May God bless you! From Amandajm ( talk) 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Attalus head.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Raul.
Can you delete this page Teddy bear effect?
This article is an hoax. We've got the same page on it.wiki ( here and its deletion request is pending here). This page does not cite references nor anything. If you look on google you can find out that all pages that are talking about this supposed "Teddy bear effect" have Wikipedia has reference. On google ..we've only 64 results, many by wikipedia' mirrors and other are citing wikipedia as reference, but there are no references on psychology websites or books. I hope you can delete this page/hoax.
MERRY XMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!
ByeBye!:)-- DrugoNOT ( talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Raul,
Thank you for selecting
Ulysses (poem) for TFA, Jan 1. When I saw this, I decided to spruce up the article's lead a bit, and I've posted a new TFA lead on
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 1, 2008. Could you please move this over to the protected project page? It's slightly longer, but not much. New Year's Day seems special--are you looking at the poem as thematically appropriate to "fresh starts" and "resolutions" in the new year? Or is this just coincidence? :) –
Outriggr
§ 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Raul654. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your block of User:GusChiggins21. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GusChiggins21 blocked for edit warring by involved admin. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. -- Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Raul654, I am aware that you are the featured article director and an administrator, and I was wondering if you could clarify this, can wikipedian(s) oppose a list, featured list status merely because is isn't "long enough". It does not state so, in the featured list criteria, however there argument is based on the following two statements, "A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" (from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates) and "The featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia" (from Wikipedia:Featured lists).
I was wondering, if there is a requirement (in length) that featured lists must be - however it does not say so, in the featured list criteria. And if they are able to oppose it because, they "have a taste in long lists?" I believe, a statement clarifying that the length does not matter for featured lists, should be included into the criteria, as this has happened before, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nation of Ulysses discography/archive1.
Also, it was raised by User:Colin: "This band simply hasn't done enough or been written-about enough to generate enough encyclopedic content for featured status." However, I believe, "It is not due to a band success or number of releases, which makes their discography a featured list, but the referenced well-written, well-formatted article itself."
The featured list candidate discussion is at, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Harry and the Potters discography, I would greatly appreciate you to clarify this mess up. Hpfan9374 ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you didn't get reelected. You were one of the best. Let the consolation be that you seem to be at the head of Jimbo's list of alternates to fill in any vacancies. Now we just have to poison one of the sitting arbitrators ... :-) -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it ok if I remove Io (moon) from the request page? Buc ( talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Need to fix the spelling in the very first sentence where it says Chick-fil-A Peach Powl.. that should be Bowl, not Powl. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR echo 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just thought of this - the Japanese are not going ahead with killing Humpbacks but will take a quota of 50 Fin Whales this season. Fairly topical at the moment. My only involvement with this FA was was sprucing it up a bit - it hasn't been on the main page and Clayoquot got permission for a really cool pic in the taxobox....Didn't nom at TFA as there is no particluar day and not sure how long topic will stay hot....cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Raul, I'm running through FAC now, but after I finish, would you mind looking at Marskell's FAC ( Battle of Musa Qala), Ceoil's FAC ( Las Meninas), and I'm still leaving Western Chalukya architecture and Józef Piłsudski to you. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to take some time off, Raul; I hope it's only about a week. I'm sorry to leave you with the work, but I need to find restored energy and joy in editing. Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Fnlayson and I have been hard at work at the Boeing 747 article which has just been granted FA status! I would like it to be on the main page on September 30, 2008, the 40th anniversary of the rollout of the monumental aircraft. I've seen complaints that the request page fills up fast (but it's not full at all now). Any advice for placement, let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to remember to do it in August.
Come September 29, 2008, I'm planning to add a sentence to the introduction mentioning the rollout on September 30 so people will notice it. Archtransit ( talk) 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul: I know this is not supposed to be done, so let's keep this hush hush, but would it be possible to feature the Bruno Maddox article on the main page sometime soon, on any day of your choosing? Only possible motive would be to illustrate the difficult career of a literary writer.- BillDeanCarter ( talk) 08:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul - I see you have decided to put Prince's Palace of Monaco on the main page on the 5th Jan. That is great and I was truly pleased but would you consider changing it for Queluz National Palace. While I was the chief contributor to both pages, Queluz is in Wikipedia terms a very much more important page as it was the result of a great multi-national team effort. One of the things I have been keen to encourage since I came here. While I could be called the leader of the pack not since the writing of Sanssouci have I been involved in such a truly good natured effort. It was amazing - from the complete lack of ownership issues from the primary author to an editor risking eviction to take photographs, numerous to copy-editers and advisors. One could say the page was written in a week as the result of a mass pile-on. So putting Queluz on the main page would encourage a lot more competent mainspace writers to repeat the experience than the Monaco Palace, which can always go on at sometime in the future. It really would give a lot of people a lot of pleasure to see it there who have perhaps never been involved in a main page article before. as you know it is hardly a new thrill for me. Thanks. Giano ( talk) 12:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul. I thought you should see the thread that's developing here. Your input would, of course, be valuable. Happy New Year. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hyperion cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I answerd your message on my own talk page, as I always do. Švitrigaila ( talk) 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
He Raul. I think the new contact page is a great idea. I was just wondering though, if it might be a good idea to point to a FAQ or something on our image policy? Common issues I have seen when requesting photos are:
And other things like imagesize, imagequality, EXIF attribution etc.... These same questions might still be a problem for people who have already reached this contact page. What do you think? -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The article scheduled for 10 January 2008 is now listed at FAR. Gimmetrow 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul654,
I just wanted to alert you to a situation that has developed on the Jimmy McAleer FAC. Early on, a reviewer opposed the article's promotion on the ground that it contained POV material. Three other reviewers challenged this assertion, arguing that the piece was well referenced and included no language that qualified as POV. The article now has the support of five reviewers. The opposed reviewer has failed to revisit the article. Similarly, this reviewer has not responded to a message confirming that the article was revised. I consulted another reviewer about the best way to proceed. This reviewer suggested that I "make the situation known." Sincerely, -- twelsht ( talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year Raul.
This article is one of Giano's, currently at FAR here. The review has been relatively tame, but is split. OK, I'm being a total coward. Kept or removed, I'm sure I'll catch hell for this one. On the one hand, it is well written and Giano will tell you it's accurate. On the other, with a single intext citation, it in no way resembles current successful FACs. (Unless you want to argue there isn't a single thing in it likely to be challenged.)
I don't want to close it. If it's kept, it would amount to a new precedent and a form of grandfathering, which was rejected in early '05. People will call it a double standard. If it's removed, Giano and others will be angry. I don't want another FA drama, so advice would be appreciated. Marskell ( talk) 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to keep a date open for main page requests? I just got my first FA ( Godsmack) and I would like it featured on the main page on August 25, 2008, as it will be the ten year anniversery of the band's debut album. Is there a way I can keep that date open for home page? And if so how will I get it on the main page requests page if there is a limit of five articles? Replie on my talk page please. Thank you,
Burningclean [ Speak the truth!] 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment on AN about the naming of Hirohito, and followed up on it here Talk:Hirohito#Proposed_article_page_MOVE, since previous debates were spread over several pages, with few participants, and it seems like User:Švitrigaila is a rather firm believer in the Showa name, I'm thinking a content RFC might be in order. I've never filed one, so I'm wondering if you could point me to a completed one that I could use as a model (best practice)? Watching here, thanks. MBisanz talk 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a comment concerning the mainpage blurb for Swedish emigration to the United States at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Swedish emigration. Thought I'd give you a heads up in case you hadn't noticed that thread.
Peter Isotalo 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I polietley suggest that you try engaging in reasoned discussion with people with whom you disagree, rather than attack their motives and make threats. Doing so will help you be more persuasive, and better conform to Wikipedia policy.
Now, that being said, I invite you to challenge me on the mertits of the concerns I have expressed about the langugage of "scientific consensus" in various Wikipedia entries.
My recent edits (such as here) are essential in making our articles conform to Wikipeida's laudable "neutral point of view" policy. While the claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming is widely reported by many sources, it is not universally accepted. It is not Wikipedia's business to decide on behalf of readers which theories and opinions are right and which ones are wrong. To illustrate the distinction I am making, I urge editors to consider the example of the article on scientific consensus on global warming. In contrast to the article we are editing, the article "scientific consensus on global warming" appropriately reports specifically which individuals and which groups claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming; it does not make the claim itself. (For instance, the article states the "IPCC Third Assessment Report ... issued a joint statement ... [declaring the] IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science." Again, the Wikipedia article itself does not declare the theory of man-made global warming the "scientific consensus; it merely reports the views of certain groups that have done so.) I have no problem with reporting the authorities that have asserted there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. However, a Wikipedia article by itself should not make that assertion per policy. The Noosphere ( talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
He's now on User:Friday's radar as well. Best to let an absolutely, totally uninvolved admin like her deal with him so there will be no question of the block sticking. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. You OK? -- Dweller ( talk) 10:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Good job. Corvus cornix talk 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did you shut down the FAC discussion for University of California, Riverside after just five days? I think that was far, far too short in this case. Tony1 raised some 1a concerns, but when you removed it from the FAC list, I was in the middle of thoroughly copyediting the article, with the goal of going beyond Tony1's specific concerns. Other (minor) concerns are being actively addressed by me and Amerique. Did you think the FAC wasn't generating enough discussion or attention? Or do you think the nomination was too premature, or that there are problems that haven't been addressed by objectors? szyslak 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope we will get to know more about each other in the future. I think we have certain atributes in common. I will advice later when it is tm,e for us to have a chat. But if you need me to show you where we going, I am your shining star to destiny! Regards, Igor Berger ( talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Attempting to address the issues with Illinois’s FAC has proven to be both difficult and frustrating because the commenters are dragging the length and the notability of the incompleted battleship into the FAC discussion, neither of which ought to be issues for the FAC -- length is explicitly penned as a non-issue, and arguments on the notability point should be taken to the notability page or addressed with an afd. In any case I do appreciate your intervention in the article (though I must say I am sorry to see it has come to this), and I am trying to address the issues brought up by the oppose voters when such objects cite things that can be fixed. In particular, BQZip01's objection list has been greatly appreciated. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Raul! Sorry to bother you, but it seems like people (myself included) would appreciate some 'crat input on the latest WP:BN thread. Just thought you'd like to know. :) Happy editing! Best, Keilana talk (recall) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your post on Gianno II's talk page. Before anyone decides to renominate this article in a hurry, let me point out that the article has major outstanding problems of cohesion and coherence, and by that I don't mean organization of sections. I mean problems of flow of prose and more importantly flow of information in prose. If you give me ten minutes, I'll pick out two paragraphs in the article and annotate them on the talk page of the article. I'm sure, once I point out the problems, user:Dineshkannambadi will try to fix them as best as he can, but I guarantee you that I will then find two more paragraphs and do the same, and two more ... Coherence (which includes logic, time order in paragraphs, etc.) takes time. Give me ten minutes, and I'll post something on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that editor a sock of a banned user? I noticed you are reverting his edits on sight, and without summary, so I was curious. Bellwether B C 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A brief questions that you may be able to address in regards to Introduction to Evolution FA attempt. The page has become a bit messy; owed somewhat to my inexperience so I created a well organized list of concerns on Talk:Introduction to evolution and attempted to address them. They are specifically numbered with a plea for commentary. Does this constitute a good faith effort for following up on criticisms since it is not on the FA page? There was a bold notification on the FA page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution as well as messages posted on their user page. If you look at Item 9 and 11 on the discussion page, there is a plea for specifics so that I can address the rather vague criticisms. I assume it is a common problem for people to drop in, oppose, then never return? Maybe its not a brief question! Try again. Does conversation on the discussion page of the article factor into the process of determining "If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements". Sorry, newbie here its just frustration when you get this; and no follow-up, after adding an addition 40+ citations.
-- Random Replicator ( talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I expect you de-scheduled it because it is on FAR. Fair enough. User: BuddingJournalist and I had got it ready for its big day, though, and I think it's in FA shape. I hope it can be put back on the front-page list soon. qp10qp ( talk) 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul. I have a bit of a situation here. Giano was doing a fine job copy editing the article (for which I am thankful) until Fowler's post that he (Fowler) and Mattisse should re-write it, once Giano is finished. This has become a de-moralizer (understandably so) for Giano who is now reluctant to go further with the copy edits (understandably so). This I feel is a sort of unique intimidation on the part of Fowler, who at this point seems to have re-conciled to keeping out of the FAC discussion, after being warned by an admin to stop taking stabs at me. How do I deal with this situation. Too much work has gone into this article, which seems to be almost "there". I understand, anyone has the right to contribute to an article, but not with the attitude that Fowler has shown. Please help. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your work dealing with Scibaby/Obedium, your work as a CheckUser, and as Featured Article Director, and being a great Wikipedian! Solumeiras talk 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
P.S. You may wish to list about Obedium/Scibaby at User:Solumeiras/vandalismwatch/Obedium POV editing, just to document it for users!
When am I allowed to ask that André Kertész be featured on the main page for July 2, his birthday? I see the FA main page requests page hasn't changed at all - I've been watching it and the requests page is full again as soon as a spot opens. I'm on too infrequently to be able to sit by and wait for a spot to open. To be frank, I thought you were going to sort the whole process out? You have my honest respect as an editor, but for goodness sake, the requests page is inadequate. This will be the 5th month I have been asking for the process to be changed. You kepe saying you'll change it, but nothing's been done. Regards, Spawn Man ( talk) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please explain what is wrong with the referencing of the F-4 Phantom article? All of the print references have references yet User:SandyGeorgia claims the fact that references do not have publishers as a pretext to have the article delisted. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is schedules for the main page on 14 January 2008, but I suspect somebody will throw it up for review between now and then. It has few to no references, and although I'm not a FA participant, I don't think it meets the requirements. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I hope that the long range requests page has just as much weight in deciding which FA is featured on which date as the regular requests page? Happyme22 ( talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
A user is quoting an edit summary of your here Talk:Hirohito#Categories_on_redirects. I've given the standard policy reply, but given that you probably wrote the policy at some point, I'm figuring you can give a better explanation. MBisanz talk 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Jack Sheppard is up for TFA on 20 January. The first sentence of the lead is unfortunately grammatically incorrect. I fixed it in the article itself but the teaser for the main page is still wrong ( here). I can't fix that because I am not an administrator. The sentence reads: Jack Sheppard was a notorious English robber, burglar and thief of early 18th century London. It should read: Jack Sheppard was a notorious English robber, burglar and thief of early 18th-century London. If you or someone with the power could change this, grammar nerds like myself would appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are the FA Director at present. Please intervene of the Introduction to evolution FA attempt Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. The raging of one individual is destroying a years worth of effort. It has gone from a spark to a full raging fire and is making a mockery of this process. The names of some very excellent editors are being drug through the mud here. Can't you throw some water on this fire?????? -- Random Replicator ( talk) 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't paid much attention to this discussion (so i'm not involved), but it looks more like you standing alone against a consensus you disagree with, than a real lack of consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. — Random832 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling that our friend may be back as User:Cameta, User:Epiphaross, and/or User:Frenstad, and perhaps a couple of others that I can't recall at the moment. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Frenstad's edits have a well-known smell... -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
See [2]. I'm sure you can handle this. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request at User talk:66.215.23.8. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I thought I'd do up an article on the success of FA in 2007 for the Wikipedia:Signpost. I started with a simple analysis of the stats at User:Marskell/Sandbox. Conclusion: the jump in 2007 is less startling than it appears; production has actually been increasing at a steady rate year-over-year.
Any dazzling quotes? It's a little dry at the moment, with only numbers. Marskell ( talk) 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I wanted to check with you whether you would agree that this FAC nomination be restarted. It appears to have become sidetracked which may be the reason why there hasn't been any unique comments or support/oppose votes for 15 days. Furthermore, there was a big revision mid way through the nomination (removing the politicized issues) which was the main source of concern.-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not yet sure what was going on, but apparently my account was being used by someone. I have now changed the password and will monitor my account activity closely. ike9898 ( talk) 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please re-sysop me? Although I'm still not sure how my account was compromised, I've spent the last two hours changing every password I have and scanning my computers for spyware, etc. Sorry for the trouble; shouldn't happen again. ike9898 ( talk) 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
See the talk page for why I simply removed the state seal rather than reverting back to the initial sketch. Thoughts? - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify at WP:TFA/R. There are two bio blurbs missing full birth/death dates, but there is also some confusion as to whether it is common practice or not to state the full birth/death dates in the blurb for WP:TFA. Cirt ( talk) 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
The process is huge, Raul. You've done an enormous amount for it and earned immense respect around here. That you've become an absentee landlord to certain parts of it is totally understandable given the size (and sharing roles is a good thing, from a Wiki perspective).
More importantly for the future we need to tackle this issue regarding the articles in question (or "patch" of FAs, as I'm calling it). If you comment on that thread early, it will help set the tone. Cheers, Marskell ( talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not answering last night. I was away. However, my message was to check your e-mail. :-D Miranda 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains. Thank you, — Burningclean [ Speak the truth!] 05:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mark. Any chance you could re-sysop me? Not being able to press the "block" button is getting reeeeeeal annoying. Thanks! Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh Raul, may I have one of your common sense bricks so that I may have as much common sense as you? -- 71.89.54.99 ( talk) 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I'm still in the mountains, tying up a phone line on a slow dialup when no one needs the phone. I fly Monday, and should be "back in the saddle" by Tuesday, the 22nd. I'm sorry to leave you with so much work, Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you remove Louis Slotin from being TFA on January 23, 2008? There were some outstanding FAC comments that I still need to work on, and I don't want the article featured on the Main Page when there are still issues that need to be fixed. Instead, could you choose Stede Bonnet? I previously requested this last month, but you didn't choose it. Thanks. Nishkid64 ( talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul. I stumbled across the Wikipedia Sound List recently. You seem to have been the lead editor there. Good work.
I added a column for "Performer." I also inserted "play" icons at the end of each row. Plus I put a "to do" list at the top of the discussion page. And, I added a couple categories at the bottom.
I was thinking about spending a considerable amount of time to fill in all the Performers in the new column I created. Can you tell me if this would be a waste of my time? It would be a waste of my time if, for example, editing the Sound List may soon become automated, or if the list itself may soon be replaced with some better type of list, et cetera. Please let me know if you think this will be a waste of my time. If not, then I may do it (or pay some high school kid to do it). It will be very time-consuming. Thanks in advance. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: Here is a small subset of the songs that need to be added to it:
Johann Jacob Froberger - Tombeau.ogg Jean Perrichon - Volte.ogg Dietrich Ewald von Grotthus - Rondo in C.ogg Caspar Ferdinand Fischer - Prelude and Chaconne.ogg Carl Phillipe Emanuel Bach - Freie Fantasie, F minor.ogg Vincent Persechetti - Serenade for Flute and Harp.ogg Tibor Harsanyi - 3 Pieces for Flute & Piano - No 1.ogg Tibor Harsanyi - 3 Pieces for Flute & Piano - No 1 and 2.ogg Cesar Franck - Sonata in A, 3rd movement.ogg Cesar Franck - Sonata in A, 2nd movement.ogg Cesar Franck - Sonata in A, 1st movement.ogg Nikolaos Skalkottas - Sonate Concertante - 3rd movement.ogg Nikolaos Skalkottas - Sonate Concertante - 2nd movement.ogg Nikolaos Skalkottas - Sonate Concertante - 1st movement.ogg Marcel Farago - Bassoon Pieces.ogg Jules Demersseman - Introduction and Polanaise.ogg James Waterson - Souvenir de Donizetti.ogg Carl Almenräder - Bassoon Pieces.ogg Armin Schibler - Bassoon pieces.ogg Anton Reicha - Variations for Bassooon.ogg Robert Rønnes - Trio for 3 Bassoons.ogg Pierre Max Dubois - Sonatine for 2 Bassoons.ogg Eugene Bozza - Duettino for 2 Bassoons.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Sonata in E minor - Adagio-ma-non-tanto.ogg Handel - Sonata in E minor - Grave.ogg Handel - Sonata in E minor - Allegro.ogg Handel - Sonata in E minor - Allegro (2).ogg Handel - Sonata in E minor - Adagio.ogg Saint-Saens - Rondo-Capriccioso.ogg L. Sarason - Piano Sonata - Slow and Espressivo.ogg L. Sarason - Piano Sonata - Scherzo.ogg L. Sarason - Piano Sonata - Allegro.ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations.ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (6).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (5).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (4).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (3).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (2).ogg Jean-Philippe Rameau - Gavotte and Variations (1).ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Prelude in G minor.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Fugue in G minor.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Sarabande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Prelude.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Gigue.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Gavotte.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Courante.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - English Suite No. 3 in G minor - Allemande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Chaconne for violin alone.ogg Mozart - 5th Concerto, 1st movement (Allegro aperto).ogg Liszt Totentanz.ogg Maurice Ravel - Valses Nobles et Sentimentales, movements 6, 7 and 8.ogg Maurice Ravel - Valses Nobles et Sentimentales, movements 3, 4 and 5.ogg Maurice Ravel - Valses Nobles et Sentimentales, movements 1 and 2.ogg Maurice Ravel - Serenade Grotesque.ogg Maurice Ravel - Pavane pour une Infante Defunte.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - Une barque sur l'Ocean d'un rythme souple.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - Oiseaux tristes.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - Noctuelles.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - La Valee des cloches.ogg Maurice Ravel - Miroirs - Alborado del Gracioso.ogg Moritz Moszkowsky - Concerto 1, 3rd movement.ogg Moritz Moszkowsky - Concerto 1, 2nd movement.ogg Moritz Moszkowsky - Concerto 1, 1st movement.ogg Frederick Chopin - Concerto 2 in F minor, 3rd movement.ogg Frederick Chopin - Concerto 2 in F minor, 2nd movement.ogg Frederick Chopin - Concerto 2 in F minor, 1st movement.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 3rd movement.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 2nd movement.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 1st movement.ogg Edvard Grieg - Concerto in A minor, 3rd movement.ogg Edvard Grieg - Concerto in A minor, 2nd movement.ogg Edvard Grieg - Concerto in A minor, 1st movement.ogg Robert Schumann - Fantasie - Sempre Fantasticamente ed Appassionatamente.ogg Robert Schumann - Fantasie - Moderato, Sempre energico.ogg Robert Schumann - Fantasie - Lento sostenuto Sempre piano.ogg Bach-Busoni - Nun komm der Hieden Hieland.ogg Johann Jacob Froberger - Tombeau.ogg Jean Perrichon - Volte.ogg Dietrich Ewald von Grotthus - Rondo in C.ogg Caspar Ferdinand Fischer - Prelude and Chaconne.ogg Carl Phillipe Emanuel Bach - Freie Fantasie, F minor.ogg Antonio de Cabezon - Duuiensela.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Six Moments Musicaux - No 3, B minor.ogg Henri Dutilleux - Piano Sonata - Lied.ogg Franz Liszt - 1st piano concerto, 2nd movement.ogg Franz Liszt - 1st piano concerto, 1st movement.ogg Frederic Chopin - Andante Spianato & Grand Polonaise Brillante.ogg Beethoven Piano Concerto No.4 in G Major - Andante con moto.ogg Beethoven Piano Concerto No.4 in G Major - Allegro non troppo.ogg Bach-Busoni - Chorale - Nun freut euch, liebe Christen.ogg Igor Stravinsky - 3 Pieces for Clarinet Alone.ogg Thomas Forbes Walmisley - Sonatine for Oboe and Piano.ogg Antonio Pasculli - Gran Concerto.ogg Maurice Ravel - La Valse.ogg Carl Nielsen - Präludium.ogg Carl Nielsen - Menuetto.ogg Carl Nielsen - Allegro ben moderato.ogg Wilhelm Friedemann Bach - Polonaise 4 and 5.ogg Scarlatti - Tocatta 3.ogg Podbielski - Praeludium.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Praeludium A minor.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Capriccio Departure of Brother.ogg Johann Jakob Froberger - Tocatta and Suite in A minor.ogg Henry Purcell - Tocatta Amajor.ogg Girolamo Frescobaldi - Toccata 3.ogg Giovanni Picchi - Polish and Hungarian Dance.ogg George Frideric Handel - Fantasias 8,12 and Carillon.ogg George Frideric Handel - Fantasias 8,12 and Carillon.ogg Bernardo Pasquini - Tocatta with Cuckoo Scherzo.ogg Anton Murchauser - Hail Little Jesus.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Toccatina.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Hens and Cocks.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Air and Variations.ogg Adriano Banchieri - The Battle.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Hens and Cocks.ogg Alessandro Poglietti - Air and Variations.ogg Adriano Banchieri - The Battle.ogg Frederic Chopin - Nocturne Eb major Opus 9, number 2.ogg Frederic Chopin - Fantasy Impromptu Opus 66.ogg Frederic Chopin - Etude, F minor no opus.ogg Frederic Chopin - Etude, Db major no opus.ogg Frederic Chopin - Etude, Ab major no opus.ogg Frederic Chopin - Ballade Ab major Opus 47.ogg Franz Liszt - Un Sospiro Etude, Db Major.ogg Franz Liszt - Second Hungarian Rhapsody.ogg Franz Liszt - Liebestraum, Ab Major.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 11Efuge Bbmaj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 10Epre Bb.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 09Efuge Dmin.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 08Epre Dmin.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 07Efuge Dmaj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 06Epre Dmaj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 05Efuge cmin.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 04Epre cmin.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 03Efuge maj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The Well-tempered Clavier - Book 1 - 02Epre cmaj.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 20EGigue.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 19EBouree1and2.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 18ESarabande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 17EDouble2.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 16EDouble1.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 15ECourante2.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 14ECourante1.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 13EAllemande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - The English Suite -1 - 12EPrelude.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Fantasy - C minor.ogg Michel Blavet - Sonata in B minor.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Partita for flute alone.ogg Johann Joachim Quantz - Sonata Concertate in D.ogg Jacques Hotteterre - Suite in D.ogg Georg Philipp Telemann - Sonata in E minor.ogg Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach - Sonata in G major.ogg Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach - Sonata in Bb major.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - VI (Gigue).ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - V Bourrée.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - IV (Sarabande).ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - III Courante.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - II Allemande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Suite BWV 996, E Minor - I Präludium; Presto.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 998 - III Allegro.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 998 - II Fuge.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 998 - I Prelude.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 997 - Lute Suite No. 2 in C minor - IV Gigue.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 997 - Lute Suite No. 2 in C minor - III Sarabande.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 997 - Lute Suite No. 2 in C minor - II Fuge.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - BWV 997 - Lute Suite No. 2 in C minor - I Prelude.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Italian Concerto - F Major - Presto.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Italian Concerto - F Major - Andante.ogg Johann Sebastian Bach - Italian Concerto - F Major - 1st movement.ogg Johann Jakob Froberger - Lamentation - C Major.ogg Johann Jakob Froberger - Fantasy - e minor.ogg Giovanni Battista Pescetti - Presto - c minor.ogg Giovanni Battista Pescetti - Allegretto - C Major.ogg Domenico Zipoli - Largo - b minor.ogg Domenico Zipoli - Gavotte - b minor.ogg Domenico Scarlatti - Presto - E Major.ogg Domenico Scarlatti - Allegretto - D minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - g sharp minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - G Flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - f minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - F Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - e minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - D Flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - c sharp minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - c minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - b minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - a minor (2).ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - a minor (1).ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 25 - Twelve Grand Etudes - A flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - G Flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - f minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - F Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - E Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - e flat minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - E Flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - c sharp minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - c minor.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - C Major (2).ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - C Major (1).ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - A flat Major.ogg Frederic Chopin - Opus 10 - Twelve Grand Etudes - a minor.ogg Louis Spohr - Zwiegesang.ogg Louis Spohr - Wiegenlied.ogg Louis Spohr - Wach auf!.ogg Louis Spohr - Sei Still Mein Herz.ogg Louis Spohr - Sehnsucht.ogg Louis Spohr - Das Heimliche Lied.ogg Pierre Gaveaux - Polcca from the opera 'Le Trompeur Trompe'.ogg Giacomo Meyerbeer - Hirtenlied.ogg Franz Schubert - Der Hirt auf dem Felsen.ogg Gustavo Becerra - String Quartet No. 4, 4th movement - Allegro.ogg Gustavo Becerra - String Quartet No. 4, 3rd movement - Allegro.ogg Gustavo Becerra - String Quartet No. 4, 2nd movement - Andante.ogg Gustavo Becerra - String Quartet No. 4, 1st movement - Allegro.ogg Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov - Bumblebee.ogg Modest Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition, movement 3.ogg Modest Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition, movement 2.ogg Modest Mussorgsky - Pictures at an Exhibition, movement 1.ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (3).ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (2).ogg Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (1).ogg Johannes Brahms - Sonata in F minor, 4th movement.ogg Johannes Brahms - Sonata in F minor, 3rd movement.ogg Johannes Brahms - Sonata in F minor, 2nd movement.ogg Johannes Brahms - Sonata in F minor, 1st movement.ogg Camille Saint-Saens - Sonata for bassoon with piano accompaniment (opus 168).ogg Mozart - Bassoon Concerto in Bb major - Rondo Tempo di Menuetto.ogg Mozart - Bassoon Concerto in Bb major - Andante ma adagio.ogg Mozart - Bassoon Concerto in Bb major - Allegro.ogg Gustav Mahler - Trombone Solo from 3rd Symphony, 1st movement.ogg Gardell Simons - Novelette, for Trombone and Band.ogg Donal Michaisky - Concertino in Re, for Trombone and Band.ogg Arthur Pryor - Blue Bells of Scotland, for Trombone and Band.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 8 Allegro.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 7 Scherzo.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 6 Andante.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 5 Moderato.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 4 Allegretto.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 3 Menuetto.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 2 Andante.ogg Schubert - Piano Sonatas - 1 Moderato.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 3 in F major, movement 3.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 3 in F major, movement 2.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 3 in F major, movement 1.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 2 in D minor, movement 3.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 2 in D minor, movement 2.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 2 in D minor, movement 1.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 1 in Bb major, movement 3.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 1 in Bb major, movement 2.ogg Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini - Quintet No. 1 in Bb major, movement 1.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in G major (opus 30), movement 3.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in G major (opus 30), movement 2.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in G major (opus 30), movement 1.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in A major (opus 47), movement 3.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in A major (opus 47), movement 2.ogg Beethoven - Sonata in A major (opus 47), movement 1.ogg Beethoven - Piano sonata in C minor (opus 111), movement 1.ogg Beethoven - Piano sonata in C minor (opus 111), movement 2.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (07) Selig sind die Toten.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (06) Denn wir haben hie keine bleibende Statt.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (05) Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (04) Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (03) Herr, lehre doch mich.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (02) Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (01) Selig sind, die da Leid tragen.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (06) Denn wir haben hie keine bleibende Statt.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (05) Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (04) Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (03) Herr, lehre doch mich.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (02) Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (01) Selig sind, die da Leid tragen.ogg Johannes Brahms - Op.45 Ein Deutsches Requiem - (07) Selig sind die Toten.ogg
(Mental note - the above list omits the recently added Beethoven symphonies from Musopen). Raul654 ( talk) 05:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note - it's worth bearing in mind the actual purpose of that list, which is to make sure that each relavant article (composer, article, etc) has a copy of the song. That's why I made it in the first place. The fact that it makes a really great download page is secondary. Raul654 ( talk) 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
(1) I don't like the idea to move that page to the article namespace, nor do I particularly like linking to it from the article namespace. As I said, the purpose of the page was to make sure each song was posted in its composers' and relavant song article (as well as performer). It was never meant for general consumption, although that's what it has turned out to be. And I'm happy with that, as long as it doesn't lose its original purpose. (2) I just got permission from Aaron Dunn at Musopen to upload the rest of their music. So I'll be uploading another 140 full length classical music recordings soon. I'd appreciate help getting them into articles and onto the sound list. Raul654 ( talk) 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I have mixed feelings about wikiprojects, I think this would be an appropriate time to start one - wikipedia:wikiproject free music. The purposes would be:
What do you think? Raul654 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit, it was difficult to find an appropriate barnstar to reflect your work, but I do want you to know that your work is appreciated. And you don't ever seem to burn out. :)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For diligent contribution to the project in the way of coordination of FA material, and overall editing; I award you the "Tireless Contributor Barnstar" Mercury at 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, I'm having a go at trying to put the main page as CSS, but currently there's an extra div always at the end of the intro paragraph of the TFA pages breaking it. I'm wondering why it's there? (Please reply here, it'll be easier for me to find) - 213.121.151.134 ( talk) 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I think there's a problem at WP:FAC with the number of transcluded pages/templates. I think the overall size of the page is preventing the page from correctly transcluding the final FAC discussion ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sweet Escape (song)). Just thought you'd want to know. Cheers, Caknuck ( talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You could get a bot to use "subst:" to kill the templates but leave the appearance. Only downside (and it is a big one) is that the page gets littered with markup code. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
On 19 January, I undertook a major expansion project on Victoriatown. It's currently a DYK, and I was wondering if you could advise on whether it's even a real candidate for FA status, given the paucity of references available. I've currently found one print book and one really great online article, plus I'm using a couple of refs regarding a book that was set in the village. What are the chances that such an article could ever reach FA status. There are some truly beautiful photographs that I found on Flickr, and worked with the author to include in the article. There are several more great ones that I could include when I expand it further. My question is whether it even has a real chance to be FA, with the current state of the references? Regards -- Bellwether B C 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. Have just confirmed. I still however believe GimmeBot's counting of WP:GA is out though. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I love it, thanks for the link(s). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I apologize profusely. I did not know that you had written a response to me and instead I've been getting upset over at the FAC requests page. Thanks Raul! Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The tally is correct, but Alpha Kappa Alpha didn't get added to the page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Raul654#Louis_Slotin. Nishkid64 ( talk) 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate to mention this again, but the teaser for Stede Bonnet has a missing hyphen. Currently, the first sentence for TFA reads: Stede Bonnet was an early 18th century Barbadian pirate, sometimes called the "the gentleman pirate" because he was a moderately wealthy landowner before turning to a life of crime. - It should read "early 18th-century Barbadian pirate". I have fixed the article, but I cannot fix the teaser, as I am not an administrator. Awadewit | talk 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you'd restarted the Somerset nomination on FAC (along with several others). Does this mean that the previous expressions of support no longer count? & I need to ask those reviewers to visit again?— Rod talk 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, [3] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
January 2008
Time: January 26th, 5:00 PM
Location:
The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut
You have received this message because you are on the
invite list, you may change your invite options via that link.
BrownBot (
talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Tial join, User:Mseas, User:Ghaor and User:Kautl. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a friendly note that Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow is looking a bit bare. Hope all is good. Woody ( talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to add a section like that. A lot of users have mentioned that they're interested in us covering user contributions in more depth, but I just haven't been able to find anyone who can cover something long-term. If you think you can find someone who would be willing to do it for a while, that sounds great to me. Ral315 ( talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul. I noticed that Wicked was not promoted to FA. I agree with that result because I think the writing could still be smoothed out here and there, but I think the article has come a long way, and I wonder if you could drop a few notes on the article's talk page regarding the issues that you still see there? This is the WP:MUSICALS (musical theatre) project's first important FA project, and it would be nice if it got good comments that might guide us in the future. A number of the musical theatre project's most active editors are working on the article, and your comments would help them to improve many other articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, is the Thespis article scheduled for the main page? It's an extremely well researched and, I think, well-written article (though I say it who shouldn't) and I think it would showcase Wikipedia's best quality articles very well. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
29th of Jan - Victoria Cross The award was established 29th January 1856 Image:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.png. Buc ( talk) 11:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Have to make this request here because the request page is full. Buc ( talk) 11:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You got mail. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This is when recursive checkuser would be really nice. Everyone go and vote here Raul654 ( talk) 16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you want {{sockpuppet|Kdbuffalo|confirmed}} instead of {{sockpuppet|Kdbuffalo|confirmed=yes}}. Jehochman Talk 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, since only five articles can appear on the requests page I thought I'd drop you a line to request that Bobby Robson be considered for main page featured article on February 18th. It will be the day of his 75th birthday. Let me know if you need me to do more, thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just completed the translation of the article you requested from the German Wiki. If you'd like, you can add categories, since I don't like to do that part. Enjoy! Scbarry ( talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I was wondering about this. . .( link to ? at WMC's page). I couldn't see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry. I assume there's something I can't find, but could you re-check this block? This account dates back to March 2006. Thanks, R. Baley ( talk) 09:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You recently blocked this user indefinitely as a sock of the Genesis vandal/Tile join. He has appealed the block using {{ unblock}}. I presume you verified it using checkuser therefore I am not going to unblock him myself, but you might want to drop over there and see what he's saying. Stifle ( talk) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Gee thanks! That means a lot, especially coming from you.
With these episodes you set them up, do the interview, produce it and post online and then.....nothing. There's very little in the way of feed back to see if it's being well received, ignored, suggestions etc. I fly blind to a certain degree in guessing what works well.
I want to be able to contribute to the community but I just can't seem to get my act together to write FAs or things like that. So I'm trying to make my niche, make my contribution, by humanising the community. Because of the way we interact on-wiki/IRC/message board it's very easy to forget there are real people at the other end of the keyboard. I hope that these interviews go some way to ameliorating that. It might make people more Civil too... maybe.
Best, Witty Lama 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to do this but there's only four people signed up to come, and most of the regulars (e.g. Evrik, ike9898, etc) can't even come. I let the person from WHYY know via email. Maybe it's just that we're having them so often that people don't care as much anymore, or maybe it's because there was no announcement at the top of the page, I don't know. I'll wait a month or so and then start the voting for the date again (might as well keep the location). Hopefully I'll get more of a response than now. -- TexasDex ★ 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Raul654, There is a problem with the Thirtysomething (TV series). The name was chosen as "thirtysomething" not "Thirtysomething." WP: MOSTM state that it should be always capital when it's a Proper noun even if it was accepted "officially." I object that rule and changed it, because it was causing too many problems. I saw back-and-forth discussions about it on the talk page from a year-ago. The majority agreed with it being lowercase. I changed everything in the article that said it capitalized -- from "Thirtysomething" to "thirtysomething." But, there is a problem I can't fix, the title. I tried changing it and it said that it was typed the same and it didn't work. So I tried typing "thirtysomething (TV Series)" instead of "thirtysomething (TV series)." I was thinking maybe Wikipedia would pick "t" up and then I would of just changed "(TV Series)" back to "(TV series). But, it came out like this --> "Thirtysomething (TV Series)" so I had to change it back. Do you know why it isn't working? AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem someone reverted the edit on WP: MOSTM. AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Will you please remove the Shawn Michaels and WWE FAC. I forgot to discuss it with WP:PW before I nominated it, Thanks!!! Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul. I know that I am a new user and that Happyme22 has two articles that are being used as FA's, however, I have reviewed the standards for FAs before reviewing the history of the Nancy Reagan article as well as Happyme22's talk page, and with the history editors who have supported the maintenance of the article as it stands.
In all places, as you can see, there is a good deal of questioning his Non NOPV and possible bias in the writing of these articles and the editor's decisions.
As a new user, I do not know how to proceed but am suggesting that there is potential for an abuse of Wikipedia's guidelines here (especially with Ronald Reagan's bio coming up fast as an FA). Could you please advise me how to proceed?
Thank you so much.
207.237.228.83 ( talk) 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This suggestion : "four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions." made on the talk pages of 7 editors by 207.237.228.83 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is incorrect, insulting, and way out of line. Tvoz | talk 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to know if you think "Manos" The Hands of Fate could be put up for TFA on the 30th, seeing as you scheduled the date before I got a chance to put it on the request page. It's the 15 anniversary of the MST3K airing, and it has been waiting longer than Motorhead. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a novice at Wikipedia, so apologies if I make any faux pas, but I'd like to give this a go. I hope this is the right place to talk about it. I'm also not a meteorologist. If I have a go at translating, could I ask you for advice along the way? For example, presumably it's not necessary to translate the whole page, half of which is a list of his publications.
Concerning the spelling, I'd go for Fujiwara, which would be the standard contemporary transliteration. Meteorologists may disagree, but he doesn't seem famous enough to justify what seems to be an old-fashioned transliteration (with only 600 hits on Google).
-- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you've seen what happened to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2008 on your watchlist, but I'm certain you should feel honored. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Raul. Not sure if you're around, but I thought I'd summarize for you the situation at
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution, in case you want to weigh in or close it yourself. It has 12 supports and 5 8 opposes, one a very strong oppose based on accuracy and three from editors who haven't revisited in a very long time. There's a summary
here, and a summary of the outstanding concerns at the end of the FAC (search on Summarizing).
Amaltheus (
talk ·
contribs) has made numerous very good suggestions and changes; he's noticeably upset about the state of the article and has felt dismissed and mistreated in the process. He's made valuable contributions and suggestions throughout,
[9]
[10]
[11] and he says that the article is not yet accurate. It's not clear to me how significant the remaining issues are in terms of accuracy or how easily/quickly they could be addressed if the parties communicated well. I asked
TimVickers (
talk ·
contribs) to review several days ago, but he hasn't weighed in (he's usually prompt, so I suspect he's not going to).
[12] Consensus is well within promote territory; I've let it go several days and tried to get the parties talking to each other again (with limited success), hoping the remaining issues could be resolved without ill will. A restart doesn't make sense, because the issues and positions are clear and it's really only one substantial, significant, oppose. If you want to handle it yourself, that would be welcome, or if not, I'll deal with it.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Update, a new Oppose from Tony, comprehensive. In terms of stability, over 700 article edits made since the FAC started, and full talk page archive and ongoing discussions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
hmmmm. Someone should probably look at what's occurring on Amaltheus's talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
These are slightly inaccurate descriptions. Although Amaltheus has made some good suggestions, and is clearly highly educated and intelligent, he has been sometimes extremely difficult to work with. Two editors who were handling the edits related to the FA quit Wikipedia because of his badgering and uncivil uncooperative behavior ( User: Random Replicator, who even had his page and account deleted, and User: Wassupwestcoast is on a long break). Several others, including myself, distanced themselves from the article and talk pages and FA pages rather than participate and be the target of more invective and hostility from Amaltheus.
The bottom line with Amaltheus' complaints is that they are either (1) often vague and poorly explained, so that it is difficult to know how to implement them, and he sometimes declines to give specific examples or sample text or edits that can demonstrate what the problem is and (2) his edits often involve an effort to take an introductory article and make it as advanced and complicated as the main evolution article, or moreso, obviating the reason for its existence. When this "sophistication creep" occurs over many cycles, the article ceases to be accessible and meet its original reason for existence, as explained by User: Tim Vickers: [13].
I have not intended to harass him, but engage him in friendly conversation, given that he has successfully driven off all others involved in this FA attempt except for SandyGeorgia. I will confess to being frustrated when I found out that our main workhorses on the project, Random Replicator and Wassupwestcoast had been driven to quitting, mainly because of interactions with Amaltheus, and I wanted to discuss the situation with him. However, he began blanking my additions to his talk page, so I eventually realized that I should just leave him alone, which I did.
I did not follow the situation in detail before last night, since I had been avoiding the page for weeks because of fear of confrontation and further difficulties with Amaltheus, but I would be surprised if I found any evidence where he was treated in any hostile or dismissive manner leading up to the defection of the two other main editors he was involved with. I would have to see the evidence for myself, but I would be extremely surprised if Amaltheus was harassed in any way by the others working with him on Introduction to evolution. -- Filll ( talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm breaking my wiki-break to document my experience at the Introduction to evolution page. My first interaction with Amaltheus ( talk · contribs) was cordial enough on the Talk:Introduction to evolution under the the sub-heading ‘#8 Line by Line Veto --- use of text books’.
All of my first interaction can be seen at this diff
Then, Amaltheus inntroduces the infamous ‘sex’ dispute. S/he doesn’t drop it, ever, from now on.
The argument begins under the sub-heading ‘Wording’ on 10 Jan. Amaltheus escalates from “so you should mention sex somewhere” to “Sex is not an "overcomplication." It is essential.” to “Sex is MANDATORY.” & “…and omitting it is a serious error.”
At this point, user Random Replicator finds the emphasis funny (as I do). And, Amaltheus is told by several editors that it simply is not correct. Sex is not necessary for evolution. Sex itself evolved. And, it is probably inadvisable to mention sex in an article targeted at children.
Now, Amatheus starts to claim a personal attack.
“I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above, and the attempt to find multiple contradictory reasons to dismiss me by first saying I'm making it to complex, and now I'm dismissing bacteria (I had left out prokaryotes to respect the tone of the existing article and its emphasis on eukrayotes), and I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force. “
From now on, Amatheus claims he is being personally attacked.
All of the sex discussion can be seen at this diff.
I've dropped the idea, no need to use this page to attack me
Nine mintues later, Amaltheus registers an 'Oppose' at the FA page and emphasizes 'personal attack'.
Later that day, I reach out to Amaltheus and welcome him
It is spurned.
By
Please Please Stop the Madness
From then on, I am constantly accussed of personally attacking Amaltheus. Just cast your eye down my talk archive for Jan: see User talk:Wassupwestcoast/Archive to January 2008.
Of course, I'm not the only editor who was attacked but Amaltheus sure didn't like me. I barely interacted with him. You can check the diffs on his talk page. But the whole experience is so miserable, that I'm not returning to the project until March and I won't ever return to the evolution pages. I'm going to enjoy myself when I get back. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If it helps I can provide diffs for all this - though it is time-consuming to do so because it happened across several pages, including some unlikely places, in a confusing manner - and it probably wouldn't help much anyway. For the moment, I'll confine myself to a brief description. My experience is like that of others. Coming back after a few days away I made a comment on the row that had broken out at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution, said that Amaltheus's "strong oppose" to FA status seemed to be based more on an apparent sense of being hurt/rejected by other editors than any substantive objections to the article itself, suggested that as far as I could see it was a "nitpicking" objection, and asked Amaltheus to restate the core of his objections to the FA status. The response was a pretty meaningless "what part of what I said don't you understand?" I went to his talk page and asked in a friendly way to have it explained, and was rebuffed with a quite unwarranted accusation that I was getting personal. I tried again to engage with Amaltheus and find out how he thought the article should be improved, but met with increasingly intemperate rejections and accusations of personal attacks. Throughout, Amaltheus has been incredibly quick to take offence at the slightest perceived slight. Others (including, briefly, myself) have fallen into the trap of responding to his personal attacks - but it is very striking that Amaltheus is the only one who has had difficulty working with this group of editors in over a year, and striking how quickly he escalated a minor disagreement over content and style to an all-out war with anyone who dared to question him, let alone disagree with him. Is Amaltheus the only one in step? In over three years of involvement with WP I have never seen anything like the torrent of abuse that has come from that source. Snalwibma ( talk) 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the link! I really enjoy reading the history articles and when it come to somthing I don't know about I ask and read all about it! I specialize in the areas of Texas history,early america, and I am currently studing the civil war. Thanks so much and keep up the good work! I am new to the community so if I make a mistake I am really sorry! If you need to send me somthing like the link please put it on my page! Historybuffc13 ( talk) 05:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Raul654 I would like you to take a look at this Talk:Troll_(Internet)#Wikipedia_Troll. Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 08:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind a drive by question: just want to know whether or not you pay any attention to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests? Ta. Carre ( talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations says, "Archives are organized by nomination date. Thus a discussion that took place, for example, from May 27 to June 3 would be in the May archive." Is that correct? I've been archiving according to the month the nomination closes, since that's how we keep stats. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Aside from him being annoying and having a final warning for disruption, he did make this funny edit. I think you might enjoy it :P Yamakiri T C § 01-29-2008 • 23:10:40
Hey, I requested to change my username. Before I knew to do that I moved the page on my own and goofed it up. I feel like a huge fool. — Burningclean [ Speak the truth!] 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler is a new breed, a rare specimen, what not even a Dbachmann can make. Don't you see how he is being treated in the FA process? [14]. [15]. I don't know know if he loves being called a troll by retards but I would like to know if WP naturally abhors scholarship. 59.91.253.139 ( talk) 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{ Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN 0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z
Raul, my account is User:IthinkIwannaLeia. I registered it from Wookiepedia. I am currently at a public library and am unable to edit pages when I am logged in. I get a message saying I am a sockpuppet of User:Coach wears a skirt. I don't know who this is.
Well I can tell you, I am not a sock puppet. This is my primary account, and I am a responsible user of Wookie and Wiki. At first I assumed that it was the IP address of the Library that was being blocked, but I realized I could edit a page when I was not logged in. I can only assume that it is infact my account that is being blocked. (I have no other accounts, so I can not tell if it happens when anyone logs in at this IP.
I hope you can help me reactivate my account. I would also like to know how my name came up linked to this Coach wears a skirt. I do not think that my account has been compromised or hacked, but you never know. Since I cant log in here, please contact me or reactivate my account and on my talk page explain what happened. thanks. --IthinkIwannaLeia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.114.10 ( talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I have no problem with today's front-page featured article, I have been reading some off-wiki criticism, and I wonder: Has there ever been a proposal to limit the articles appearing on the front page by some kind of an importance or relevance criterion? If so, could you please point me to it so I can see the resulting comments? MilesAgain ( talk) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi and many thanks for your interest and your suggestion. I've dropped a line at the Signpost. Let's see how it goes! Students are still a little shy about editing. I'm working on encouraging them... -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, 2/4 request(s) were there before 2/9. If the request + alternate request is an issue, Interstate 355 is essentially withdrawn due to lack of support. — Rob ( talk) 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you are the admin that has had the most, uh, familiarity with this editor, I thought I would come to you. Gus is currently bringing up a frivolous RFC because he "doesn't like" the use of the word incorrect when describing the views of Duane Gish. Check it out on the talk page, its intriguing. It's basically the same general behavior as before, but on a new article. Should I just go ahead and move this to the Incidents noticeboard and let the community deal with him? Baegis ( talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd bring this to your attention if you were unaware.
There seemed to be an edit war that was developing right on the FAR page over Hurricane Irene (2005) and its status as a featured article. It was between the nominator Nergaal and Hurricanehink. There edits they were both doing to the pages were both hard to follow. Now the discussion seems to be removed from the FAR page but still the template is on the discussion page (when I last checked). I'm personally not involved in the situation and do not have any knowledge of the area so I decided to stay out. Just letting you know. If you could tell me the outcome on my talkpage I'd be greatly appreciated Medos ( talk) 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul, no one seems to know what to do with the PR column at WP:FAS; [16] do you know anything about that number, or should we drop it? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I'm not sure how I should handle immediate re-nominations when issues weren't addressed; I don't want to get into a tug-of-war with nominators by removing premature subsequent noms. [17] [18] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I believe I've never asked you to look in on anything related to a FARC before, but could I ask you to take a look at my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blackface and possibly also look in on what's been going on in the article? I feel like a lot of people want this de-featured not because of any deficiency in the article (there are some deficiencies, mostly related to citation; several of us are trying to address those), but because they really don't like us having an article about white appropriation of black culture. There has been some pretty hostile attitude on the talk page and in the form of edits that try to lop large chunks out of the article. It has made working on fixing it a pretty miserable experience. I don't particularly think there is anything that you can do, but I want to call your attention to what is going on, because eventually you will have to evaluate the opinions about whether to keep this article featured, and I think there may be people participating the process whose issues have little to do with the quality of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a little blub about Wikipedia:Image renaming would be a good idea. Ive been testing on commons with no issues and thought that en.wiki would benifit from it. so any help in spreading the word would be welcome. βcommand 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm trying to help out at the Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten article, regarding the Gonzo image ( Image:Img146.jpg). Dicklyon suggested that I should bug the uploader, but I'm completely unsure of how production differs from copyright, or any of the fine details regarding image use in WP. So I was wondering what you'd advise, or whether you could fix this problem more rapidly than I. Much thanks :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm hoping to get Melodifestivalen onto the Main Page in March, but there's an outstanding request for proofread on it. I think that most of the problems were ironed out during the candidacy and just after. Is that likely to be a sticking point on the TFA requests page? Should I be worried? Thanks, and all the best. Chwech 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Seven days and six hours is the quickest I have ever seen a FAC closed. What gives? I was making progress.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mark, there's a conversation going on at Talk:Main Page right now, it started out as a job application by an [[Special:Contributions/211.49.236.44 |anonymous IP]] for the position of Today's Featured Article Director. That evolved into a discussion concerning the validity of the role itself, with a few, including myself, advocating the current system, and others, including the anonymous IP, advocating a possible unspecified change. The anonymous IP has just stated the lack of a comment from yourself. Can you do me a favour and way in? Pay attention to my response from the anonymous IP's comment (quoted below) when you do so as well please.
- Conspicuous silence from the boy himself on this matter. Does he fear for his position of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 ( talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, its quite the opposite I guarantee it. If he feared for what you refer to as a position of power, he'd be here arguing his case. Raul has many responsibility's here at Wikipedia, and he doesn't want to get in the way of the community deciding if its working or not. I could ask him here to comment if you'd like, but he frequents this page regularly and I guarantee he's aware of this conversation. ☯ Ferdia O'Brien (T)/ (C) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks in advance Mark. ☯ Ferdia O'Brien (T)/ (C) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have already replied there. Raul654 ( talk) 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Raul - How do I request that an FA not be placed on the main page for a specified time period? For example, I'd like to have oxygen be the TFA for August 1st but the request page is only for items that are a month out and that type of article is likely to be randomly selected for TFA before that. I ask because you don't seem to look at the long range request page (why you don't bewilders me since it seems like a great resource vs having to research and decide all on your own). -- mav ( talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Since yet again the limit of five has been hit on the normal request page, and since my previous request received no response here, I'm politely requesting once more that Bobby Robson be considered for main page inclusion on February 18, his 75th birthday. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please consider Wikipedia:Featured article review/Action potential. This is a highly technical article, drawn out of textbooks, which, as far as I can judge, it appears to represent accurately. It was originally brought to FA for only having five footnotes; it is now being opposed for using hyphens instead of emdashes.
I have no part in the article, except emending the footnotes in response to the original complaint, which also quibbled that they were in different formats.
Is this really what FA is intended to be? Shouldn't we be considering content and readability?
Counting footnotes, and treating WP:MOS as gospel are easy, and lazy, things to do. Evaluating prose, especially in a field not one's own, is more difficult; and this is not my field either. Evaluting content is very difficult. Precisely for this reason, we should not permit the trivial forms of evaluation to drive out the substantive, as bad money drives out good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you have participated in Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Uuger, only one account so far. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A few more this evening User:Pydan and User:Hriow. We've fully-protected the page until you can sweep out the sleeper accounts and IP block. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A user that has been caught in an autoblock is requesting an unblock. Since you handled the original block, perhaps you could review and see if an unblock is appropriate or not. See User talk:66.215.8.39. Thanks. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure has been quiet here :-) I know you've been awfully busy with the job change, so please let me know when you have time to review a new FAC award idea that's been bouncing around; I don't want it to move forward without checking with you. Nothing urgent. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to recuse at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company and let you handle it; it has Support, but I'm just not comfortable passing it, although you may be. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when does Mike Farrell get to write in an OTRS ticket and say he hates a high quality photo of him that is not ultra-touched up, and it gets taken down and replaced with an ultra-touched up 9KB Mike Farrell shot? If he wants to release a high-quality, Michelle Merkin-esque photo of himself for GFDL, great. But since when do notables get to write in and simply ask that work we invest in obtaining GFDL high-quality images can be taken down simply because they don't like the way they looked that day, or whatever? Is celebrity vanity really going to be what dictates our media? David Shankbone 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
IP is asking to be unblocked, and I'm afraid I don't quite understand the original block reason. - Revolving Bugbear 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This user is asking for an unblock and a review of the sock allegations against him. He has asked for you by name if that means anything. It seems strange to be asking for an unblock after a year out. Woody ( talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I can see no evidence linking VacuousPoet to Kdbuffalo based on the one IP currently in the system, but that's not saying much. Raul654 ( talk) 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Mehola Junction bombing. -- 212.199.49.9 ( talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't fishing, but I won't say no!!!. I think the one with the most global appeal would be Barn Swallow. Thank you for the offer, it's probably the only Valentine Day present I'll get. Jimfbleak ( talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. A little back, after a Talk page discussion, I placed this graph on Global Warming with "Relative weight of warming/cooling radiative forcing components as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" as the description, and I had given some thought to have the description clear and brief for non-experts. But that was later changed by UBeR (while I was blocked) to "The radiative forcing in 2005 relative to 1750 as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," but I think this description is not as informative, if not being outright cryptic, for a typical user of Wikipedia articles for this type of subject. I had created a new Talk page section proposing changing the wording back to its original, and asked for comments. Only UBeR responded a couple of days later with just I like my wording, actually. I asked him to explain that but he didn't and after a couple of more days, I finally changed the wording back to the original. He then almost immediately reverted me. I reverted back and explained on his talk page how he had ample opportunity to comment before hand but didn't. But he only reverted again, and appears not to want to get into a serious discussion. I have to avoid even a hint of getting into a revert war (which he knows all about), so I'm just requesting some other GW regulars to stop by and offer an opinion on the wording if they have one. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc ( talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You got it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jourdy288 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: this - if there's a desire, I might be able to push through a Japanese translation for that page (and get someone who speaks it to handle the tickets). Raul654 ( talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul,
I just noticed that Battle of the Gebora is scheduled for TFA on 19 Feb (thanks to Epbr123 for nominating it!). Just a small comment on the main-page blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 19, 2008 – I'm not sure if that's what's going to actually appear – there's a word missing:
"... sent a large Spanish army to raise the siege of important fortress town of Badajoz."
Needs a "the" between "siege of" and "important"
Ta. Carré ( talk) 13:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Raul. Strikes me that this process isn't working well as far as it goes. The limit of five requests is always reached so it's impossible to complete a request the way you'd like it. Back in January I asked for Bobby Robson to be considered on February 18 as it's his 75th birthday, once again I asked earlier this month (still on this page) and yet I got no response. Today I discovered you'd selected a 1998 tropical cyclone which struck in September of that year. How disappointing. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul. I was wondering whether you were willing to put the December to Dismember (2006) article as the TFA on March 30th. My reasoning for it possibly being on this date is being the biggest wrestling event on the year, WrestleMania XXIV takes place on that date, and I feel it would be very appropriate for December to Dismember (2006) to be on the front page on that date. If you accept the request, I believe you would not able to put the infobox image on the front page due to Wikipedia's image policy, therefore could you put this image which is also in the article on instead? Regards. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Elmer Robinson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Foundation cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pleasure island.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou very much. Free music is very important to me so I enjoy helping to add it to Wikipedia. Graham 87 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made changes to yum kippur war page. Last time you reverted those changes, although they have a cited source. What is the reason? User:midwestEditor —Preceding comment was added at 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You were the blocking admin. Thought you might like a heads up on this unblock request: User talk:12.75.22.52. Later. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Two left for you:
Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul, a FAC tutorial is going to run in a few weeks; I raised some questions on the talk page, at User talk:Yannismarou/Signpost tutorial - Getting an article to featured article status. Can you look when you have a chance? Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What a nice photo! I thought it exceptional! B 110 communicate (that means talk) 05:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :) Raul654 ( talk) 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I don't know the ChrisO story; can you add a paragraph? User:Karanacs/DispatchHappyMe SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we please unblock this? It is creating an excessive amount of unblock requests. John Reaves 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the abusive edit on my talk page by "About Might". Also, thanks for the revert on the "Project Steve" page. While Glenn Branch does edit the page, the COI issue was discussed some time ago and settled. For myself, I will note so far as I recall (and the edit history supports this), I've never edited the "Project Steve" article, contrary to the claim by "About Might". -- Wesley R. Elsberry ( talk) 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
See User talk:The Elders. It seems he has been caught up in the block of 68.109.234.155 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which was blocked as it was used by Raspor. Can the block be set to anon-only? Your input would be appreciated, thanks. Woody ( talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I think my nick name is very very long! I want to change it as Angelo only! Please change it for me! Thank you so much!
Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There you have it. It will be renamed soon enough. -- Cat chi? 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hiya... I dunno if things are currently chaotic enough for you, so I thought I'd add to it. :P Heh, anyway, feel free to troutslap me, but I noticed in preparing for tomorrow's vandalism that there wasn't an entry for the next few days on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/February_2008, though there usually is. Anyway, cheers =) -- slakr\ talk / 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I set up a basic shell (and archives) for coordinating the weekly dispatch at Wikipedia:Featured article dispatch workshop. The 25th is approaching! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The photo that you added to Melissa Baker is copyrighted by the author ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/fashionwirepress/2250299010/ ). I am actually communicating with him about releasing some photos for WP though. I was trying to get two other photos from the same shooting that are a little better for the encyclopedia though (www.flickr.com/photos/fashionwirepress/2259389619/ and www.flickr.com/photos/fashionwirepress/2260185746/).-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not throw out his arbcom restrictions? No wonder he does whatever he wants. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thundercats1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is, ScienceApologist has already had shorter blocks. He's already been through Arbcom. By removing the reality of the situation from him - by endorsing that longer blocks will be retracted into trivial ones upon emailing - you are preventing him from recognizing his position and learning. What do you want -- drive him into a community ban instead?
Two arbcom clerks both agreed that 1/ a comment that "anyone believing in this is a moron or an absolute whacko" meets WP:NPA ("disparaging") and that 2/ those "believing" (and targetted) are not believers in the abstract, but editor-believers. The comment continued, "the perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern". I disagree. Gratuitous incivility to even those completely wrong, is our concern, if it is posted on the wiki.
I notice and acknowledge the circumstances that have been described by all sides at WP:AE. The problem is, SA has had a lot of rope. Lots of it. Other admins are trying to help him recognize "you just don't do that" without him hitting a ban (I tried myself in January before matters got busy here), which requires setting clear (and sometimes unpleasant) boundaries. As Rlevse commented, your untoward reduction basically makes that unnecessarily more difficult. WP:AE is a final stop where the only concern is breach of arbcom decisions. There more than anywhere, WP:BLOCK comes into play -- if there is disagreement, discuss it with the blocking admin.
I feel this was ill judged in an already difficult situation, and would ask that you take this well, and please consult more beforehand with the blocking admin themself, where circumstances may exist, before reduction in future.
Please bear in mind the real possibility that your actions may at times not always benefit the project as you'd wish, if they don't follow current communal norms and expectations, or respect others' approaches a little more.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I support the block and don't support the unblock, for all the reasons stated above. In short, the unblock was a bad call. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the unblock took a lot of courage on Raul654's part. SA's violation was very trivial. Perhaps a more creative remedy is required in this particular users case. Perhaps he should be asked to avoid commenting on talk pages altogether and therefor communicate via wikimail accept to remind people to activate their emails. He is obviously very Knowledgeable about science and is thereby an asset to wikipedia. There is no rule that requires talk page participation is there ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight ( talk • contribs) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, now this WNDL42 ( talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Range used by SciBaby Your IP address is 66.215.xxx.xxx You recently blocked this I.P. Range. I'm going to assume SciBaby is a "bad user" and has messed up some articles. Just know that I'm in it, and had to make an account to get around it. Thanks! Xplosneer ( talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
See the WikiProject Kansas template at Talk:Fred Phelps... - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ echo 08:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Catechism.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 13:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Mark! I'd just like to note that January 19, 2009 will be the 200th anniversary of Poe's birth, so I highly recommend saving the article to be featured on that date. — David Levy 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sandy indicated I might want to ping you about the Oliver Typewriter Company FAC. I understand you keep busy (to make a gross understatement), but have you had an opportunity to look into its closure? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:FCDW/February 25, 2008, by Marskell. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I know you're busy, so VirtualSteve may get to this before you, but where there's three, there may be more, not sure how your iterative tool works?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm most pleased to have you as our first contributor. [19]-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I noticed that on your user page it still indicates you're an arbitrator. Have you considered modifying that to "ex" or "former" or removing it? Just a thought. Take care. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you do a sweep? User:Pyiid, User:Tteil, User:Pleuu, User:Wennj and User:Dcooh. I've fully-protected the evolution page for now. Thanks. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe they are one and the same. Raul654 ( talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
JSYK, March 5th is world maths day....but all the maths articles have been on the main page (d'oh!). Anyway, you may wanna have a think if any other article is sorta math-y .... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think our old friend Obedium has decided to drop in for a visit. If you've got time, please have a look at User:Breaking the Silence. Thanks Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please consider Wikipedia:Featured article review/Action potential. This is a highly technical article, drawn out of textbooks, which, as far as I can judge, it appears to represent accurately. It was originally brought to FA for only having five footnotes; it is now being opposed for using hyphens instead of emdashes.
I have no part in the article, except emending the footnotes in response to the original complaint, which also quibbled that they were in different formats.
Is this really what FA is intended to be? Shouldn't we be considering content and readability?
Counting footnotes, and treating WP:MOS as gospel are easy, and lazy, things to do. Evaluating prose, especially in a field not one's own, is more difficult; and this is not my field either. Evaluting content is very difficult. Precisely for this reason, we should not permit the trivial forms of evaluation to drive out the substantive, as bad money drives out good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could weigh in on a discussion on the FAC talk page. It is an extension of a previous discussion that you started in December 07. Any comments or ideas would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC))
I find the repeated removals of the images on the Muhammad article disruptive (and futile) as well, but I don't think your block of the above user was fair. After he removed the images one, you warned Ridwan to not remove the images at 20:24 (UTC). Ridwan, sometime during that same minute, removed an image again; it's impossible to tell whether he read the warning first. Then you blocked him, at 20:25 (UTC) for a week. Can't we be a little bit more reasonable by letting the current warning stand and blocking him if he continues (because at this point he certainly should have gotten the warning). -- tariqabjotu 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You may want to review the unblock request at User talk:99.203.220.71, falling under your year-long /16 rangeblock of "Range used by Scibaby". Bovlb ( talk) 16:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
More genesis vandal socks - User:Ynist, User:Tocir, User:Loelt, User:Nraeg and User:Xeatc. Thanks Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Raul, there is now a color version of the Joseph Priestley portrait (pictured here) that would be suitable for the Main Page on March 1st. I checked with Awadewit and it is fine with her (see here), although it is too small for the article itself. I can make the change as an admin, but thought it best to check with you first. I also note the b&w version is protected on Commons, so I thought it best to ask. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Raul. I can see on Image:Motorcade.jpg that you uploaded a genuine free pic and had to refert Wayfarers43 who had replaced it with a non free pic. He did the same on Commons: see here. Bradipus ( talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Red Barnstar | |
One of the editors we could never replace, I hope a year and half's worth of stars can be made up in this one. David Shankbone 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC) |
A page with my IP kept coming up saying I couldn't edit, although I can't seem to access it now so hopefully I can. I'm not very happy, I don't particularly like my IP being displayed for one which is why I have an account. :/ I also don't know what I'm supposed to have done wrong but I assume it's an error. I'm going to try editing now. Sarcastic Sid ( talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. A /16? Think you might reconsider that into a softblock? That one seems to be getting some nasty collateral damage. — Coren (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert the change that I made? I think that the reference to Crystians suits the article better than the reference to "tradittionally"? [20]-- 169.232.119.242 ( talk) 06:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the unblock request at User talk:99.200.108.1. Bovlb ( talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Fat Man's talk page is getting Shankbone IP edits. [21] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, see note re: 2 free-use images that could be used at that WP:TFA blurb. Cirt ( talk) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
that's the label I've given to our experimental skypecast scheduled for March 4th 1am UTC (god knows what time that is for you - sorry!) - check out the page, because I've put a few details there (and been cheeky enough to note you down as a participant). I hope it works out for you to join - and I've got my fingers crossed for the technology too....
I'll be on IRC beforehand anyways to set it up etc. - and I look forward to it!
cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 09:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for comment on the expelled page. I wasn't referring to the Constitution, I know that the Constitution exists to protect religon from the state, not the other way around. I was reffering to several rulings declaring creationism illegal to teach in the science classroom. Thank you for your support of the actual, undistorted interpretation of the Constitution. Saksjn ( talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If you go to the archive for section "does this have relevance to the fim?", which got of topic, you'll see why I tried to avoid the Constitution. Thanks. Could you possibly consider some kind of warning or discipline for the attacks that Angry Christian sent my way towards the end of the conversation, he's been getting quite abusive. Saksjn ( talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I know you've been swamped and it's been one fire after another lately, but OTC has been hanging around the bottom of the list with five Supports, all objections addressed since Feb. 13. The nominator has been patient; I'm wondering if there is a problem I'm not aware of? Everything else is on track, although I left Uncylopedia for you. Also, unless I hear differently from you, I'll go ahead and submit WP:FCDW/March 3, 2008 over to the Signpost, and then ping some WikiProjects to try to stir up interest. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this while I was there. [22] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
You're also invited to subscribe to the public
Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on
the invite list.
BrownBot (
talk) 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like for Alice in Chains to be TFA on March 21, that is the anniversary of the EP Sap. Can I somehow leave that date open? It is newly featured so it meets all criteria. I know only five pages are allowed at a time, so how do I make sure I can keep that day open? — Burningclean [ Speak the truth!] 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, the short answer is no, there is no way to guarantee you get that spot. If there was a simple way of doing that, everybody would do it, and the requests queue would be swamped and all the dates for the forseeable future would be filled. The requests page is currently set up to allow requests on a first-come-first-serve basis
Raul654 (
talk) 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being part of the inaugural NotTheWikipediaWeekly - it's all online now and I know some folk are giving it a listen.. I'm looking forward to further feedback, and thank you again for your involvement! Privatemusings ( talk) 06:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Raul. Could I ask you to comment on this section? The original thread on your proposal kind of died and it would be good to restart discussions again and see if the community favours it or not. It looked like there were a significant number of people who were not happy with the current system and would have supported a test run of your proposal. It might be good if you could come up with a definition of "Very notable". -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 07:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article of mine recently passed at FAC. I was thinking it would be a neat trick to make it the TFA for St. Patrick's Day (Mar 17) what with the color and all. Wouldn't want the main page to get pinched! Anyway, let me know... Wrad ( talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a list of 10 rules taped to a bookcase in my office. One is "don't waste your time arguing with an idiot." Apply liberally to affected areas. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I started a discussion touching on your role as "Featured Article Director" here so I thought I would in fairness let you know. Call in your minions. NTK ( talk) 06:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As much fun as it might be to rehash the same conversations I had four years ago with that idiot Drbalaji md (see this and this) I have better things to do with my time. I'll stand by my previous comments on the matter. Raul654 ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I don't know how many Barnstars you've received in the past, but I'm sure it's not enough for the contributions you've made to this website and the function it tries to serve. Here's to hoping you remain in your position for as long as you can stomach the stress, constant criticism, and sometimes silly personal attacks that come your way. Please keep up the good work, I know I certainly couldn't do better. Guyinblack25 talk 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hi Raul. This edit may be relevant to your interests. -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Having briefly discussed this request with Deskana and as we did not think this is a case where a lone bureaucrat should determine the outcome of the discussion, I have created a subpage to allow for bureaucrats to discuss the matter. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could review the RfB and express an opinion as to what outcome you believe is appropriate. WjB scribe 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Mark - I think I understand the context, but even so blinking text is a really, really bad idea. Can I buy you a virtual beer? -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I put an entry on the discussion page of global warming today talking about warming on other planets. I even posted several articles that supported my claims. You replied:
It's getting to the point where not a single day goes by on this talk page that someone who doesn't understand basic science is quoting articles at us - which half the time don't support the claims - purporting to disprove global warming. Perhaps we need to tweak the rules for this page accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I please ask that you not be so disrespectful? All I did was offer a differing opinion. I am so sick of Global Warming Nazis saying that anyone who disagrees with GW is just some dumbass who doesn't understand science. I understand science, I've seen the hockey-stick graphs, I know what the greenhouse effect and CO2 is, and I'm not convinced, I'm sorry. I thought some information about warming happening on other planets would be relevant to the topic, and I suggested an update to the article. It was not necessary for you to reply the way you did. My main problem with Wikipedia is people like you, people who don't respect the opinions of anyone who is different than you. I didn't even suggest updating the article to fit my opinion, I offered some scientific articles to be appended to the article I thought were relevant to the topic. There was no reason for you to insult me and lump me into the sum of those who don't understand the basic science. I understand that Global Warming activists are geniuses who have all the answers, but can you please have a little bit of respect next time? 24.125.82.140 ( talk) 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)