User talk:Raul654

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


Contents

GimmeBot

Since Marskell is the one most affected (botifying a FARC into articlehistory is very time consuming), I've posted at User talk:Marskell#GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Next chapter at User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Holloway blurb

Raul: Someone edited the Holloway blurb. Don't mind them adding a picture, but I'm concerned that they altered the first sentence which we carefully wrote to avoid the question of whether she's alive or dead. Would you consider changing it back to the version you wrote? Obviously there are only minutes left before it goes off main page, but it will be shown that way in the queue forever.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd also be great if you could close Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway when you get a chance. Truly ridiculous and against the guidelines that state reviews shouldn't be started within three days of the article being on the Main Page. Thanks, Raul. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, that FAR was removed from the listing and from the talkpage almost immediately, but I'm hesitant to archive it while y'all are still going at it there. Maralia (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Physchim62 (talk · contribs) reverted the removal of the listing[1] and the template.[2] Don't hesitate on my account, as I'm about to sign off for the night anyway. - auburnpilot talk 02:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Our old friend?

Please take a look at YAG490 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
You could maybe add User:Strayson. Seems similar at least. N p holmes (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to ask the same. Seems like the exact same pattern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Strayson and Itriel were both Scibaby socks. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Vextration as well? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one who exhibits the usual patterns: Unilli --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revision trial in FAs

I've suggested a trial run of flagged revisions with featured articles here if you'd like to comment on the idea. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I have asked WP:AE to overturn my topic ban [3].--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

Please see here for a discussion of the unprotection of an article that you had fully protected. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul, unless you have any great objections I am going to unprotect the article. I am not exactly sure what the original reason for the protection was, and as such I do not want to unprotect until I know. Tiptoety talk 03:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I protected it because of Reenem's editing - he kept changing the casualty figures in the battlebox to say something other than what the cited source says. Raul654 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm, in that case I have Unprotected the article. Tiptoety talk 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Request of advice

Can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_40_Alternate_(Keyser%27s_Ridge_%E2%80%93_Cumberland,_Maryland) - its getting to be a bit of a heated debate - if you could look over the situation, and give some advice, it would help. (I'm posting because people are complaining Off-Wiki).Mitch32(UP) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons vs. Doctor Who

Hi, Raul. I see from Awadewit's talk page that you're thinking of running Treehouse of Horror (series) on Hallowe'en. Of course, you have the right to choose what you like, but when "Treehouse" was proposed earlier in the month, there were several objections, mostly based on the potential conflict with Doctor Who missing episodes, which has been proposed for November 23 (the 45th anniversary of Doctor Who). According to the points system at TFAR, if "Treehouse" goes up on Hallowe'en, then "Doctor Who missing episodes" goes from 4 points to 1 point, making it likely to be removed.

Of course, "Treehouse" would be a fun entry, and I readily admit that setting one fandom against another is a poor basis for an argument; but The Simpsons has had three articles on TFA in the past year and a half. And I do think that the 45th anniversary of a culturally iconic programme like Doctor Who is worth noting if we can. I know that the presence of two TV-related TFAs within a month betrays our systemic bias towards popular culture, but if you don't want to go back on your word to Scorpion, is 23 days distant enough to bend the rule? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. I see that you've scheduled "Treehouse". I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't reply to my earlier comment, but of course you're the boss when it comes to TFA and you don't have to justify your decisions. Could I ask what your feelings now are towards the Doctor Who article on Nov. 23? Can I request it informally even if it gets dropped from the list at TFAR? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I was actually going to respond to a whole lot of talk page comments later today after I schedule all the FAs through (but not including) the election. Short answer - no, I don't object to putting Dr. Who on later in November. Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul. Sorry if I got a bit testy earlier. (Between the election and David Tennant announcing that he's leaving Doctor Who, I'm rather over-stimulated at the moment.)  :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like I won't get to it until tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I see that you've scheduled November 23. Did you decide that the Simpsons episode was too similar, or did you forget about Doctor Who missing episodes? I was planning to put it back on the TFAR list when things opened up a bit, but you scheduled further ahead than I thought you would. Does David I of Scotland have a date relevance to Nov. 23 that I missed? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I forgot about this request when I was doing my scheduling. I've fixed it now.
You're right, that I went out of my way to schedule more than usual. I'm going to attending Supercomputing 2008, so I'll be missing all next week (I leave early on Saturday and come back late Friday) Raul654 (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul! You'll make lots of Doctor Who geeks happy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding a free image, which had been previously discussed at TFAR. Also, "instalment" is the preferred UK spelling. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, PretzelsTalk! 08:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Look what Gimme's done now

You probably already have something like this, but I'm impressed; see User talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page .E2.80.8E. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Different Main page proposal

Raul, we have been discussing doing something different for Nov. 4 by putting both Obama and McCain on the main page as the FAs of the day. You can find the discussion here (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#November 4 and here Wikipedia_talk:Today's featured article/requests#Alternative suggestion - both Obama and McCain as FA on Nov. 4. Since this is something entirely different. I was hoping you could weigh in about how this should be proposed and how you would like to see voting of support/opposition to this idea since you will have to make the final determination. Remember (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul already indicated above [4] that he is watching the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive? Rationale?

I have no experience opining on proposals to put particular featured articles on the main page except for the thread that ended with this edit. Until I was directed there from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics I had no idea who makes these decisions. I had thought these threads might get archived like AfD discussions: a notice at the top says "The decision was...." etc. and people are told not to edit it further. As it is, the only way people who participate in these discussions or who edit the page have of knowing what decision was made is to search the edit history for links like the one above and to draw inferences from that and the queue. It seems to me that the lack of any proper notice of decisions is a disincentive to participation in the discussions. Also, one has no way of knowing what to say in possible future discussion: whether or when might it be appropriate to propose an article again, and how to address any concerns that might have caused the article not to be chosen. For example, it was suggested (strangely, in my view) that an alleged "similarity" to the article about Emmy Noether that appeared in September might be a reason not to put group theory on the main page in November. Whether that played a role is something about which we can only guess. If it's true, then it might make sense to propose the same article at some suitable later date, but if the actual reason is some fundamental objection you have that no one knows about, then such a proposal would be a wasted effort. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the article -- I was in a hurry scheduling it that night and overlooked the requests page. I've added it to my short list, so don't worry about picking a new date. Raul654 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyperlink Request

Err.. could you please provide the hyperlink on where you can upload audio and videos? Please answer on my talkpage. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Marshall Williams2 Raul654 (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

An invite for you

The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! Mitch32(UP) 12:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Todays Featured Article

Hi,

The current image of Delhi is foggy and unclear and does not show much. Can you please change the image of Delhi on the main page to one of the following:

. These are icons of Delhi and a symbol of the city. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When I feature a city, I like city pictures - pictures showing buildings, roads, people, etc. Individual buildings are not great. I've switched the image to Image:Barakhambaroad.jpg Raul654 (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby?

Hi there. I just declined an unblock request on User_talk:Gnowxilef and in checking it, found Gnowynnad (talk · contribs) and Gnowe (talk · contribs), two accounts that were created within two minutes of each other on 3 November 2008. Combined with the actions of Gnowydnaxilef (talk · contribs), I can hear quacks. :P Anyway, thought you'd be interested in it. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 09:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

hint hint?

Raul, hope all's well... My second class of nascent Wikipedians, North of the Río Grande, is now gearing up towards its final few weeks. It would be a marvellous encouragement if the students could see an article their predecessors had written up on the main page sometime soon. I know you don't like being bugged about main page requests, so I'll leave it at that. Oh, but have some chocolate.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

All right - give me a few days until the election craziness is over and I'll see what I can do for you. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Magnificent. Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyperlink info

How do I convert to "ogg"? Please remember to reply on my discussion. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ITN and candidates on TFA

Sandy started a thread here on potential overlap. I don't think it will be an issue. Follow the link for why.--chaser - t 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think he meant Aude, not you. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
'Ya never know, with my memory. (I thought you told Jbmurray you preferred Snickers to M&M's :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I only have M&Ms to hand! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul's going to need more than chocolate 24 hours from now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I sometimes mix up our most talented and valuable contributors.--chaser - t 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, how nice of you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I was reading the discussion about the Obama/Maccain double FA and I was gonna comment there, but unfortunatly as an IP I cant.. So I decided to ask here isntead. You mentioned there that if you do this then this will be a one time deal, but I have to wonder, what is it about this particular election that makes it so extraordinary so as to warrant this special treatment? There have been US elections since the 18th century, and god knows how many theres gona be in the future, not to mention the hundreds of elections held by other countries. There are hundreds of other events in human history that would be more deserving of a speacil TFA than this election.. Now, if double TFA were to become common occurence then this wouldnt be an issue, but if this is trully a one time event, then do we really want to use for an event that after a couple of years when all the hype has worn off will seem quite uninportant and mundane? Now, of course you can argue that this is the first time that we have two directly relevant FAs avaible, but as Wikipedia grows this will become common place and your position that this cant work as a precedent will be very hard to maintain. Once this goes up it will set a precedent, no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise... Anyway, just my two cents.. 189.104.124.43 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection of candidate bios

Raul, we have another issue. Discussion here leans to not protecting these articles until necessary on election day and switching to zero tolerance for vandalism and BLP vios wrt blocks. But you made them featured articles w/ the understanding that they'd be protected. If you want to protect them, I'd suggest dropping a note at ANI about it.--chaser - t 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment exactly... The compromise that I put forth was that the pages would be protected as soon as people started waking up- and presumably when the problem would start in earnest. However, I don't believe I will be the ones protecting them myself, simply because I am four hours behind eastern time and I will still be fast asleep when most of the country is, well, not. You should talk to Risker, I talked with him yesterday and he showed interest in being the one to protect, although he said he would prefer to do it at 12:00AM EST. Just my few cents. ~ L'Aquatique! talk/stats 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I just kicked up the protection level to full/cascading for Obama. I'll do the same with McCain. It will save us many, many headaches tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul, any reason you removed the fullpro template? ffm 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes - because we don't template the main page FA (or FAs, in this case), even on those unusual occasions when protection is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

TFA Nov 4

The Tightrope Award
For being bold. maclean 00:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I too thank thank you. I was at very suprised and joyed by the double TFA. Thanks for being bold and keep up the good work (you know,I actually expected a good amount of critizism, but so far so good)! 72.40.104.171 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What compromise on Barack Obama and John McCain?

I've seen that you put full protection on these two featured articles, but what compromise are you talking about? Why couldn't it just be semi-protected? Techman224Talk 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

From the protection log (23:47, 31 October 2008 L'Aquatique (Talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "John McCain" [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (compromise reached. This article will be temporarily reprotected on Nov 4) (hist) (Change)) which itself referenced the ANI discussion. Raul654 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I have a link to the discussions? Techman224Talk 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion here and here, among others. Raul654 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how you feel about barnstars, so...

You have my instant respect, for what it's worth :) IAR was made for this. This, and the reasoning and process behind it, is the Wikipedia I love, the Wikipedia I signed up for, etc. etc. Thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Fvasconcellos. Raul654 (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I thought you deserved a barnstar (whether you liked it or not) :). Remember (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
I award this Original Barnstar to Raul654 for his insightful discussion and eventual defense of the first double "Today's Featured Article" on Wikipedia's Mainspace on November 4, 2008. Thanks for all you help in making this happen. Remember (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Nov 11

Raul, I see you're closing in on Veteran's Day ... there is a thread at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#November 11, MilHist, but no one ever added a request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. If I'm really on the ball, I'll schedule through the 22nd so that it covers my trip to SC08 and back. Raul654 (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Group (mathematics) image possible copyvio

The image being used in the TFA for the 5th is currently under deletion discussion as a derivative work, and should not be used (at least until this is resolved). There are a number of other possible images to use, I've asked over there which for suggestions. Cheers! Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's frustrating. Both Giggy and Elcobbola review images at FAC, and didn't raise the issue on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hello Raul. What happen to John McCain, Barack Obama and their VPs bios? There was no agreement or consensus to reprotect on Nov 4. The re-protection was only to be implemented if there was overhwelming vandalism. Is there? If not, this and other related articles should be kept unprotected. See the compromise discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Compromise ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:PROTECTION#Vandalism. Semi-protection should be more than sufficient; any shenanigans by registered users can be dealt with the flamethrower. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Your above statement does not match what is written on that page -- I will return the pages to semi today, and re-full protect them on the morning of election day thru to announcements of results, after which I will semi-protect them again. Is this something we can agree on? -- this is exactly what happened. I protected them (the Obama and McCain articles) 12 minutes before midnight UTC for 25 hours. Raul654 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
See also this Raul654 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read carefully Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Compromise. There was no consensus to protect unless we had reasons to do so. My question is: were we experiencing a level of vandalism that warrants ful page protection? If not, please unprotect. There are enough eyeballs on these articles to fight vandalism from any dormant accounts of SPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I would want to avoid starting another discussion at WP:ANI, Raul, so please re-consider your actions that seem to be in contradiction with what was discussed and agreed at AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your question cannot be answered because with the exception of one week in June, the article has been semi or fully protected for the last 11 months - and for good reason - and you very well know it. Unprotecting it as you suggest, on the day of the election, with the article on the main page, is insanity. From my brief skim over the articles during the last few days, I did not see all that much vandalism -- however, that is not to say we cannot expect a substantial increase tomorrow, both from the election and the fact that they are on the main page. If you think that a consensus of other admins will support unprotecting, by all means, start an ANI thread on unprotecting it, but I don't think they will. Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, Raul. JosuaZ, Digital, me and others, including Acuatique that proposed the compromise agreed on protection only if warranted. Are you say that your action is compatible with the consensus developed at ANI? If not, please undo the protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
All right - I've put them back to semi, but if vandalism gets bad, any admin is free to put them back to full. Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you/ I'll be the first one to do so if I see that happening. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Starting now, Jossi? [5] I'm not sure the consensus at this discussion would have been so strongly in favor of this mainpage move if several editors hadn't been reassured that the articles would be fully protected and we wouldn't be embarrassed by inappropriate tags added, for example, to the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Yes, my understanding was the same as SandyG's, though I admit I didn't follow the discussion so closely after a while. OK, we'll see. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on this the canditates pages and main page today. It seems to work out very well. Since Johnny Rockfort has been blocked now you can probably put Obama back to semi-protection soon. There hasn't been very much vandalism there so far today. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman?

Hi Raul, you had said the following in all the discussion about the McCain/Obama TFA:

  • "As far as Harriet Tubmanl, I think the Nov 5 suggestion is excellent. If we don't run McCain/Obama on the 4th, I'll definitely use Tubman on the fifth."

Just wondering why you changed your mind and Tubman did not get scheduled? Russeasby (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change my mind. I said it quite explicitely there - "If we don't run McCain/Obama on the 4th". We did, in fact, run McCain/Obama today (the 4th), so I didn't schedule Tubman for tomorrow. Having Obama/McCain and Tubman on the main page back-to-back is something I'd like to avoid. Raul654 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Groups

Hi Raul, thanks muchly for displaying the group article on the main page. I don't know if this is still possible, but in case you just picked the first other image of the article :), I'd suggest to change the image you chose and replace it by this one. (I've also put the snowflake into the lead section of the article). IMO, it is both more aesthetically appealing than Image:Group D8 f24.svg (given the small size on the main page, on hardly can decipher what is meant), and also more meaningful (the current one is just one element of one group, the snowflake somehow encodes one group as a whole). Best, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Virtual incumbent

Hi Raul, I've done what I could to establish the usage of the term, and I'm pretty confident that its an established notion among political scientists, pollsters, and pundits. It's use in the 2008 election, however, seems to be a bit "neo". I've put what I found in the article and left some comments on the talk page. I'll leave it there until you either remove the neologism tag or nominate it for deletion.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing the tag. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Job

I like your decision to run both candidates' articles on Today's main page. Its truelly a Maverick move.Justice America (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Now I think I'll go watch the returns  :) Raul654 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Double TFA Dispatch

I'm gathering the pieces but don't know who might write it (I put in a query to Jbmurray): [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray says he can help. Wikipedia:FCDW/ElectionTFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

TFA scheduling

Hiya, quick question... how far in advance do you schedule? I'm working on getting this article to FA status, and would like to have it featured on the main page on 4 June 2009. How soon do I need to have it at FA status to get that date? [ roux ] x 00:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I like to schedule them about a week in advance. So you have months in which to work. Raul654 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
CHA was on the main page in 2005, by the way. Gimmetrow 01:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Gimme knows everything :-) Already been on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Multi-video start

Template:Multi-video start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the Twinklespam. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Porn movie on DYK?

There's discussion at T:DYKT#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_November_3 about whether or not to feature a porno movie on the main page in DYK. Please comment, especially on why Jenna Jameson hasn't appeared on the main page as the FA.

On a separate matter, kudos for featuring both U.S. Presidential candidates on the main page. To feature only one would have been biased. I'm sure the double feature got some Americans to vote. This election truly affected the world as evidenced by the world's reaction to the results. Royalbroil 14:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. Mario Vargas Llosa pictures

(copied over from my talk page:) You have mail. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying future TFA pairs

Hi Raul. Would you have time to consider what Quiddity says here? The quote from you is about the recent TFA-pair on the Main Page. Could you clarify whether it is the idea of related TFAs (i.e. themed like it was for the US presidential elections) that you don't intend to do again, or the idea of having two (or more) TfAs (but completely unrelated) that you don't intend to do again for the foreseeable future? I'm asking because I mentioned this at the 2008 Main Page redesign proposal (where Quiddity commented) where the idea of more than one TFA has been mentioned. I also mentioned that this seems to have become a bit of a perennial question. Can you remember where the earlier discussions were? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 6/01/2008
This box: view • talk • 

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

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.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)

Why is a 3-year-old, poorly written FA from 2005 up as FA again today? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hasn't been on the Main page before today. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
What? It got promoted 3 years ago and is just now on the main page?! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain this please? I'm totally confused. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles don't necessarily have to appear on the MP the year they're promoted. It's actually (at least by TFAR standards) considered good to have an older article as opposed to one recently promoted. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I nominated this for FAR now that it's been 3 days. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

CU request

Hi Raul, could you check out Unilli please. He's recently registered and edits the typical GW articles. I noticed that in Royal Dutch Shell he edited a particular passage, that Punctilius had edited before, who turned out to be a scibaby sock. However, its just a guess. Thanks Splette :) How's my driving? 18:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh! [7] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, you beat me by 2 minutes! I had not noticed your edit. Looking further into Unilli's edits the typical pattern is quite obvious... Splette :) How's my driving? 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup. If he's not a Scibaby sock he's doing ia very good job of impersonating one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he is a scibaby sock. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Splette :) How's my driving? 00:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Election Dispatch

St Andrews Day & David I

Just thought I'd note that November 30 is St. Andrew's Day. If the choice of FA for each day (25 & 30) is entirely random, then maybe November 30 would be better than November 25. I personally don't care though. :) Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul, David I of Scotland needs to be changed to Doctor Who missing episodes in the previous day at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 24, 2008 (you forgot to change it when you juggled). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Please give me a reminder as the date gets closer. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page featured articles

Hi, I recently found out that you're apparently the person who writes out the blurbs/introductory content for main page featured articles. I've been trying to find out an answer to a question I have regarding how the blurbs/introductory content is constructed on the main page; so, hopefully you can help with that.

The following question may seem rather trivial, but I wanted to inquire about it anyway. I'm wondering in what manner the intro of a main page featured article is constructed on the actual Wikipedia main page. I'm only asking because I noticed that the introductory content on the main page portion of a featured article doesn't always match the introductory content on the actual featured article itself. For example, in today's (November 12, 2008) main page featured article, Joe Sakic, the main Wikipedia page mentions that Sakic has Croatian origin; yet, in the actual article itself, there's no mention of it in the intro. Directly before the article was displayed on the main page (as in the day before the article got on the main page), there was no mention of his Croatian origin either. It may have been mentioned in the intro of the article a while back, which is why I'm wondering just how the introductory content on main page featured articles is constructed. From what point in the article's edit history is the introductory content taken?

Anyway, you can go ahead and respond on your own talk page here, as I'll have it "watched." -- Luke4545 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Every night at midnight UTC, the FA rolls over to the next day. Before then (anywhere between 1 hour to 2 weeks beforehand) I pick an article to go on the main page for that day, and select a picture. I then fill out a template for that month/year/day (for example, tomorrow's FA blurb is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 13, 2008) using a copy of the introductory paragraphs along with the picture I selected.
The blurb may not match the article exactly for any of several reasons:
  1. I might edit the blurb so that it is different from the article. This is most often to make it shorter - that is, I select the most important/relavant part of the text and use that to form the blurb.
  2. The article is changed between the time I write the blurb and the time it appears on the main page. If there's a lot of lead time when I schedule an article, others will take a look at it before it appears on the main page and copyedit it. They may not fold these changes into the FA blurb.

I think that answers your question. Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that does. Thanks for your help. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the next FA - are you really planning to use a fair use image on the front page? --dave pape (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No - I guess I just assumed as a nazi government publication it was in the PD and never checked to see otherwise. Raul654 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles

Scartol and I are planning a podcast on controversial articles (part of series on how to improve content on Wikipedia - the first was on copyediting). Since you have been on the ArbCom for a while, I thought you could provide a useful perspective. If you are interested in participating, please sign up here. Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Content on the mainpage

Hi there. I know your focus is more TFA and not DYK, but I thought you might have some thoughts of value to add to a current discussion regarding the inclusion of adult content on the mainpage at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pornography-related articles on DYK. We are currently having a debate over whether articles about pornographic films, etc. should be allowed onto the mainpage. There are those who argue they should be allowed due to wikipedia's no censorship policy and others like myself that argue that the mainpage should not use such material for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure how TFA has handled this issue if at all. Regardless, I think the topic is perhaps bigger than DYK and your thoughts would be appriciated. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. (Any follow-ups will have to wait until next week) Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Phalaenopsis Kaleidoscope (continued)

There is now a page on the botanical concept of a grex. Can you improve on it? - Jay L09 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Hi Raul. You might want to offer an opinion here on the status of FAR. Best, Marskell (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on Sunday

Just a reminder that the Wikivoices podcast on controversial articles hosted by Scartol and Awadewit is happening on Sunday at 6 pm EST. Please add ideas to our list of discussion topics here and come prepared to give a short summary of your work on controversial articles at the beginning of the podcast. Awadewit (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:FAC

Hey Raul, just wanted to let you know that a few editors have requested your opinion here. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 22 November 2008, at 04:07.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by PediaView.com. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with PediaView.com.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "User talk:Raul654".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.