal The image is listed as fair use here acknowledging the the copyright holder and links directly back to this statement. Under each use it must clearly state detailed reasonings for fair use. There is no reasoning attached, can you require the editors fix immediately. Gnangarra 01:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your userpage about WP laws and I thought of one myself:

• As time passes, the probability of an article becoming an average article approches 1.

That is true for both stubs and FA's (just look how many were de-featured). Renata 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wiki - you can edit it :) Raul654 14:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raul! I was just wondering what your though process is when choosing what appears on the main page, and if Cheers is lacking something I can add/fix such an issue? I ask only because articles such as Bath School disaster, which was only featured March 9th, is already slated to be on the front page (on a day that isn't related to the article, so that would not seem to be the reason for the sudden front page appearance). Cheers, on the other hand, has been featured and with a request up since January 30th. Is the process merely random and Cheers number hasn't come up yet, or is something missing? Staxringold 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am curious about this myself. It isn't clear to me the degree to which the front-page nominations influence Raul's decisions. I don't think he regards them as relevant. A little more insight into how he chooses FAs for the main page would be helpful. Andrew Levine 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to service requests in the order they're made (or for the particular date specified), but certain genres tend to be over-requested (anything geeky, for example). TV shows are also heavily requested - West Wing had been on the queue for a while. As far as cheers, I was tenatively planning on featuring it sometime in April.

As far as how much they "influce my decisions" (I assume you mean my decision to promote from the FAC) - it doesn't. Main page featurability is pointedly *not* a consideration at all. There are a very few articles I have promoted to featured status, with the caveat that they will never appear as the main page featured article (specifically, Wikipedia and Caufield Grammar School). Raul654 05:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "influence Raul's decisions" I was referring to the same decision as Stax was talking about, i.e. the decision regarding what to feature on the main-page (and whether you take Wikipedia_talk:Tomorrow's featured article into consideration or not). Andrew Levine 06:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I do, as (I would estimate) something like three-quarters of the articles featured on the main page are there specifically by request. Raul654 07:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPdate - I just did a quick count over the last two week's worth of featured articles appearing on the main page. Ten were specifically requested on TFA, and four were chosen by me (71.4% - so my guess of 75% wasn't too bad). Raul654 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask only because looking at WP:FA there actually are not that many FAs on American TV shows, weird as that is. As for the "influence", I purely meant what facets of an article you like to see (and does that include a TFA), thanks for the answer! As for Caulfield, I know you've said you don't want to throw gas onto the fire of whether or not high schools meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, but its a shame to see such a great article never Main Page'd. Does this mean that if, god willing, the community supports my baby Hopkins School it wouldn't be Main Page'd either, or is this something specific to Caulfield? Staxringold 12:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to give you a little appreciation for all the work you do at FAC. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on whether Bulbasaur should have been promoted (which is why I didn't support or object), but we all know you were going to get flak either way. Congratulations on completing your own personal Kobayashi Maru. Pagrashtak 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Pagrashtak, and I completely agree. Deckiller 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you are doing a fantastic job with FAC. I'm just trying to understand a process that I've only recently decided to be a participant rather than just a spectator. Gnangarra 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your advice about Ted_Wilkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As I posted at AN/I, I'm pretty sure this is User:DW (here's my comment). I posted a message about it at Angela's talk page, but she seems to be away. Now I'm not sure what to do. I'm not sure on what basis checkusers are decided, but would you be willing to look through the contributions? Thanks. Chick Bowen 14:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could it be possible to move Frog to March 27th, see, it's my girlfriend's birthday and, ironically, she's obsessed with Frogs. When I saw that the article was featured so close to that day, I thought it'd be a cool birthday surprise (sort of) to have actually it featured on her birthday. She's really obsessed with them, she once almost got her eBay account revoked because she kept telling the people bidding against her for a frog shaped clock to stop bidding. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easily done. Raul654 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks a lot! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I noticed that you're on the communications committee, so I'll throw this your direction. Do we have any Powerpoint templates for use when giving talks on Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia? If not, any ideas who could put something together? I'm thinking something based on the look and feel of Wikipedia itself (for a Wikipedia template), or Meta (for a Foundation template) would be good.

My immediate reason for asking is that I'm giving a guest lecture on Wikipedia, for a college class my friend is teaching. If I can find a nice template or con someone else into making one, it'll save me the trouble of trying to throw something together myself. On the flip side, if nothing is available and I do make a template myself, I'll gladly donate it for others to use (and improve.) Isomorphic 05:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I gave one of these talks before - I didn't use a powerpoint, I just used Firefox. I'll ask the others and see if any of them happen to have one. If not, I'll be happy to take whatever you provide :) Raul654 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela pointed me to m:Presentations Raul654 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying once more to make this article featured (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bruce_Johnson). By my count the vote is 6 to 2 in favor of the nomination. Is this a sufficient ratio for it to be approved? PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I had the following conversation with Tim Starling, I was wondering if you could check these two users instead as Tim is unnable to: Xtra 02:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" Tim. User:Lefty on campus has been making personal attacks against me. User:Lefty on campus and User:PSYCH have both been active today. Can you check if they are the same person please. Thanx Xtra 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take this as a personal attack. Please do not spread lies about me to other people, and have the nerve to accuse me of an attack. Lefty on campus 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Lefty, if these two people are not you, then why are you being so defensive about it? if Tim can find out that you are in fact different people, then everything will be fine. --Bishamonster 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above under #Checkuser backlog -- Tim Starling 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) "[reply]

[2] Here's a new addition. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, in light of the fact that the University of Michigan entry has now graced the Main Page, is there any chance Caulfield Grammar School could now be considered as well? There seems to be hundreds waiting in line at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article, but in the foreseeable future is this possible? Please reply on my talk. Thanks. Harro5 23:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied on your talk page. Raul654 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that quality response. How disappointing that my school is just KaDee Strickland in disguise :p Harro5 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I just attempted to resubmit this article for FA, and in doing so might have fudged the process. The directions are not easy to follow, and I couldn't find any "leave comment" button, anywhere. If I screwed anything up, allow me to apologise. Until I get some clear direction on how to do this (Nom for FA) I will refrain from doing so. Once again, sorry if I did anything horrible. Hamster Sandwich 21:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout took care of you already [3] Raul654 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Raul! You seem to have written the better part of the image tutorial, but this question is unanswered. How do I use image already uploaded to, say, en.wikipedia.org on another language's project? The usual answer is to reupload them to Commons. I don't like that way personally for the following reasons:

1. No easy linking to appears to exist for Commons either (Commons:... ?)
2. A large group of images are already uploaded to language-specific projects and re-uploading them all will create useless duplication and waste diskspace and bandwidth

Hence the question to you (or someone you know): how can an article on Ukrainian WikiPedia use an image already uploaded to the English project? I'd expect it to look like Image:en:....jpg, but that does not work — perhaps, WikiPedia can request MediaWiki to add this feature in the next release?

If such direct cross-linking is not going to be possible any time soon and Commons is the only answer, how does one link to Commons?

And, finally, why can not all images with sufficiently persmissive licenses, which are currently spread out in all language-specific WikiPedias, be transfered to Commons in one sweep? A large set of duplicates can be eliminated and from that point on any projects will be able to refer to any image directly.

Thanks for your time reading this. Yours, пан Бостон-Київський 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions:

1. It is (literally) impossible for another language wiki to use files uploaded to english. Files uploaded to the english wikipedia exist only on the english wikipedia and nowhere else. So the only thing you can do is uploaded it to commons or to the ukranian wikipedia (and, for files moved to commons, it is suggested that you ask an admin to delete the original to save space)
2. Files that exist automatically exist on all wikis. So (for example) look at Joyce Kilmer (and the wikitext for it). The picture exists on commons here -> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Joyce_Kilmer.jpg However, it also has a mirror image page on the english wikipedia here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Joyce_Kilmer.jpg (which says: This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below.). To use the picture, you don't have to do anything special - just pretend it was uploaded to the ukranian (or english) wikipedia like any other file.
3. As to your last question, there is no reason they cannot be so transferred in one large sweep, although people are probably a bit hesitant about using a bot to do it because there's no way to undo image deletion.

I hope that answers your questions. Raul654 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast :-) Here are some follow-up questions:

1. Is not this feature worth developing? The physical servers are all the same. In my case the English-language wikiPedia has already processed the images, created thumbnails of various sizes, pushed the images to caching proxies. Why does all of this have to be redone for each other language's project?
2. Ok, so, for files in the commons, using Image:... will work for all languages? That may be fine, except I already have uploaded so much to the en.wikipedia.org :-( But is the file on en a copy or an alias of the file on commons? I sure hope for the latter... Ideally, the HTML-rendered articles would all link to the commons directly. Less ideally, but also acceptable, the language-specific images would use HTTP redirect to commons, so that various proxies will only cache one copy of each image, regardless of the number of its aliases.
3. Why not? The images will not be deleted, they will be moved to commons, no? At least, there ought to be a button on each media file's page, allowing it to be transfered to commons automatically...

Thanks! пан Бостон-Київський 05:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Keeping the languages (mostly) independent of each others is a good idea. Overlap should be addressed by using commons as a shared repository. For files that don't meet commons' licensing terms, yes, there will be replication and wasted space, and the developers are aware of this.
2. Every wiki has a word that refers to media files. On english (and french, among others), it's "image". All links to pictures, music, and movies must use this word. On german, it's "bild". You have to use the local-language keyword. However, you are correct in that the commons image is not copied, but simply aliased. If there's a local language file with the same name as the one on commons, the local language file takes precedence.
3. I'm not the best person to ask. Ask the developers; perhaps file a report on bugzilla - http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ --- Bug709 is for a similiar feature (the ability to rename media files within a wiki). Raul654 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright:

1. I agree, that keeping the uploaded media separate is a good idea. What I don't understand, is why can't one language use images of another. Different language projects can cross-reference each other's articles by prefixing the link with something like en: — why can not media be cross-linked similarly: Image:en: or some such?
2. I know, but using Image works fine in Ukrainian wiki as well -- it translates automatically.
3. I read, you have written a bot or two :-) Anyway, thanks for the idea -- I created Bug 5283

пан Бостон-Київський 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posting from your meta talk page).

Hi Raul/Mark, I noticed that you are quite active in updating the site-wide spam blacklist. A few days ago I have added a request to put some frequently spammed Nigerian sites on the list; the details can be found here and here. In the last few weeks, there have been some nasty personal attacks (see this discussion and also en:Talk:Lagos); they even followed me at Meta to mess with the request. I think it would be a good thing if those urls could be added to the blacklist as soon as possible. May I ask you to look into it? Thanks in advance, — mark ✎ 07:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely don't like to bug persons more than once in a few days, but I feel I'm being harassed now by one of the spammers, m:User:Peter2 Henry, over at Meta. There are some more nasty personal attacks now at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Racism have to stop, and I would be very grateful if you could remove those in your function as admin over there. I would do it myself, but I'm afraid of pouring more oil on the flames. Thanks very much, — mark ✎ 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I made the following request of several people listed as CheckUser-privileged:

• Is anyone currently working WP:RCU? As I type this, the backlog is at 88 requests.

User:Tim Starling made this reply on his talk page:

• Maybe because whoever it is who invented that page is too shy about telling people to get lost when they make frivolous requests. I don't know what it has to do with me though.

and this reply on mine:

• Don't spam my user talk page please.

This sort of response—particularly from someone listed here as a "bureaucrat"—is intolerable. Because I happen to have a request at WP:RCU, the intimation that my request is "frivolous" is clear; that and his assertion that I would "spam" anyone or anything are both in direct violation of WP:AGF.

With CheckUser privileges come two attendant responsibilities: active participation thereon, and the presumption that each request is treated as equally valid until clearly demonstrated otherwise. If User:Tim Starling no longer wishes to be part of this process, then his dismissal from this list might prevent teeth marks on newcomers (to his talk page, anyway) in the future.

RadioKirk talk to me 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poll on whether to replace the current Main Page with the Redesign Draft is over. We need a Bureaucrat to look over the votes and render an official decision as to the result. And then to either install the draft as the new Main Page, or assign an admin the task of doing it, preferrably one involved with the project, such as User:David Levy. The poll results are here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page. I look forward to your reply. --Go for it! 01:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - I see someone has to make the big decision (sigh). Ok, I'll take a look. Raul654 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In honor of this diff I hereby award you a brick of common sense. ++Lar: t/c 07:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. Although he is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality" (see [4]), he edited the Boze Hadleigh article heavily dealing with the homosexuality or bisexuality of celebrity stars, thereby denigrating the author and reverting the edits of another user. See [5]. Based on recent checkuser evidence, Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike appear to be the same. See [6]. As both Danny B. and Karl Schalike have contributed to articles related to the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of famous personalities (see [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. etc.) thereby violating the probation of Ted Wilkes (see [17]) more than five times, Ted Wilkes, who has wasted the time of many users, administrators and arbcom members, should now be blocked for one year or hardbanned indefinitely, especially in view of the fact that he also seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. See [18]. The arbcom ruling says, "Should Ted Wilkes ... edit any article from which (he is) banned (he) may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." See [19]. On 28 February 2006, administrator Jtdirl admonished Ted Wilkes not to breach arbcom rulings again: "You have now made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling, the two that caused this weeklong ban and the one that caused the earlier ban. If you make 2 more at any stage before the expiry of the arbcom ruling, or its amendment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one YEAR. " See [20]. Onefortyone 16:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a picture by the non-community news person... hmm, interesting... in case you hadn't seen it. (although I have no idea why my picture is there). gren グレン 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that picture. It's, um, awful. And the picture was taken by the News Journal photographer who was at the meetup. Raul654 00:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unblock Raul, I appreciate it greatly. --GorillazFanAdam 00:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- Sorry to bother you with this unpleasantness, but I wanted to call your attention to misconduct by user Eternal Equinox re Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/We_Belong_Together. The edit history shows both me (Bcrowell/Bcrowell2) and Tsavage complaining about Eternal Equinox deleting our comments. This version of the page

[21]

shows my attempts to call attention to the situation (see comments signed Bcrowell near the top of the page, and one signed Bcrowell2 near the bottom). I'm posting here on your user page because my previous attempts to call attention to Eternal Equinox's misconduct have been deleted by Eternal Equinox.--Bcrowell2 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah! I see some people have beaten me here. For how much longer is Hollow Willerding going to be allowed to continue these antics on the FAC page. While I can see the obvious advantages of keeping her where she can be observed, I do think a slap on the wrist (hard) is necessary, and a brief ban from the page (for say 48 hours) would not come amiss. Some leopards never change their spots! Tedious, tiresome woman. Giano | talk 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, please page me if you come to IRC, I'd like a word. Bishonen | ノート 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

IMO, the principle's the same in both instances, using a tactic thinly cloaked in WP guidelines (anti-vandalism) to mess with FAC reviews. Just to be clear, my case was slightly different than Bcrowell's, where I had been logged out, didn't notice, and amended an existing comment of mine under my IP# rather than username, and had the addition removed. I saw the History right afterwards, assumed it was just an overzealous error, replaced my comment (and even posted a polite note to that effect on EE's page). The Bcrowell deletions were entirely more blatant, wholesale and unhelpful. Ultimately, though, "punishing" such behavior is one issue, however, the overall climate of battling in FAC is a larger issue that goes beyond one indictable act, or one person. I point to recent promotions like Celine Dion and...Bulbasaur, after marathon sessions and standing objections, as examples where it can seem that protracted arguing and wearing down of objectors is rewarded, therfore, part of a successful FAC approach. --Tsavage 16:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, I reverted all of the edits left by anonymous editors because I felt as though they were vandals who were attempting to distort the discussion, and both edits were not to avoid the controversy surrounding the article. Both users Bcrowell and Tsavage should have edited while accessing their accounts because other registered contributers may or may not know, such as in this case, where I did not know that the actual editors had written the comments. I feel as though my edits were in good faith, and I do not feel that this message is definitely based on previous accusations of being Hollow Wilerding (which Journalist is able to back me up on). I would also appreciate it if Bishonen did not analyze my every move, which she has obviously been doing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would like a response from Raul 654. Simply supporting Bishonen because she "says" that I am a specific person is not persuading enough, and apart from that, the primary basis for this post is that I had been attempting to compromise edits submitted by anonymous contributers. The actual users should have edited from their accounts, and I only reverted based on Wikipedia:Vandalism. Therefore, I feel as though my edits were not trying to remove the additional objections from the FAC. I would like a response as per my comment about Bishonen above. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by Raul's contributions, I am being ignored and would like a response. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the above, I'll defer to Bishonen's comment [22] Raul654 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. I would care for you to point out exactly where I have "misconducted" myself and what kind of "culture" has been distorted. I don't believe any of this and am very convinced that this has to do with my residence being in Toronto and accusations of HW, which is also nonsense. Unless specific points of "misconduct" is pointed out (so that I can "correct" my mistakes for future reference), there is no reason why I should oblige to the "ban". —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I feel I need some assistance. A user placed my userid in for a CheckUser here Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#PoolGuy_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_GoldToeMarionette_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. I am not a very advanced user of Wikipedia, however after reading the green box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser there appears to be no reason for User:Jayjg to complete the investigation.

I am not sure if I have any Wikipedia Rights, however I feel as if they have been violated. I could understand if I had been acting to violate Wikipedia Policy, however I have not been, contrary to whatever the user who filed for the CheckUser wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would review this and comment back to me. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 04:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to Essjay's comment on the matter Raul654 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We also could use checkuser on the three registered sockpuppets currently suspected at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. Thank you! -Husnock 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't place it on the Redesign draft because it would have caused confusion and division during the poll to replace the main page. But now that the election is over, and many users still want to use the old version of the Main Page, here's the code to insert the link (it's at the top of the header, below - and you'll need to test it in preview to make sure the margin settings work with the Main Page before you save). --Go for it! 15:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page alternates

Impossible! I couldn't have misspelled "Heowever" :) Seriously, I think the Herzog's quote in 6-Day War was added by me. To verify the page number I'll need to check in the library. I don't think that the sloppy anon edit in YKW is mine, but it is possible. Thanks for doing the dirty & unappreciated job. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I requested a change of username but the name was taken. I made 2 further suggestions on the same request, but they didn't seem to being actioned. I didn't know if each suggestion needed a separate request so I made a new request at the bottom. You removed both requests - I don't know why? I have reinstated the request, if that's OK.Crusading composer 08:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much. That was quick. Sorry for not making myself clearer on the request page. Cheers.Count Of The Saxon Shore 12:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, actually. I got my doubts cleared by Robchurch and others. Thanks for your concern. :) --Andy123(talk) 19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am astonished that you decided to help me, but I won't question it. Thank you. Beyond that I will try to avoid making comment as much as possible. Everyking 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I strongly disagree with your unblock of Everyking, and I'm minded to reblock him. The situation with Bishonen was the second day in a row he'd commented on admins' actions. On Monday, he left criticism on User talk:IAMthatIAM, a new LaRouche supporter whose account was blocked indefinitely by Karada because of the user name. Everyking turned up with criticism of Karada on User talk:IAMthatIAM, [23] which was a violation of the arbcom ruling that comments from him about admins may only be posted to the admin's talk page, RfC or RfAr. When I explained this to him and said I was going to revert his edit, he got into a revert war over it, calling my intervention "abusiveness." [24]

There's no point in the arbcom giving admins the tools to deal with disruptive behavior and violation of rulings, if arbcom members (or those on the arbcom list) are the ones to undo the blocks. The last time I blocked Everyking for a violation, Sannse unblocked him 24 minutes later, [25] and now you've undone a week-long block after less than 12 hours. So for two violations back-to-back over two days, he hasn't even served the customary 24-hour block.

When Everyking violates the ruling, he's engaged in deliberate boundary violations in order to test how far he can push, how many loopholes he can find, and how many people he can get involved arguing over him. The only way to deal with this is to issue clear rulings, tell him what the consequence of any violation will be, and then stick to that consequence no matter what his excuse is. In this way, he'll know that he is in full control over whether or not he's allowed to edit Wikipedia. Any other approach is doomed to fail, in my view.

I'm therefore asking you to reconsider your unblock. I have no opinion on whether he should be given a week, but it should definitely be more than 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed to stay out of all this business from now on. What more do you want? Quit calling for my head and let me edit in peace. Everyking 19:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the wife of User:Danny B., as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [26] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [27] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [28], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]