For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

[edit] List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

This article is little more than a long set of quotes pushing a fringe viewpoint. WP:POVFORK doesn't allow that, WP:FRINGE doesnt' allow that, and WP:NPOV doesn't allow that.

Indeed, it is fairly blatant: Citation templates allow quotes, instead, they're put in the article. A category would allow for everyone to be linked, and the quotes could be discussed in their articles. Instead, we get this, which serves no purpose above a category except to provide a list of cherrypicked climate-denier POV-pushing connected with high-sounding titles.

However, it's proven remarkably resistant to deletion. I tried it back in May, others have tried before. Is there anything that can be done about it? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 00:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Me, Myself & Scibaby

Just kidding, don't know if you've seen Me, Myself & Irene; I couldn't resist. After your suggestion at Lindzen's talk page that I may in fact be this 'scibaby' sock-puppet...

Send me an email on alexharv074 at gmail dot com and I'll happily chat with you privately about the misunderstanding. (Let me know you've sent it in case it gets lost in my spam or amongst thousands of yahoo newsgroups I subscribe to.)

The reason (I guess) that you're occasionally seeing my IP come from strange places is that whilst I do most of my editing from a 3 wireless broadband service (Hutchison/Australia) during odd hours (e.g. 11am local time to as late as 3 or 4 am when I'm feeling really restless), I occasionally edit from my office address at work (I probably shouldn't mention the company name in this public forum). On those occasions, you'd likely see my IP as something quite different, and who knows, maybe even addresses not supposed to be in Australia if you asked InterNIC about it (I know that my company sometimes is so big that it allocates the IPs the way it likes).

Just so that you don't start feeling like you're going crazy, I'll admit that I've also noticed that the Sci-puppet has been following my edits. The difficulty is that the Sci-puppet is usually making very reasonable edits, or at the least, edits that anyone skeptical of climate change would be sympathetic to. This is probably why it sometimes appears that, say, GoRight, is 'proxying' for him.

Hope this helps, & pleased to meet you. Best wishes, Alex. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 11 anniversary

I was wondering if you could consider running American Airlines Flight 11 or American Airlines Flight 77 for the anniversary? I'm not sure which is better to run. It is also the one year anniversary of the opening of the Pentagon Memorial. — Dispenser 07:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't have any problems with this. I'll give the matter more thought after I come back. Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We did this last year, and I prefer not to do this every year. I would be happy with featuring one of the species article, such as Raccoon, Pallid sturgeon, or one of the bird species. --Aude (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Naked men pics and such

I saw on Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 8's talk page you were putting in a request for pics to add to List of works by Thomas Eakins. I'm not sure if I'll be able to make the meetup and I'm in the dirty souf' for university right now, but I should be able to make it back to the metro area in October (or November at the very latest). If you could supply me with a list of images you want I would try my best to get something better for you (this is of course precluding some other Meetup chap beating me to the punch, which is always quite likely.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

...And actually it didn't occur to me on first posting, but I'm close to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (and would probably be able to get over there sooner.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me a couple of weeks to work on this request. All of my reference materials are on the other side of the country, where I'll be moving later this week (so I don't have much time to edit right now).

The Hirshhorn in DC has one of the largest Eakins collections in the world. (Probably second only to the Philly Museum of Art) If you need a rule of thumb, most of the black-and-white images pictures in that article were scanned from the 1977 book 'Thomas Eakins Collection of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden'. One thing to remember is that they almost certainly do not have all of their Eakins works currently on display -- in fact, most of the obscure ones probably haven't been on display in many years (They just sold one at auction earlier this year that hadn't gone on public display since the 70s). To get access to paintings, you need to call ahead of your visit, ask for the Hirshhorn archivist, confirm they still actually own them, and set up an appointment to view them. You may also need to get permission to photograph it. I might just do this the next time I'm in the area, but if you get to it first, that would be OK too. Raul654 (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the Virginia Museum of Art, the procedure is much the same as I described above. Call ahead, ask for the archivist, confirm that they have all 3 of the works in the article listed and no more, and inquire about their policies regarding photography. Assuming it is accurate, the only one that needs to be photographed is File:Eleanor S F Pue G455.png, which is a black-and-white scan. Raul654 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence Solomon

Hi Raul. I think a general compromise has been worked out on the article's talk page. Is it possible to have the full protection lifted now? We can all keep an eye on the article and make sure no untoward feuding breaks out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oboeboy

Hi Raul. Back in March, you blocked User:Oboeboy and half a dozen of his socks (though I can't seem to track down the archived case file). It seems probable that he's got a couple more out and about. Aruseusu (talk · contribs) and Mathemagician57721 (talk · contribs) are editing in a very similar manner, and apparently from 204.184.214.2 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), which you had tagged as an Oboeboy sock-ip in March. Can you take a look at the users and see if my suspicions are correct or would you rather I file a request at SPI? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral damage

Just to clue you in, there's some collateral damage from a rangeblock you made here. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAC weekend archiving, Sept 18–20

Hey, Raul; I hope things are going well for you. I have pending travel, through the 30th of September; Karanacs and I have worked out a schedule, but neither of us will be available the weekend of September 18 thru 20 for pr/aring. Would you be able to cover that weekend, and keep an eye out in case Karanacs needs any help in my absence? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul. Are you going to be able to promote/archive this weekend? If so, I'm going to go ahead and review a few of the lingering noms (we are short reviewers at the moment). If not, then I'll hold off reviewing until after Sandy gets back. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR closures

Hi Raul, Kylie Minogue, Gerald Ford, Gyeongju, City of Manchester Stadium and Sheffield I have been involved in so you will have to close them when you see fit. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All righty - I'll take a look at that sooner or later. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

Hey Raul, I imagine you're pretty busy, but I was just wondering if you have any China-related articles planned for TFA on October 1 or 10, because if not I'm thinking of nominating one for October 3 (I posted this at WT:TFA/R also). Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No - I usually don't plan TFAs that far ahead. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Koufax

Hey Raul, what would you consider a significant enough amount of time for an FA having been a TFA before being nominated again? I want to nominate the article Sandy Koufax for September 28th, Yom Kippur, the day where he famously did not pitch the first game of the 1965 World Series so he could observe the Jewish holiday. It will have been four years tomorrow since it was TFA. I've seen some articles with multiple TFAs listed on their talk pages so I think we're allowed to nominate it for a repat. I haver never really worked with FAs and TFAs but I'm trying to learn. Nothing is currently nominated for this date. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 00:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Only Barack Obama was run twice, with the second time doubling with John McCain for an "exceptional" historic US election TFA. Also running a FA again is unfair for those that have been waiting, since we are producing more than we run. — Dispenser 01:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Raul has indicated that Obama was something he did not intend to repeat, and that he would only run FA's once as TFA. Work on Hank Greenberg?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite a task on the Hank Greenberg article. Maybe for next year. Thanks for the info, all. Is there a list or category of FAs that haven't been run? I would love to find a good alternative for that day or others Valley2city^‽ 18:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone will post the appropriate link. There is, in other words. If it is any consolation, I've proposed a Jew for Sukkot (Murray Chotiner, Oct 4, centennial of birth)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Fountain FAC 4

I have posted a query on SandyGeorgia's page, but she is away. An image reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎ has suggested replacing the main image with an .ogg file later in the article. Is there precedent for an .ogg file main image? Is it appropriate. It would be most helpful if someone commented directly on the FAC discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oh God

Why, Raul, why? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Caracciola

Hello. Could you please consider using Rudolf Caracciola as the TFA on September 28? I wrote the article planning to get it on that day (the 50th anniversary of his death) but Archie Jackson being on the main page earlier this month halved my expected points. He is the only FA on motorsport in that era (or anything before WW2), so it is quite rare, and not something many people are aware of. I apologise if this not the way to do it, but could you please consider the article? Thanks, I appreciate the work you do. Apterygial 07:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TFA's

Just another small request for you to work a few days ahead with the scheduling of the TFA whenever possible. This gives others a chance to double-check for errors in advance. Thanks. By the way, what happens if you get ill or something and can't get online? Do you have a backup plan? I'm sure it hasn't happened in all the years, but just wondered. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment from a kibbitzer. If Raul missed a day, I think there would be a discussion at AN/I, and my guess would be that the decision would be to leave it up to his FA delegates, even though it is beyond their remit, all three are widely trusted. I think there would be an effort made to get in touch with Mark in real life to ensure he's OK. But if a TFA remained up two consecutive days, the sky would not fall, and the situation, one way or another, would not be allowed to recur. Don't have any comment about the scheduling.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You broke my template ;-) — Dispenser 00:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Picture

Hey! Just letting you know that Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/December_10,_2006 has a missing picture, may I suggest replacing it with File:Mei.jpg? Its hard to know what to replace it with since the other was deleted. Sorry for the trouble and thanks in advance. Captain n00dle ^T/_C 13:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That was the article I had appear on the portal randomly Captain n00dle ^T/_C 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I notice that this article has been kept semiprotected for a long time. In your opinion, would it be worth unprotecting for a short period to see how that works out? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's an especially good idea -- that article is high profile and frequently the target of anon vandalism. You should only unprotect it if you are personally prepared to patrol it. Raul654 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of unprotecting an article that I was not actively watching. --TS 21:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chotiner

Raul, thank you for running the Chotiner article. I'd really like to try the cropped memo (neutralize Johnny Cash) as the main page picture. The point isn't his signature, it is the text. I think it is more likely to get readers interested than no pic or some or the only free use pic of Chotiner we have. Of course, if you feel otherwise, it's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree - I think it's far more preferable to have a picture of him than a picture of his signature to illustrate his biography. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I just thought the words "neutralize Johnny Cash" in the typed text (which was really the point) would intrigue readers. But I guess you are a test case, and if you didn't get it, then readers won't. Not the best photo of the guy, but I went to extremes to find a free use, and it just wasn't happening except this one. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Film articles in October 2009

Hello, I saw that for October 2009, the film article Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country will be displayed on October 6, and Fight Club (film) will be displayed on October 15. I know that the goal is to avoid having similar topics close together, so I was wondering if this was a problem. I ask because I requested for Fight Club to be displayed on October 15, the film's 10th anniversary. Could a solution be to display The Undiscovered Country in November? Or is the schedule set in stone, and we accept it? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

9 days separation between similar topics is OK where scheduling is concerned. TFA requests are judged more strictly - 9 days separation would take a pretty big (-3 point?) penalty. Raul654 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response; I just wanted to make sure this was okay. Happy editing! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Jackson

Thanks for selecting the article for the main page. I worked as diligent on Janet as Realist2 did on Michael. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia

You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
October 4, 2009
Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

Register your team here

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for a featured article

How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion - somewhat controversial, but well researched, with an entertaining slant Ianguy (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WALL-E review

Can you review WALL-E for me Raul654? Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My statement on The_undertow

I know we don't like each other much, therefore I'm especially concerned that my comments here were fair and accurate as they pertain to you. Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment that "the block was far from best practices—a former arbitrator implemented it before discussion was complete. " is wrong - it's extremely common practice for admin actions to be taken once a discussion reaches consensus but before it is closed. Otherwise, your description looks correct to me. Raul654 (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday October 10 This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Video conversion

Could you please properly transcode this File:StaR Air Line Fleet1939 video.ogg to the ogg/theora format for my adoptee, User:RoyDickson. Currently it is mpeg-PS encoded. I would greatly appreciate it.Smallman12q (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The following is from MediaInfo:

 Format                           : MPEG-PS FileSize/String                  : 40.5 MiB Duration/String                  : 51s 584ms OverallBitRate/String            : 6 592 Kbps  Video ID/String                        : 224 (0xE0) Format                           : MPEG Video Format_Version                   : Version 2 Format_Profile                   : Main@Main Format_Settings_Matrix/String    : Default Duration/String                  : 51s 584ms BitRate_Mode/String              : Variable BitRate/String                   : 5 882 Kbps BitRate_Nominal/String           : 9 000 Kbps Width/String                     : 720 pixels Height/String                    : 480 pixels DisplayAspectRatio/String        : 4/3 FrameRate/String                 : 29.970 fps Standard                         : NTSC Colorimetry                      : 4:2:0 ScanType/String                  : Progressive Bits-(Pixel*Frame)               : 0.568 StreamSize/String                : 36.2 MiB (89%)  Audio ID/String                        : 128 (0x80) Format                           : AC-3 Format/Info                      : Audio Coding 3 Duration/String                  : 51s 552ms BitRate_Mode/String              : Constant BitRate/String                   : 448 Kbps Channel(s)/String                : 2 channels ChannelPositions                 : L R SamplingRate/String              : 48.0 KHz StreamSize/String                : 2.75 MiB (7%)  Menu Format                           : DVD-Video 

I've tried to re-encode it in MediaCoder...but it doesn't seem to be cooperating. I would be very thankful if you could properly re-encode it and upload it. Thanks again.Smallman12q (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've re-encoded it at File:Star_Airline_Fleet_video.ogg. I notice that the still picture from the midpoint is really poor. Is the "thumbtime" parameter broken...I can't seem to get it to work...

Could you please let me know if I'm doing something wrong. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Block check

Can you check on User talk:HunsV, who says he's getting affected by a rangeblock of yours? Stifle (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the block settings to prevent account creation and block anon users only. He should be able to edit now. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zoomify extraction

This is somewhat ironic, but if you have time could you extract a couple of William Blake images for me? I'm not running Linux on any of my computers at the moment, so I don't think that the technique we used for Eakins would work for me. Here are the images:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

If you don't have time, then that's ok. This isn't exactly urgent. Thanks, Lithoderm 03:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't work:

mark@krusty:~/zoomify$ python zoomify_downloader.py "http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/drawings_and_prints/the_rest_on_the_flight_into_egypt_william_blake/objectview_zoom.aspx?page=1&sort=0&sortdir=asc&keyword=William%20Blake&fp=1&dd1=9&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=9&OID=90007977&vT=1" temp

all

False

Web page downloaded...

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/drawings_and_prints/the_rest_on_the_flight_into_egypt_william_blake/objectview_zoom.aspx?page=1&sort=0&sortdir=asc&keyword=William%20Blake&fp=1&dd1=9&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=9&OID=90007977&vT=1

Cannot find any Zoomify image on given page

In this case, I'm fairly sure it failed because the Met is not using zoomify. I think they're using some other program to do the same thing. Raul654 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks anyhow. I'll have to do some looking into this. In any event there are about ninety images on the website of the Morgan Library here. Could you please try one or two of those and see if the program works? That'd be great. Thanks, Lithoderm 23:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Works like a charm... Raul654 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded ten lithographs, finishing [7]. I'll do more after dinner. Ggreer (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For Lithoderm's benefit, I asked Ggreer (IRC user AngryParsley) to upload them. His commons user name is GGreer. See his contribs to see the files. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the first 20 to commons, but now I have to go to bed. I automated the script to assemble most of the other images here. The images in that directory correspond to the URL http://www.themorgan.org/collections/works/blake/work.asp?id=onDisplay&page=xx where xx is the number in the filename. Ggreer (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! So long as they stay in that directory, I can probably take it from here. Thank you both for your help. Lithoderm 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at them more carefully, the script seems to have skipped a few; probably where there was more than one on each page. Those will still need to be extracted by one of you guys. Thanks again, Lithoderm 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Which ones, specifically, got skipped? Raul654 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. There's no rush, as I've a paper due Monday and have only had time to upload some of the prints in the directory GGreer created. Lithoderm 02:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moire fixes

All done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. A couple of them still have moire patterns when thumbnailed on the list page. I think it's because they are pngs and not jpgs. In the near future, I'll try uploading them as jpgs and see if that solves the problem. Also, I reverted your changes to the Negress (G30) because there wasn't a moire. Moire only occurs on images scanned from printed media. I created the Negress pic by (very, very carefully) assembling it in photoshop from dozens of screenshots taken from the museum's website. The median filtered version you uploaded looked substantially worse when viewed at high resolution. Raul654 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] October 13th TFA

Just a suggestion, perhaps File:SmashBall.svg can be used for Super Smash Bros. Brawl while on the main page, similar to how File:Triforce.svg was used for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. The smash ball image is a free commons image and represents an in-game object that also appears in the game's logo.

Also, there's another image suggestion on the October 13th TFA talk page to use File:Wii Wiimotea.png, similar to how File:NGC Gamecube.jpg was used for Super Smash Bros. Melee. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

Done. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

[edit] File:AudreyNiffenegger.jpg

I contacted Audrey Niffenegger and let her know that The Time Traveler's Wife was running on the main page and she has submitted a photo for the occasion that is a vast improvement over our previous one. It just needs OTRS approval before the 11th. Can you do anything to speed that along? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it tonight. Raul654 (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like NuclearWarfare got it first. Raul654 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Commons contributions

Hey Raul - do you remember a few years ago someone came up with a list of top contributors based upon total size of files contributed to Commons? Do you know if that list still exists, or was it just a one-off thing? Hope you're well. -->David Shankbone 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remember - I'm the one who requested it. Give me a sec and I'll dig it up. Raul654 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's linked from my user page to this discussion. I should ask Bryan to re-run it to get new numbers. Raul654 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

MAN! You're fast! It would be fun to know the new numbers. -->David Shankbone 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He's doing it now. Raul654 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New stats available here Raul654 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<sigh>From #45 to #60 :-( -->David Shankbone 21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel so bad. That list is a perfect real-life example of the Red Queen's race. Raul654 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You can always be depended upon to dig up the coolest, apt-but-random wiki articles in conversation. -->David Shankbone 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count

Hi, can you update this using the tool server or request somebody to do so... Himalayan 08:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride was kind enough to run it for me. It should take a couple of days to run. Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eakins from Yale

I've listed the uploads on my talk page.--ragesoss (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

Why are IPs doing that? Didn't we solve this dispute a year ago? Moulton? The IP goes to California, and Moulton is at MIT. I've blocked about an 80 mile radius around Boston before, so I know he doesn't have the ability to really get any long distance IPs from home. Meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that anon's other edits (to other evolution/ID articles), I think he might not have realized that those paragraphs are contentious. Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not part of the ID Wikiproject nor part of the "ID Cabal". With that in mind, I feel that the anon -does- know they are contentious and does know that they are violating consensus. I don't think the anon is a normal anon, but either a logged out user or a blocked/banned user who was involved in the area before. No way would they find that one paragraph and remove just that info. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We should both keep an eye on that article and see if he returns. But for now, I'm inclined to consider it a one-time thing. Raul654 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your mailbox

You have email.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TFA

Raul, you might want to peek in on Water flouridation during the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look

Check out Wikipedia:Stanford_Archive_answers/10. I can run the rest if you think this is good. The scripts took it down to almost exactly half. Gigs (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding Article on Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd

There appears to be a group of individuals who consistently impede any constructive additions to the article in question. Undoing and blocking all editions pertaining to users outside their nest of selections.

The editing recently done to this article has been referenced to credible sources, some already available on other related articles, regardless of the fact of the neutrality displayed in the additions manifested in the facts and phraseology in use.

It would be detrimental to Wikipedia if a consensus is not reached on this question pertaining to all articles not only this one. If the material being added is not significant it would be understandable, yet where the facts could be correct and the community interested in the subject at hand are in conflict with the manner of its publication, the rational and professional solution would be to offer an alternative to the edition being proposed. Simply deleting and blocking any attempt to contribute to this and any other article in a constructive manner can only be viewed as autocratic in the least and a hypocrisy of what the globally renowned Wikipedia stands for.Wsa1 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Press request

FYI, User talk:Brianboulton#Press request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can you keep November 9th clear for a bit?

This November 9th is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of the border between East and West Germany. I recently rewrote and greatly expanded our inner German border article, which is currently nominated for featured article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1. It's already been through a peer review. Although the timeframe is fairly short, I'm confident that the FAC review will be completed by November 9th. Could you please keep open the FA slot for that day to enable the article to be featured on the anniversary? I would think it shouldn't be too difficult to find an alternative article for November 9th if this article's review hasn't been completed by then. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't November 10 be a more logical date, because while according to your (very interesting, I must say) article, the Wall was opened on the 9th, the Inner German Border was not opened until the 10th?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Night of the 9th/early morning of the 10th, actually. I've corrected the rather ambiguous sentence which suggested the 10th. Featuring it on the 10th would look decidedly odd, as there will be a large amount of media coverage of the anniversary on the 9th. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another heads up on November 9: [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Earlier would be better. Don't want to be after the wave. Tony (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on Nov. 9: [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kww 3 - Bureaucrat discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

I've opened a bureaucrat chat in relation to this RfA as I don't think the outcome is particularly clear cut. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your input. WJBscribe (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Did you get the two emails sent to you by arbcom? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You have email.

Please check your mailboxes. You have just been sent email both by Wikipedia e-mail and via the email address you have used with ArbCom in the past.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 28 minute until tomorrow UTC

I see no TFA scheduled for tomorrow (28 minutes from now).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

they are scheduled through the 20th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Swimming Hole On Main Page

After I checked statistics I realized that your pet article has been a major defeat in popularity. It was apparent that almost nobody was interested in this article other than yourself. I realize that article quality and reliability are the primary concerns, however, when nobody is reading it just takes up space. Next time try to write something that is more captivating to the general audience. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Brian - Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so editors can work on any article they wish — regardless of whether there are more notable topics. It's a curious aspect of Wikipedia that often articles on relatively obscure subjects are better than those on major, mainstream topics. Cheers. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Toft

I thought this was a contender for 1 April next year? Parrot of Doom 08:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah never mind. There's always the Cock Lane ghost :) Parrot of Doom 21:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sock patrol?

Hi Raul, it has been a while since anybody did a sock sweep for the Tile join socks, latest one was Zyyx (talk · contribs). Could you have a check to make sure they're not building up too many sleeper accounts? (this is the old checkuser request) Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 resigned from CU just today, after the AC investigated him, see WP:AC/N YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that Raul. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] October 31 TFA

In case you want one: [21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grim Fandango

I realize under the current nomination process for articles to be the featured article of the day, there is no way to get this nominated, but I thought it would be cool to have for November 2nd, which is the second day of the Day of the Dead celebration, which this game is entirely based upon, and is a very famous video game. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you follow the instructions at the top of WP:TFA/R for creating a blurb, and put it somewhere in your userspace for consideration, linking back to that here. But please keep in mind that if Raul decides to choose a Halloween-themed TFA for October 31, there may be a conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here it is! It's pretty darn awesome I think, but let me know what you think. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the ball on this one (for the 2nd), but I've put it up for the 11th. Raul654 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Shame, being Armistice Day, I was just about to put up a WWI-related bio of a chap who also died on 11 November, per this - does it matter if Grim Fandango moved to November 12...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Ian's proposal YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for putting it up!!! :) You are the best! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] October 28 TFA

Raul, in case you need it, I left a blurb at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 28, 2009. Please feel free to disregard, and if you don't need it, please db-g6 delete the talk page. There were no Geography articles in October, and the last Park was in July; the article looks to be in good shape. It should be all ready to go, with just a cut-and-paste. Hope this helps lighten your significant workload, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can also move in October 29 from WP:TFA/R if you'd like. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also set up Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 29, 2009, taken from WP:TFA/R, in case you need it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a potential conflict on Nov. 9, and editor Ceranthor has graciously agreed to forego his slot at TFA/R should Inner German border be promoted in time for the anniversary,[22] might I suggest 1968 Illinois earthquake (currently at WP:TFA/R for Nov 9) as an option for October 30? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 9 TFA

Inner German border is now promoted, and Ceranthor has agreed to give up the 9th slot, and expressed a preference for November 8.[23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think consensus is arising for the 10th. See TFA/R. ceranthor 23:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is very nice of Ceranthor. Tony (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't a barnstar of generosity, I think we need one. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Chris, if you have another one of these coming down the pike (and I hope you do, IGB is a very high quality article), give people at TFA/R a heads up once the article begins its progress towards FA and we'll be on the watch and can discuss possible competition for date or theme.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of competing requests for the 8th-10th. I think I came up with something everyone can live with. Raul654 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween

Richard (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 8 TFA

I'd requested Millennium '73 for November 8. FYI, it's about a three-day festival, so Nov. 9 or 10 would also work too.   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback, I don't see that request at WP:TFA/R? Since Raul has three proposals for those three days, it would be good to get that request on the TFA requests page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. While Raul has been very tolerant of direct requests, I'd still rather see the main route for requests be TFA/R, with asking him directly reserved for emergencies/very special cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd placed it there and it was replaced by a request for a different date with a higher score. Should I re-add it? I don't quite understand the procedure.   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The only one of those dates that I see being discussed at WP:TFAR is Nov. 9. Is there another page I missed? I didn't mean to cut in line - just the opposite.   Will Beback  talk  09:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the discussion on November 9 includes a discussion of one of the articles being bumped to November 10. If it has the points, for sure readd it. Check to see how many points it had last time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So is November 8 still open?   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here was the WP:TFAR thread just before it was bumped by a higher scoring article for a different date.[24] Whatever happens is fine. Sorry to Raul for hijacking his talk page.   Will Beback  talk  12:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, readd it then as three points. It won't hurt the aviator article, that can come back later.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

At six supports, three points, I think it would currently bump the Prairie Avenue article, but I defer to Wehwalt, who follows the page more closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

oopsie, correction: I now see that Wehwalt was referring to Werner Mölders, and his argument that it has only two points, hence the next to be replaced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks.   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area Last: 09/13/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inner German border blurb and picture query

Thanks for scheduling Inner German border for November 9th. I'm a bit surprised though that the blurb proposed at TFAR hasn't been used, and I'm concerned that the picture selected for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2009 isn't representative. Only a fraction of the border - only about 2% of the total length - looked like the section depicted in that image. The elements depicted in proposed blurb picture on RFAR, such as the watchtower, fence and especially the sign, are iconic - they are as iconic for the inner German border as the Statue of Liberty would be for New York City or the London Underground roundel would be for London's transport system. That's why I selected that picture. Could you possibly take another look at this? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO asked me to comment here. Chris, I've observed that Raul is always open to adjusting the blurb when warranted, but he is hands down the most knowledgeable person on Wiki regarding mainpage issues and blurbs, so he likely has a good reason for rewriting such a key blurb and choosing a different image. :) At any rate, if adjustments are needed, there is still plenty of time; not to worry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, to clarify, I can certainly live with the blurb (since it's fundamentally what's in the article anyway), but the picture is perhaps the greater concern since it was very carefully chosen to go with the topic. There's a common misconception that the border was just like the Berlin Wall - it wasn't, and that's something I've tried to bring out in the article - so it would be unfortunate if the choice of image reinforced that misconception. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Raul is very busy, it may take him some time to respond to your query; not to worry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the blurb because the suggested one was too short. I used a different picture because I wanted one where the border fortifications were actually visible (which, for the most part, is not the case with File:Halt hier grenze 800px.jpg). How about File:East German border 1962.jpg? Raul654 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what - let me give you a short selection of images where the fortifications are visible and which more accurately represent the border than that short stretch of wall at Hötensleben. That'll save you having to rummage around in the article or on Commons (most of my pictures of the border aren't on there yet anyway), it'll give you a choice, and I'll be able to point you in the direction of something that is more representative. Would that work for you? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. Raul654 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've come up with the following images, which I've rendered below at the usual 100px width. It was actually quite hard to find something that worked well at the 100px resolution; I found that something fairly bold and iconic, like a watchtower, worked better than landscape views. Let me know which you prefer! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

1  2  3  4  5  6

I think I like 2 and 5 best. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sixth image that I've found from a US military source, which has a couple of major advantages - it shows the border as it actually was in its heyday (most of what's shown in the other photos is small-scale reconstructions), and it shows the sheer scale of the thing. What do you think of this one? Personally I think it works better than the others and it has that iconic element of depicting the scar across the landscape. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, just a reminder about the image. I'm happy for either 2 or 5 to be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (File:Foundation's edge cover.jpg)

I tagged this as orphaned even though it has been sitting around for some years. Cheersww2censor (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Main page question

Raul, who is the editor in charge of the Main Page? I'm asking because I'd like to suggest that they remove the map image currently being used in the "In the News" section. It's not the end of the world, but it labels Finland as part of Scandinavia; while in colloquial speech most Americans would employ this usage, it's really not accurate (Scandanavia is really only three countries—Denmark, Sweden, and Norway). I just think it doesn't portray us in the best light to be using that map, and I wanted to convey that message. Unschool 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You would have to go to the In the news people for that; I'm not sure how their pages are navigated, but start with WP:ITN SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Unschool 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NowCommons: File:Soldiers-english-coast.jpg

File:Soldiers-english-coast.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Soldiers-english-coast.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Soldiers-english-coast.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My views on science

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Workshop, a statement was made claiming that my view on science is fringe and destructive. My religious values have been questioned. I would like your response on the matter since we worked together on, but on opposite sides, Rosalind Picard‎. I do not seek to force a positive statement from you, or hope to persuade you to any view besides what you honestly believe. I have tried very hard to keep any of my CoI away from Wikipedia and I merely want your opinion as you have dealt with the above issue for a very long time and you would have had experience with me on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Ottava. No one said your "view on science is fringe and destructive"; once again you are making stuff up. Please re-read what Moreschi wrote here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions/Workshop#Thoughts_from_Moreschi. Please acquaint yourself with the strawman fallacy and reconsider your statement. Raul, sorry for butting in on your talk page. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is not Ottava's view of science, which for all I know is perfectly rational, it's his views on humanities. Quite why he is misrepresenting me again I have no idea. I've removed the statement anyway, as it's usefulness was limited to giving Ottava a chance to duck the real issues. Moreschi (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If, indeed, you are discussing my view on humanities, why would any claims about my Christianity affecting my judgment come up at all? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Geogre opined on the matter of philology having any scientific rigor and on Literature being included under WP:FRINGE. Maybe it is just a literature vs non-literature thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Raul, I will no longer be nominating articles at FAC because I am concerned about a coordinator that feels that a "comment" represents an "oppose", and that it is appropriate to close a FAC as not passing only a few hours after "comments" were placed on a FAC while there were multiple supports and no legitimate opposes. I will also no longer be reviewing FACs because I am concerned that my "comments", which I like to provide just for simple feedback and do not want to have any bearing on the closing of the FAC, will be held as representing that there is no consensus to pass. Thank you for your time at FAC and the FAC process was enjoyable for quite a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, this is in reference to discussions held at WT:FAC, on my talk page, and on Sandy's talk page. Karanacs (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARs to close

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jarmann M1884/archive1 and the two at the bottom, when you feel it is ready YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Electron TFA summary

Please see User talk:BorgQueen#First sentence of electron summation for TFA when you have a moment.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? "The electron has no known substructure.[2][67] Hence, it is defined or assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.[9]" is in the article even as I write this, yet this appears to be what you are objecting to on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Hello, Raul654. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WT:FAR regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Inappropriate_comments_at_Featured_article_review_by_Disinfoboxman. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are you still trying to get photographs from a museum in D.C.?

If so, then try User:JohnPomeranz.
--NBahn (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 30 TFA

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive1 is a 70-yr anniversary that hasn't quite cleared FAC yet, and Brianboulton has proposed something for Scotland's National Day at Wikipedia talk:TFA/R#November 30: Scotland.27s national day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good if we could accomodate Brianboulton, who was very forebearing in a disputed points situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap, I just saw this thread. I'll schedule it to go up sometime soon. Raul654 (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Caversham as front page FA

Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn!

As creator of this article, I was deliberately holding off on nomination of this for the front page until Otago Anniversary Day on March 23rd next year. It would have been nice if someone had given the main writers of the article some advanced warning that this had been nominated! Grutness...wha? 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I try not to let the queue get too small, but it does occasionally happen. Raul654 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. It's good to see it on the front page, anyway -and sorry about the swearing :) Grutness...wha? 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosity

Okay, so I've mastered the inner workings of Today's Featured Picture and am now moving on to Today's Featured Article. This is in keeping with my eternal quest to learn how things work.

I noticed you (I'm assuming) have created templates for each TFA day until 12/31/2010. I'm assuming this was done in bulk. How is that process performed?

I've got a wiki running at my place of employment and this functionality would enhance it most excellently.

Looking forward to your response. Have a most excellent holiday season! Overboard (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry

When an article undergoes a WP:FAR and loses its featured status, does it still not retain its WP:GA status? Would it not have to undergo a WP:GAR to lose its GA status? Mkdw^talk 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't retain GA status; it needs to undergo a new review. Most articles that are delisted at FAR don't meet WP:WIAGA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

You have mail, please let me know on my talk if you happen to send a response so it doesn't go missing in my inbox. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Raul, please see [25]. I think this is an abuse of Karanac's position as FAC assistant. She framed a question on the FAC talk page about the Catholic Church article - an article that is not even up for FAC and one in which she has had extensive involvement for over a couple of years holding a particular point of view that is not always agreed by consensus of other editors often to her dismay. She is in a posiiton of authority at FAC and the reviewers are all clamoring to get their FAC's passed, I do not see how that scenario promotes free expression. The question she posed is framed in a way to promote her point of view and misrepresented my position. After I posted my point of view and stated the whole problem, someone who claims to be neutral (and may well be - I will hold no grudge) came by and archived the part of the conversation that begins with my comments. Sandy has defended Karanacs right to post the question there and her position which I think is wrong too. Sandy should not have said anything to promote Karanac's position, she is supposed to be neutral. How are we to consider bringing Catholic Church to FA when Karanacs is in such a position and abusing it in this way for her own interests?

Sandy told me that Karanacs recused herself from the article on October 27th. She said that it was posted "publicly". The "public" notice was on her talk page and I learned of it on December 2nd only after she told me on the FAC talk page discussion. I think that such a notice should go on the Catholic Church talk page or my talk page if I am the person complaining about her conflict of interest. Not everyone is reading Sandy's talk page - especially people with no FAC's up for consideration. Her talk page is not a "public" notice board. Also, Karanacs opened an Rfc against me [26] - several weeks before recusing herself from the Catholic Church article - because I argued with an editor who wanted us to eliminate the fact that some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. [27] [28] [29] The accusations she makes against me in this Rfc are very mild. If you were to read the article talk page beginning with Harmakheru's edits all the way up to last Thursday,(someone - not me - felt they should be archived immediately so we have several archives that were created over the course of a month) you will see many virulent posts made by editors who were encouraged by Karanac's actions against me. Her involvement on the talk page and her biased actions against me, particularly the Rfc have damaged the talk page environment and turned it into "battleground mentality" - exactly what she was accusing me of doing when I was simply providing sources that showed another point of view held by scholars. I don't know what to do about this other than to alert you. Thanks for listening. NancyHeise ^talk 21:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"The reviewers are all clamoring to get their FAC's passed" (supplemented by this) is utter nonsense. Excluding NancyHeise, Karanacs and SandyGeorgia, 12 people commented at that discussion (User:Richardshusr, User:PL290, User:Pmanderson, User:Kraftlos, User:Christopher Parham, User:Awadewit, User:Elcobbola, User:Cirt, User:YellowMonkey, User:Xandar, User:Hesperian and User:Johnbod). Only one (User:YellowMonkey) has any articles at FAC; perhaps you'd care to identify exactly what articles we're clamoring to get passed? Alternatively, perhaps you'd care to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF and strike this unfounded misrepresentation? Эlcobbola _talk 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, even if Nancy wasn't aware that Karanacs formally recused herself from any Catholic Church FACs immediately upon initiating the RFC/U (not several weeks after as stated above by Nancy), her recusal was stated on WT:FAC and on Talk:Catholic Church before NancyHeise made these accusations across multiple pages, even after being asked to stop several times. Even absent the step of a formal recusal, Karanacs' recusal from Catholic Church FACs is implied and understood by her involvement in that article and the RFC/U. Considering the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise—which Nancy declined to participate in (even after an uninvolved user, Ncmvocalist, explained to her this important step of dispute resolution [30])—I'm troubled to see this failure to AGF and personal attacks continuing to my talk page (or better stated, my archives, since Nancy posted to my talk archives [31]), FAC talk, Raul's talk, her own talk, and Catholic Church talk, even after the RFC/U findings and even though Karanacs is clearly recused. Further, there is no other or more appropriate place on Wiki to ask the question that Karanacs asked than at WT:FAC; the question was clearly appropriate, and Karanacs was acting as an editor, not FAC delegate. Abuse of authority charges of FAC delegates is not something to be taken lightly; I hope Nancy will strike these unfounded comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, where is Karanac's recusal posted on Talk:Catholic Church? It was never posted. I did find a December 1 post (yesterday) that said she sometimes recuses herself from articles she reviews but never tells us she is recused from this one. Her statement is "I still frequently review articles, and am, of course, recused from closing those I have reviewed". That was not a timely announcement - a month late I would say and not exactly an announcement - is she now reviewing Catholic Church and actually recusing herself. Stating such would be an announcement. Also, what accusations am I making without providing diffs? If an admin, especially a FAC assistant is bullying an editor, that editor should be able to complain about it. Karanac's Rfc is bullying, it is very inappropriate considering the conversations that led to the Rfc. Nowhere in any of her Rfc diffs do I do or say anything that is in violation of Wikipedia policy yet the people I am in conversation with are repeatedly in violation and she did not put their diffs up for scrutiny - that's bias, that's bullying, that's pushing a particular pov, that's using your position inappropriately. Karanacs was supporting Harmakheru's efforts to eliminate a particular point of view in the article and I detailed this on the discussion page of the RFC with diffs.[32] [33] He/she did not like our refs - we eliminated those refs per his/her disgust and replaced them with better ones. This editor was one of the most unreasonable and uncivil editors to work with (also evidenced on the RFC discussion page) but I never said anything to him/her in the process even though he/she was very rude. Karanacs rushed to award this editor a barnstar to encourage him/her in their efforts while ignoring the fact that the person really needed some instruction on WP:civil. I complained to her about this and told her that in our accounting firm, people who act like that are called "brown-nosers". Brown-nosing in the dictionary means you are using flattery inappropriately and that is exactly what she was doing. I thought I was helping her be a better admin by telling her but her immediate response was to open an RFC against me. Are we allowed to criticize an admin's actions? Do we have to go around in fear that they will use their power against us if we do? If so, I don't see that as beneficial to Wikipedia. Admins, more than anyone else, should be open to legitimate criticism without retaliation and without calling that legitimate criticism a personal attack. NancyHeise ^talk 03:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• A Suggestion: This is Karanacs official post on Sandy's talk page regarding her recusal from the Catholic Church article [34]. It is dated October 27. There is no mention of this recusal on the Catholic Church talk page at all. There is a statement on the Catholic Church talk page more than month later on December 1st [35] where Karanacs tells us that she frequently reviews articles and is "of course" recused from those. We did not know about the "of course" part and this was posted more than a month after she opened the RFC. I suggest, in the future, if a FAC assistant is recusing herself to participate as a regular editor that this be announced on that article's talk page.
• This suggestion of mine is legitimate criticism of this admin's actions. I am trying to help this admin be a better admin by pointing out her errors on pages where she has made the error or in this case to the appropriate authority (I think). However, my legitimate criticism is considered to be a personal attack and I am being threatened with ARBCOM by Karanacs who posted this message on my talk page [36]. She says my criticism is "complaining and spreading attacks on me in multiple venues." I would like to know what venue was inappropriate for criticism; is there a designated place to tell an admin when they are wrong? NancyHeise ^talk 03:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  Who is "we" (did not know)? Even absent Karanacs' formal recusal notice on my talk page, her recusal is a given to anyone who understands Wiki processes, considering her involvement in the article and the RFC/U. The announcement was merely a courtesy and a formality. Dispute resolution has already been explained to you, and Karanacs herself pointed out to you on your talk page several times the venues for criticism: if you think Karanacs has acted improperly, you should go to WP:ANI or open an WP:RFC/U. However, since Karanacs has not used admin tools in this case, there is no issue with her conduct as an admin; she is acting as an editor on that article. ArbCom is the next step in dispute resolution, if an RFC/U doesn't resolve issues; it is not a "threat", it is a normal procedure on Wiki. Ncmvocalist has already pointed out to you the importance of understanding and following dispute resolution procedures. When an RFC/U doesn't resolve issues, ArbCom is the next step, where sanctions are often imposed. That you have chosen not to engage or understand Wiki's dispute resolution process, digest the conclusions of the RFC/U, and continue making unfounded accusations about Karanacs, will not bode well if the case comes before ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sandy,
• If we are all about improving articles on Wikipedia then we want to facilitate good communication on the talk page. A simple notice on the CC talk page of Karanacs recusal would have accomplished this for us - eliminating the appearance special authority and conflict of interest concerning Karanac's position as FAC assistant. Expecting all of us to be watching your or anyone else's talk page is unreasonable and unhelpful as well as unprofessional and unkind.
• I find your defense of Karanacs disturbing, especially of her RFC against me. Regarding your statement: "That you have chosen not to engage or understand Wiki's dispute resolution process, digest the conclusions of the RFC/U, and continue making unfounded accusations about Karanacs, will not bode well if the case comes before ArbCom." I participated in the RFC, if you read it, you will find that I gave the required response [37] and participated in the discussion on the talk page. [38] The RFC was closed with no summary because the views were "mixed".[39] Before opening the RFC against me, Karanacs solicited Richard's advice and he advised her that a content RFC was more appropriate.[40] She ignored this advice. When I noted that the RFC was biased against me and that there were many editors more in need of correction than me Richard agreed and apologized for his own misconduct. [41] If you read this same diff, he notes "What I think Karanacs and jbmurray are trying to say is that you are coming across too contentious, too confrontational, too obstinate and too unwilling to consider other opinions. Now, you may argue that this is because the "other side" didn't provide adequate sources and it's true that, as better sources have been presented, you have shown a willingness to consider them and incorporate them ...". He is correct, I am obstinate to change something in the article if someone comes to the page without offering sources. I don't see this as a fault, sources are necessary to make article text.
• I consider Karanacs posting on the FAC talk page a smearing of my character, a conflict of interest and abuse of her position. She never asked for it before but is now asking for a double standard when she requires that I post my complaint on her or my talk page only. She already smeared my character on the CC talk page by accusing me of canvassing [42] but I am used to this from her - she once even accused me of plagiarism at a Catholic Church FAC [43]. I consider this smearing my character but I didn't complain or retaliate against her. Her Rfc certainly smeared my character too. None of her complaining was done on my talk page. I could add all of this up over the past two years and open my own complaint page on her but I do not intend to retaliate. I complained to Raul here because Karanacs is a FAC assistant, so are you and I felt it was appropriate to make him aware of these problems. In your opinion would an WP:ANI have been a more appropriate or kind venue for addressing them? I don't think so. NancyHeise ^talk 03:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• An WP:AN/I would serve no purpose, as Karanacs has not acted in any capacity as an admin or as a FAC delegate on the article. She appropriately followed dispute resolution steps by opening an RFC/U. Also, since I have your talk page watched (because of your frequent canvassing for the article), I know that she did, in fact, come to your talk page many times, contrary to your statement above. Also, I fail to understand your logic, that a FAC delegate has to declare something whenever they act as an editor; must I declare myself recused on the hundreds of articles I edit? No, it's obvious that I'm recused on those articles to anyone who understands Wiki, and admins and FAC delegates are not prohibited from also editing articles, like any other editor. There continues to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of how Wiki works. Unfortunately, the only step left seems to be WP:RFAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sandy, you smear my character as well when you state "I have your talk page watched (because of your frequent canvassing for the article)". No one has accused me of canvassing except Karanacs in this recent post on the CC talk page [44] If you click on this link and read all five responses to her post you will see that there are five editors who disagreed with her and no editors who agree. The five who disagreed stated their reasons for knowing that I knew they would not take my position but I asked them to come participate anyway as I have in the past. I'll be happy to follow Karanacs suggested protocol of posting criticism on a person's talk page if she wants to agree to it as well. NancyHeise ^talk 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding the WP:RFAR threat from you - Sandy, this editor tried to comment at my RFC but you removed his/her comment because it was already archived. I think this clearly shows how some editors feel about Karanacs recent efforts. [45]. I do not wish to have another round at dispute resolution but we may have to go there if you want to insist that Karanacs is spot free of any wrongdoing. Some of us clearly feel differently. I don't know how another dipute resolution will wipe that away, I think it will just solidify for us the feeling that we are being bullied. As I said in my post above, I am willing to agree to post my criticism of Karanacs on her talk page if she agrees to provide me with the same courtesy. NancyHeise ^talk 11:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Since Karanacs is not operating in her capacity as FAC delegate on this article, your lengthy arguments belong elsewhere than Raul's talk page. And please stop misrepresenting: I did not threaten ArbCom-- Karanacs already told you that is the next step and she is prepared to go there, and since you don't seem to understand good faith dispute resolution and haven't backed off on your unfounded charges, it looks to be headed that way. Your other alternative is to open an RFC/U on Karanacs (I don't recommend that course, as you aren't likely to be happy with the outcome, but it is another option of dispute resolution open to you). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am rather concerned by Sandy's attitude expressed here. It would seem clear that if an FAC delegate such as Karanacs comes to participate in an article, taking a strong position against the existing wording and leading editor, and makes comments that the article is "unlikely to gain FA" until it moves closer towards her view of what the article should look like, then it should definitely have been posted that she was resiling from FAC on this. In addition Sandy's criticisms of Nancy for "canvassing" seem unwarranted - as does the post above, firstly saying she hasn't threatened arbcom, and then saying Matters seem to be headed that way unless Nancy "backs off". I personally think that Karanacs has got too personally antagonistic to Nancy, and also needs to back off. We all need to recognise that we are ALL coming to the Catholic Church article with good faith.Constant accusations of POV do not help resolve issues. Xandar 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 4 TFA

Hi Raul. Out of curiosity, I am wondering why my request to have History of the Montreal Canadiens for tomorrow's TFA was set aside for Blade Runner? It seems a little unfortunate that a centennial anniversary is to be bypassed, perhaps because of the F1 article that appeared three days before? I can renominate for Jan 5 (100th anniversary of first game), but given tomorrow's anniversary is the key one for the franchise and league, I was hoping it could have appeared. Thanks, Resolute 22:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I second this nomination. Six points for the centennial, one point for the day relevant to article topic. Smalrus 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed for Habs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.209.126 (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where have you been?

Where have you been Raul? Haven't seen you around IRC in a long time, going to be dropping in soon? Prodego ^talk 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Gigs (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)