User talk:Raul654 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 26 October 2007 (→See also sections: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:30, 26 October 2007 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→See also sections: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

For your tireless work in making Misplaced Pages better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Misplaced Pages: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

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup

Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area
Last: 8/12/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative histories, eh?

Pretty cool. What kinds do you like? 204.52.215.107 04:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest Alternatehistory.com/discussion. It's a great AH community. JKBrooks85 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of alternate history, per se, although I do have a Harry Turtledove book or two around. I have that comment on my userpage because it cracked me up when I read it :) Raul654 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Back for another go under another name, but...

...I may be having Windows Explorer issues. Since I started editing again, I can't seem to get the confirmation to come through on my e-mail. You were there for me from the get-go; I'm hoping you can help a brother again. Hoping you get this message sooner than later since you seem to be doing some "whack-a-vandal" work on the blocked user page. I hope to high heaven I don't have to log on to the old Lucky 6.9 account. That name gives me chills after all I've been through here. I don't even like associating myself with the name anymore, but here I must in order to get this thing working correctly. Anyway, take care. If you still happen to have my e-mail address on file, it's the same as before. It's also on my new profile assuming you can access it. Talk to ya soon, Mark. --PMDrive1061 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Just curious as to why you reversed my minor edit to the ID page. I thought it was more accurate given the statement cited to state that the leaders of the ID movement are members of the think-tank, and not the "major proponents". I'm not mad, just curious as to why it was changed. Alaffin 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for recommending I be unblocked. I greatly appreciate it. Best, Johntex\ 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit to ID

Hmmm, I simply don't like the weasel wording here per WP:AWW. It might be better to simply split the sentences, saying that the "Discovery Institute is the backbone of the movement" and that "Primary proponents believe the designer to be God" rather than trying to string all that together. There is not necessarily a one-to-one relation to which proponents are being discussed in the different sources. -- 67.98.206.2 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"All" is not a weasel word - it's heavily cited. Your propose to split the sentence into two sentences that do not actually say the same thing as the original sentence. This is not acceptable. Raul654 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, and WP:SYNTH is? There's no one source which conveys everything you are trying to have the sources say. BTW, you should review Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection. -- 67.98.206.2 20:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." - Barbara Forrest Doesn't get much more clear than that. Also note that this conversation should probably be conducted on Talk:Intelligent design Raul654 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know about the protection policy - I wrote it. ID is a controversial topic and is getting substantially more edits than almost any other daily FA, making it hard to sort out vandalisms, well-intentioned-but-deterimental edits, etc. Raul654 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(a) this is a primary, not secondary source, and even worse, it's a spontaneous declaration by one person during court testimony, who is best known as a critic on this topic and of that institute and thus all the more likely to paint with broad brush. And (b) the gloss you support doesn't use the word "leaders" but "prominent" and there's assuredly a difference.

BTW, excellent policy. Not the first time I've had to cite it this week by any means. -- 67.98.206.2 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Cheers for putting in the correct link for that poll. Sad mouse 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

David Shear

I'm trying to confirm info on David Shear. Despite all the info on his user page, I haven't found much info on him. I found a listing for the person I guess is his son at U of Texas Austin (Jason Shear) and one page listing David as working with the Stanton Research Group at http://research.cm.utexas.edu/jstanton/members.htm. Can you ask his sister to provide more info and a link to an obit?--Alabamaboy 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See my previous edit

I got an email from his daughter (or, I suppose if you want to be really skeptical - someone claiming to be): David Shear was my father, and he did indeed die on April 21 of this year. It's fine to post his death, though we prefer and know he would have prefered direct language instead of euphemism. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to prove the fact of his death. There was a short notice in the Austin newspaper, but I can't find it online. What do you suggest? I told her I'd take her word for it, restored the section on the deceased Wikipedians page, and told her to expand it if she wants to. Raul654 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This death report raises very serious questions. Please note Special:Contributions/David Shear which reflects recent edits by this user, including in areas of his interest and with edit summaries in a style he has previously used. The fact that the report of his death was posted to his userpage as the sole contribution of User:Buzzardcheater is also extremely questionable. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, now that's very interesting... I'll look into it later tonight. (I have guests over). Raul654 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, did you misread the contribs list? Looks like 8 October 2006, not 2007. Or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, I did. *embarrassed* Newyorkbrad 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all right - I made exactly the same mistake when reading a log file yesterday. Raul654 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to his son's page while this appears to be his wife. I'll e-mail them and ask for info on his death, assuming that's not a violation of privacy or anything. Or would someone else prefer to contact them?--Alabamaboy 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'd like to hear from them, but I would find it a bit awkward. Raul654 23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm David Shear's daughter, and as I mentioned to Raul654, I don't know how to prove the fact of his death (or my own identity for that matter), other than sending a copy of the death certificate. There was a short obituary in the Austin newspaper, but I can't find it in their archive online. I spoke to my brother this evening and told him that this conversation is happening. I don't think he'd object if an editor contacted him at his UT email address if that would help clear things up. We don't know why Buzzardcheater posted the notice in the first place, since we're sure he's not a family member or close friend - no one who knew David well would ever think that he'd want the term "passed away" used regarding him. Thanks. Kaachan 04:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm comfortable letting this be the official announcement. The info on David's user page ties in with verifiable information (such as his son and wife teaching at U of T Austin). I have no reason to doubt this information and believe we can put it on Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians. I'll work something up based on his bio info in the next few days.--Alabamaboy 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification that it's his son and *daughter-in-law* who work at UT, not his *wife*. Kaachan 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

James Milner FAC

Hi there -- I've a question regarding the said FAC. Specifically, this edit. The history of my contributions to that page is rather protracted, but suffice to say I've tried my best to keep tabs on the situation ever since I cast oppose and provided my reasons. In fact you'd see that I've had plenty to say on the FAC. The nominator has been overzealous in my opinion in making me change my mind about my oppose vote, and the latest is striking out my oppose vote. My question therefore, is: (1) is this allowed, whether ethically or as a policy breach; and (2) if yes, whether there was any merit in doing so. Thanks. Chensiyuan 01:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's OK for someone (e.g, the nominator/person fixing the objections) to note below the objection that he thinks it has been addressed, but striking out should only be left to the person making the objection. Raul654 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Bole2 has a bit of history of doing that - he's edited the times of existing messages he left on my talk page. Not good. The Rambling Man 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he does that, TRM, to "bump" the message and nudge people to respond. Unsubtle, but not as worrying as striking other peoples' opposes. --Dweller 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Challange

"I am often worried at the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them."

Good luck, Mercury 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

MFD

Why do you want to "speedily keep" this page while no substantial arguments have been presented? How does letting the discussion run a little longer harm the project? Melsaran (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because as others have said, it serves a demonstrable purpose in improving the encyclopedia. To which you responded - so what? Unless you can do better than "I think this should be deleted", it's staying put. Raul654 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I said that they don't need a bureaucratic system to improve the encyclopaedia. I provided substantial arguments in favour of deleting the page, and the only argument the "keep" voters had was "the WikiProject is successful, don't argue with them", which did not address my concerns in the nomination. Instead of closing the debate early, why don't you just let it run? How does that harm the encyclopaedia? Discussion is good. Melsaran (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's trolling. Your reasons were totally insubstantive, and amounted to nothing more than "I think this is bureaucratic and unnecessary". Others - like the ones who actually make use of that project - disagree. The onus is on you to show that they are wrong, not vice versa. Raul654 21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to show that they were wrong, but you didn't give me the opportunity to, as you felt it would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia to leave the debate open for more than an hour. Please assume good faith and stop accusing me of "trolling" when I merely try to engage in a discussion. Melsaran (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unproductive discussion. --Agüeybaná 21:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is assuming good faith here, as in my opinion, nominating for deletion a page in which are discussed improvements for the project is really disruptive - and that's for sure not good faith. So Melsaran, you're not in the position to acuse Raoul of not assuming good faith! --Eurocopter tigre 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob-B-Hood

Done, and thanks for your note, Raul. Crushingly busy with clients this time of year, so I suppose that nominators are pleased not to be pestered as much about 1a. Hope to make amends soon. Tony (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC

Hi Mark - I don't understand what happened in the closing of this FAC, and respectfully suggest that it was premature. We were in the process of addressing concerns that editors and reviewers raised, when we were beset a long day with three sockpuppets (all of one banned user) who made extensive comments that we were responding to (until they were identified, one at a time, as socks) and were getting back to deal with comments by legitimate FA reviewers like SandyGeorgia when we were beset by another editor, new to the encyclopedia, who is a self-identified political opponent to the subject of our article. Some of his comments were partisan and extremely POV, and it was pretty clear that some were incorrect obstacles being thrown in the path so that the article would not be promoted. Nonetheless, we were trying to address any legitimate issues that he raised, and waiting for the reviewers who had initially commented to see if their concerns were met, when the FAC was preemptorily closed. I never even had a chance to explicitly indicate my support of the nomination, although I assume that was obvious - other editors said they would re-consider their initial postings if and when we met concerns, and the primary editor of this article, Wasted Time R, had said yesterday that he'd be unavailable over the weekend, but would pick up afterward . I see at least 15-20 other FACs that have been active for a longer time than ours, and no timeframe given in the instructions. I also see no summary, no discussion, not even a reason given for the close to help us in future noms - unless I am looking in the wrong place. We were actively working with the reviewers and I'd like to respectfully request that it be re-opened and let us complete the process in a normal way. This feels like we were hijacked - if the end result is the same, so be it - but I think we should be given more time on this large, high-profile article's nomination. Thanks for any insights you can give me about this process. Tvoz |talk 06:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That nomination page is too convoluted - I can't make heads or tails out of it. Go ahead and start a new FAC nomination, and make sure to link to the old page (so people can see the old objections and decide if they are still relavant). Raul654 06:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raul!

... for your help and support with Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes. Amandajm 07:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Raul654 15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

My wife says thanks too... the baby would say thanks to Uncle Mark, but is not out of the womb yet :-) 07:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just remember: fooling around on the computer while your wife is in labor = bad idea :) Raul654 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2: Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem

Putting here since it was booted off. This is importnant!!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, then president of South Vietnam, marked the culmination of a successful coup d'état led by General Duong Van Minh in November 1963. On the morning of November 2, 1963, Diem and his adviser and younger brother Ngo Dinh Nhu were arrested after the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) had been successful in a bloody overnight siege on Gia Long Palace in Saigon. The coup was the end result of nine years of autocratic and nepotistic family rule in South Vietnam. Discontent with the Diem regime had been simmering below the surface, and exploded with mass Buddhist protests against long running religious discrimination after the government shooting of protesters who defied a ban on the flying of the Buddhist flag. However, when rebel forces entered the palace, the brothers were not present, as they had escaped the previous night to a loyalist shelter in Cholon. The brothers had kept in communication with the rebels through a direct link from the shelter to the palace, and misled them into believing that they were still in the palace. Soon after, the Ngo brothers agreed to surrender and were promised safe exile; after being arrested, they were instead executed in the back of an armoured personnel carrier by ARVN officers on the journey back to military headquarters at Tan Son Nhut Air Base. (more...)

Propose - Ngo Dinh Diem assassinated on this day, 34 years ago. We have never had a Vietnamese FA on the front page before, and this is an important topic, since the assassination is often considered the beggining of hte Americanization of the Vietnam War. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Although I love Borat, this article seems important in Vietnamese history, and it's the first Vietnamese FA to appear on the Main Page. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a good encyclopedic topic on the main page as opposed to something which insulted quite a lot of people, right? ~ Riana ⁂ 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Raul, throw me on the list of people who think this would be a timely choice for the main page. -- Samir 06:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Support - An event this significant in a nation's history is also a significant event in world history. Borat can wait. Till he becomes as 'significant' and 'relevant' to the entire world as this event. Sarvagnya 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. This is the first ever opportunity for a Vietnamese article to appear on main page. - KNM 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Since we have never had a Vietnamese article on the main page, then it seems to me that this article trumps Borat for the time being! Awadewit | talk 03:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal

A few people have suggested that I should notify you of my proposal for a List of the Day on the main page that would look something like this. I would summarize my proposal as follows: 1. FLs are nominated; 2. Participants indicate which three lists they would most like to see on the main page; 3. FLs are either chosen for the main page, renominated, or failed after counting responses; 4. Chosen FLs schedule themselves for the main page. I posted this at the talk pages for WP:FL, WP:FC,WP:FLC, main page and WP:VPR. There were no responses in the first 5 or 6 hours so I contacted all persons who nominated or closed a FL discussion in Oct or Sept (40 individuals). Within a few hours I had over a dozen respondents. A day later I contacted those who closed or nominated May-Aug FL discussion making it clear that initial respondents were focusing on the consensus based selective process in my proposal versus the non-selective first in line process used at WP:POTD and your dictatorial selective process used at WP:TFA. Respondents in the second batch were more in favor of the idea. This proposal is similar to the earlier one made for TFA with a few wrinkles (that wikiproject affiliations be made clear in the nomination section to ease the burden on those voters who are only interested in certain types of articles, weighted voting, and greater administrator responsibility) The results of this proposal are far different from the earlier overwhelming rejection. At last count it was 18-15 by strict vote count. However, a consensus analysis at one point was that 18 of the first 23 respondents favor lists on the main page with 6 of those 18 against the proposal. Opposition to the proposal is based on fear that it would degrade the quality of the main page, that the voting procedure may be divisive, misleading or counterproductive. Given the concern about appearance an alternate format has been demonstrated that could probably vie for half of the WP:POTD space. Some have suggested that instead of adding a new section on the main page WP:TFA could allot a day or two a week to a list. I think it is fairly safe to assume that TFA has more than enough supply of quality articles that it will not likely be mixing in lists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Italways sockpuppet

It seems User:Hugh shakespeare is a sock of Italways, basically by the quack test (same edits to the same articles), and he also created a nonsense list article List of Hahnian Organizations. I reported Hugh on ANI as a new user displaying disruptive behavior, but as it seems he's a sock and you blocked the original account, I figured I'd bring this to your attention as well. MSJapan 14:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas

Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 . So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see .

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

Figured you might be interested, but I've totally rewritten that article. Took me two years (no kidding). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/October 20, 2007

Would you consider making England national rugby union team the featured article for that day? It achieved FA status in late September. The reason for this proposal is that for all us sports fans they will be appearing in the final of the 2007 Rugby World Cup against South Africa on that very day in Saint-Denis to defend their status as the champions of 2003 Rugby World Cup. It may mean bumping Enzyme kinetics, (which is excellent) back to be Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/October 22, 2007 instead. IchiNiSan 10:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of 199.82.243.71

What did you block this user for? His edits to ) didn't seem in any way problematic. Regards, Melsaran (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, removing a link to an article (while at the same time watering down the language) is clearly problematic. Raul654 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And is that a reason to block immediately for a week without any warning at all? Melsaran (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The warning he got came in the form of his first vandalism being reverted. He went back and did it again. Raul654 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider unblocking this IP please Raul? It really was an inappropriate block for something that doesn't even look like vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(A)Yes, that is clearly vandalism. (B) I'd be willing to unblock, provided he said he would not vandalize the article again. Raul654 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Raul, we don't work like that. What we do is warn a user, for petty vandalism like this, they often get 4 chances. You reverting it is certainly not a warning, the IP needs something on their talk page stating what they did was wrong - quite frankly, I can't believe you've blocked an IP for a week for two edits, that I'm sure some wouldn't consider vandalism and without any warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you could unblock this IP ASAP, this smacks of blocking an IP simply because you don't agree with them - no warnings prior, not even a block notice. If you disagree, I'll have to take it to AN/I to get a consensus to unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As you've been back online and chosen not to comment, I've taken this to AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As you don't seem to want to comment futher, and comments so far at AN/I seem to be that the block was unjust - I've unblocked the IP. I would urge you to warn uses in the future prior to blocking them for questionable vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I probably would not have replied any further either, your approach to Raul on this issue was completely inappropriate. If someone is intentionally vandalizing Misplaced Pages after being warned they should be blocked immediately. Burntsauce 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's got to be a better way

to go about Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests. I admit readily that I don't know the background on how this got to be the format for nominating and deciding upon TFAs, so perhaps my ignorance of that history is the reason for these observations, but the current system just seems very inefficient and difficult to work with.

Why just five nominations at a time? It seems like that's just setting up a race for the next one to be removed so that editors peering at the page with their nomination can jump in before the next guy. Any reason for that?
Why is the date connection so important? When I first discovered this page, that requirement jumped out as very strange to me. I had never known before (and I read the TFA a lot) that there was an intended connection there. It doesn't appear to be made explicit in any way on the Main page that the TFA is linked to that day's date, so I would imagine that most readers (like me) have no idea about the date connection. So why bother with it?
Why do you personally hold such great sway in the front page process? This was another aspect of things that confuses me. Misplaced Pages being the consensus-based community that it is, I'm perplexed as to why a single person holds final authority over something like this.
Why is there a voting process in the first place? I would think that meeting WP:WIAFA is the only criterion we need. I've seen some recent objections like "I don't think that pop culture article should be on the Main page," which seems to me very prejudicial and invalid as an objection. Isn't the concept of Misplaced Pages that every article, assuming it meets the criteria for having an article, is equally important to human knowledge?
Further, I see that you mention that you have a small list of articles ineligible for the front page. That's fine, I'm sure there are good reasons for that, but wouldn't one conclude that that list would suffice, and that unless it was on the list, an FA would automatically eligible for the front page without the current nomination process? That is to say, if you already have control over a process marking certain FAs as unacceptable, why is another group making further judgments about article not in your "unacceptable" list? I would think that their not being on your list would make them automatically okay.

The idea that immediately jumps to mind as an alternative to the current process is simply a calendar (or something similar) in which users can nominate their FA for any specific date. This way, we can compare FAs nominated for the same date and decide via consensus which should go up. It would also permit more simultaneous nominations and eliminate the need for debating over every single one. Obviously, this sort of proposition would require a lot more development for actual implementation, but just as it exists in my mind.

Again, I realize there might have been a lot of decision-making behind these elements that I'm not aware of, so forgive me if these questions belie my ignorance of them. I also don't mean to be insulting in any way, in case anything I've said comes off as such. I'm just struck by how oddly this system operates. If nothing else, I think it could definitely use a Misplaced Pages:-prefix page clearly explaining the process, the reasoning, and the rationale. At present, it presents none of these in any level of depth. Dylan 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions out of order:

(3) I've been choosing them all myself since we've put featured articles on the main page. I took it upon myself to do the process since it started. That's why I have so much "sway".

(1) The requests page was originally just a plain list. (The requests page, by the way, is just that - a page of requests. I'm under no obligation to follow them) The problem was, people felt like they had to nominate every article that got promoted, so it gradually ballooned to upwards of 200 articles until - after repeated requests that someone fix it - I wiped it out. I recreated it as it now appears, with a limit on the number of requests to prevent me from having to deal with every day being requested for something which may (at best) only have a distant relation. (4) There's voting there (supporting and opposing) because people want to be able to voice an opinion on others' requests.

(2) When the requests page was restructured, a date-connection requirement as included as a way to cut down on requests that had only a distant relation to the date being requested, if at all. This has, as Marskell pointed out, had the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for articles that don't have any particular dates to get on the main page.

(5) The only FA that I would be hestitant to put on the main page is Jenna Jameson, the porn star. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others that I wouldn't be comfortable putting up at some point or another.

As for your calender idea before - it's been suggested before. There are some who support it, and more people who don't. I don't want to rehash the debate. You can look through the archives and find the previous discussions. Raul654 00:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others that I wouldn't be comfortable putting up at some point or another." Hows about "Manos" The Hands of Fate??--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No to Manos? People were recently discussing Cannibal Holocaust as a possible Halloween TFA. He he. Marskell 21:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok now this I haveta see:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, if only Spawny and I had started buffing up Vampire about three months earlier.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FA Main Page requests?

Hmmm, is it just me or has the way of nominating FAs for the main page changed? I recently go the article André Kertész featured and I went to request that it be featured on the main page, but found there was no longer the same format. It'd be great if you could answer a couple of questions just to clarify things.

1) How would I go about nominating Andre Kertesz for the main page? 2) I don't want it featured on any specific date, but there doesn't seem to be a section for the non-specific date nominations, only specific date nominations. If this is correct, how would I go about nominating it for a non-specific date? 3) If there is no such way, how would this particular article ever get featured on the main page bar some miracle that it is ever picked (Considering there's some articles I know that have never been on the main page and they've been featured for years...). Would I ask you personally or do you plan to set up a non-specific nominations area? 4) Why only 5 nominations at a time? And why only for specific dates? It's weird.

Anyway, I also wanted to comment on the !voting system at the new nominations page - personally I think it's pointless as there's no real reason to oppose an article being on the main page at a certain date unless you want your own one to be, and if there is a real reason, I'm sure you'd be able to pick it up because you've been doing this a long time. It just gives the kinda voting side to the nominations which it doesn't need and makes the page much longer with endless "support" votes. Anyway, It'd be great if you could answer on my talk so I don't accidentally forget to check here, but it's okay if you can't. I'm worried the article I mentioned won't ever be featured on the main page with this new format and I thought you'd like some feedback on it. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Any day now. ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 08:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ignoring me eh? ;) Seriosuly though, can you show me how I'm supposed to get an article on the main page now? Cheers, Spawn Man 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not ignoring you. I'm a procrastinator by nature, and the longer and more complicated the response I have to type, the less inclined I am to do it in a timely manner.

Your questions overlap somewhat with the one above, as well as the ones I've been answering on this page and the requests page steadily for a few weeks. So, to rehash them in short order: (1) When I redid the requests page a few weeks ago (to get rid of the giant monstrosity that was there before), there was added (by me or someone else, I cannot remember) a comment at the top that The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary), or the article is relevant to a major event or well-known holiday occurring on that date.. (2) As Marskell pointed out, this had the unintended consequence of off-putting articles that had few or no relavant dates. (3) I am not happy with this situation, but do not as yet have any recommendations. However, (4) a specific-date request is not necessary to get your article on the main page. Most of the ones that go up there are not there because someone requested it for that date. As far as having only 5 nominations at a time - it's arbitrary. If the limit is anything less than hundreds, the page is going to fill up to the limit in shorter order. Then people will once again complain it's too low. So 5 seemed a simple and manageable value. Raul654 04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it sort of seems unfortunate that there can be only 5 on the audition thing, because I had to put Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem right above... I hope you'll consider this quasi-out-of-process nom. It hasn't had any objections unlike Borat...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made some fairly singificant changes to the top of that page. It's still first-come-first-serve (which I'm still open to changing) but I've reworded it to make it more clear that date connections are not the only criteria. Follow up on the talk page Raul654 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So my Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem nom is still illegal? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just ask you here like last time - I hardly ever need an article to go on a specific date and it'd be up to your discretion... Thanks for replying anyway - there's a procrastinator in all of us. :) Spawn Man 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Heyo. I apologize if this has been mentioned before, I'm just throwing it out there as an idea. Perhaps we could start working up the blurbs outside of a cluttered central requests page, but in subpages instead. For example, "Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/Blurbs/7 World Trade Center". It would be easier for editors collaboratively to improve the blurbs before they hit the main page. The blurbs could be categorized, for example "TFA candidates since 2005", "TFA candidates with January anniversaries", "Media TFA candidates", etc. When you selected an article for the day, you could just move the blurb subpage to "Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/<chosen date>" and let a bot remove the categories and cascading protection take care of the rest.

Users would be able to advocate for their favorite featured article on the individual blurb talk pages instead of on a crowded requests page or on your personal talk page. Thoughts? ➪HiDrNick! 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but the subpages could get numerous... Spawn Man 06:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving picture

Hey Raul. Thanks for the break on TFA with Barnard's Star. (You might have noticed how annoying I've found the reasoning at the request page, however much it's simplified things.) I inserted this pic for the eighteenth and then was reverted based on this conversation. I reinserted because I think the .gif is quite small and should make no dialup issues. It's a much better 'real' pic. As I've said, some astronomical bodies are just going to be a splotch—at least a moving picture may make people pause. (This pic would be a compromise, but it's sort of cheating to use a CG image.)

This is, um, two hours away—sorry. I don't want to spend all of tomorrow arguing about an image, but I think this 'moving picture' should be OK. Marskell 21:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's a better image, we'll go with what you prefer. Raul654 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Drat. Apparently there's some concern it's not a free image, so we're left with the splotch. Marskell 07:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC Serious Concern

Update: I retract my concern. Now it is only minor. I still however believe that the suggestions provided (besides the TFA point) will increase standards for wikipedia articles. Please consider them. Leranedo 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Since you are the featured article director, I like to request to find out where I may go to put in a request to have at least three people be required to nominate an article for FAC. Furthermore, I think it's a very good idea for a FAC to first be featured on the Today's featured article. There are already 1,652 FAs. FA are only for the "very best" and we can't have crap content to show wiki users. FA should only be for the very best even if that means we have 100 great FAs. Other then that these FAC I went through are not ready for prime time. The editors obliviously do great work, but if it's honestly not ready, it definitely shouldn't be FA status. Just wait until it is ready. Thank you. Leranedo 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on recent inactionable opposes at FAC based on current article ratings and prior FACs, it is obvious this user is oblivious to this candidacy process. , , ♫ Cricket02 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, you are mistaken. Thank you for cherry-picking my responses. Furthermore, it's not feasible to ask me to point out every single areas that is not FA quality. The nominator should be aware of areas of improvements and what FA quality article are expected to be like: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_articles Leranedo 04:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to revise my responses to make you happy but after finding out you are "a member of WikiProject Musicians," I believe that your cherry-picking is biased and unreliable, and that you are only using the candidacy process to bring articles to pass FAC when they are not ready. Also considering that the articles you pointed out are musicians-related articles. Leranedo 04:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, have a FAC be featured as TFA first, eh? I will do you one better, Leranedo—I propose that Raul not pass any FAC unless it has first obtained FA-Class status. I can say without a doubt that we will never pass a non-deserving FAC again under that system. Pagrashtak 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is best to prevent articles that are not the very best since it is not only helpful to the wikipedia community and wikipedia as a whole, but more importantly, the students, educators, and every other users of wikipedia. Leranedo 04:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So I figured out my flawed assumption. Ha! Leranedo 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC Serious Concern Question

I need clarification. Initially I had the impression that if I voted yes to a FAC, it would go on the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_articles

Then based on what others said, I assumed that the FAC would just become FA - status, but not on the FA main page, so I lowered my standards for FAC articles. However, it appears now that I was not mistaken initially. Please clarify. Learnedo 03:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The order is:

Ordinary (non-featured) article -> Featured article candidates -> Featured article status -> Main page.

I choose the featured articles from the list of current featured articles. I have decided that (until I decide otherwise) we're not going to repeat any featured articles on the main page. Does that answer your question? Raul654 03:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So after a FAC gets Featured article status, is it automatically featured on the FA Main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_articles? And whenever featured articles are on the FA main page, how long does it stay there?

Oh, and thanks for creating the section to test (I didn't know I could do that); I'll place it in the talk in a moment to find everything that can improve and to get feedback. Learnedo 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Greeks

Would you mind reviewing Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom? The discussion is getting very long, and I doubt there is any chance of consensus to retain. Please note that I began by defending the article, but the more I read the sources, the worse I think it; my current estimate is that it will take six editor-months to fix, if it can be done at all, and that is probably an unreasonable amount of time for it to stay on FAR or FARC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I also used googlebooks to check the "McEvilley" soruce. Only two of the page cites were in the accessible bit, and they didn't verify the content. I checked up the "Tarn" book also and found that around 50% of the inline refs didnt check out properly with the info. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I've been unclear: This page is now a FAR; it may be time for it to move on to FARC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I would love to discuss what refs you exactly have issues with on the FAR, and correct mistakes if there are any. PHG 05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My problems with this article go much deeper than any twiddling with references can resolve: in brief, the text violates WP:V by presenting one conjectural restruction of the history (there are several inconsistent ones) as fact, in Misplaced Pages's voice. PHG has begun to acknowledge the disagreements in the notes; but this will not be acceptable until, at a minimum, the various stories are all in the text, with due weight given to them.

Also, several of the notes PHG has added have themselves needed correction, as here and here and here. Simply reviewing all the notes will take longer than FAR should be expected to tolerate. When these things are done, it can and should be renominated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do either move this to FARC or explain why not; or else allow us to be bold and do it ourselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It will be moved tomorrow; I try to stagger them. Marskell 14:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

POV taken to the exteme

Hi! On the recommendation of indefinitely banned user User:IchiNiSan you decided to make the article on the England_national_rugby_union_team today's featured article. I'm a big rubgy fan myself, but let me say that this is one of the most sincere misjudgements I've come across on Misplaced Pages. Picking one of two teams in a final on the very day that final is played is a sure way to indicate that Misplaced Pages endorses that side. Same thing with picking a politican or a party on the day of an election. Having a rugby-related article the day the world cup is decided is a great idea and there would have been many neutral articles available. Instead, you made a choice that, I if may say so respectfully, undermines both your own credibility and, worse, the credibility of Misplaced Pages. I hope this was just one unlucky incident. Cheers JdeJ 09:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree (and have previously articulated) that we shouldn't be running politician's article when the election is close (I say close because it's getting to the point in the US where the presidential election begins 2 years before the election is held). Sports articles, however, are a best of a different color. I think you are making a mountain out a of molehill with this one. Raul654 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Resysopping

Hi Raul. There is an ANI thread about the sysopping of the Jbeach56 account. Thought you should know about it. For the record, I support the resysopping, but would like to see confirmation that Jbeach56 is operated by the same person. I found the sysopping log where you say it is a reincarnation. That's good enough for me, but possibly others might want to know how you reached that conclusion. Carcharoth 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Braunwart and David Shear

I've created expanded entries for Robert Braunwart and David Shear on Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians. Robert had plenty of confirmation of his passing and I think that since you and I have both confirmed enough info on David, there should be no doubt about his passing either.--Alabamaboy 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

TFA cookie

Please accept this cookie for instituting the changes we've discussed regarding WP:TFA/R. I think this is a great page now—scaleable for you, and with a fair list of criteria for nominators and people commenting. Marskell 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal FAC

Hi Raul, I wanted to get your opinion on the Mumia Abu-Jamal FAC. This is the second time that a banned user has nominated the article, and he has created several sock puppets (all of which are now blocked) to taunt those of us who assumed that it was a valid FAC and offered comments. User:DrKiernan brought up on the FAC page the Misplaced Pages banning policy of enforcement by reverting edits. It might be best to close the FAC now to get rid of part of his motivation for creating all those sock puppets. Karanacs 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's back again, when it was just failed yesterday. Four FACs now since September 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the IP/user tree:

Raznatovic

82.230.26.43

NewbieBoss

80.67.25.159

PhiladelphiaBreeze

123.2.124.42

NewLabourNewLies

Opinionleader

I've blocked them all. If he shows back up, I'll continue to terminate. Raul654 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Godiego (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Goedigo is a suspected sock of User:TheNewHampshireVolunteer who was in turn an inconclusive sock of User:DavidYork71. Checkuser case. The condoleezza nomination added to the FAC page was originally the old nomination. I moved it to the archives but i doubt Godiego will deal with the issues brought up. It all seems a bit strange. Woodym555 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, it took me 20 minutes to clean up Condi; that's what's so irritating about driveby sock noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about nominating an article for "Today's Featured Article"

I'd like to nominate the Webley Revolver article as "Today's Featured Article" for November 8th, as it will be the 120th anniversary of the Webley's introduction into service. There are currently no featured articles scheduled for November 8th, but it would seem I have to wait until one of the articles currently under consideration for a different day is voted on before I can make a request on the Featured Article Request page. Some of the nominations have been there for almost 2 weeks now, so I'm wondering: How long do they typically remain there before being voted on, and is there a way I can request the Webley Revolver article appear on November 8th in spite of the "Five requests only on the page" limit? I posted this same question on the talk page and no-one has replied, which is why I've posted it here as well. --Commander Zulu 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles are removed from the TFA requests page (at the latest) when the date comes and passes. Raul654 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering that; I did wonder how it all worked. --Commander Zulu 10:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

intelligent design

If one looks at the article, one will see that "the 1987 case" is not identified until later in the article. Please either identify "the" 1987 US Supreme Court case, or return it to "a" (indefinite article as opposed to definite article, (e.g. "the 1987 case US Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguilard" vs. "the US Supreme Court case" without naming it until later, as it previously was in the ID article). Thanks, Raul/Mark. ... Kenosis 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's identified in that sentence: "Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state.

I suppose it might make more sense to convert the Edwards link into a less surprising one. (We're supposed to avoid surprise links) What do you think about: "Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguilard involving separation of church and state. Raul654 05:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark, please sleep on it and look at the flow of the info in the article. Edwards v. Agulard isn't specified until the beginning of the Overview section, because it's a bit too much specificity for the presumed typical reader of the lead. This it's properly referred to as "a" rather than "the" in the article lead, at least AFAICT. ... Kenosis 05:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it's late and I'm sleepy :)

I'm heading off for bed. I'll look at it with a fresh eye tomorrow Raul654 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for promoting Trapped in the Closet (South Park) to FA! A quick question, am I allowed to add {{featured article}} to the article page? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you are allowed to do so. Raul654 05:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and done. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

November 16, 2007 ?

I would like to request that Trapped in the Closet (South Park) be a Request for November 16, 2007. This would be 2 years to the day since the episode originally aired on Comedy Central. However, I have never done this process before, I don't know how to write the shorter summary bit that would appear on the Main Page. Any advice/help would be appreciated. Thanks again. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC).
- Well, I will try to check back at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests, but for now I think I'll take your talk page off my watchlist. Please do message my talk page if you have any advice on the above. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/December to Dismember (2006)/archive1

For some reason, this was closed FOUR DAYS after it first opened. I was in discussion with several users over the problems, only to have it closed without proper consensus. I should of been open for much longer than four days in my opinion. Can you explain why it has been closed so SOON?

QUOTE from FAC page:

If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination.

I do not consider four days a sufficent amount of time. I therefore hope that you can remove the things from the top and bottom of the D2D nomination page, and let the nomination continue for at least another week. Thanks, Davnel03 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know a reason. I don't like being ignored. Davnel03 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you... I'm at work and I don't have time to respond to this right now. See my previous comment about answering questions in this page in a timely manner. Raul654 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The usual time on the FAC for a nomination (before I archive or promote it) is 5 days, or 4 if the FAC is particularly bloated. In yesterday's case, yes, the FAC was bloated, because Gimmetrow (whose bot I depend on to do some of the promotions) had been away for a week. So, I elected to promote/archive some nominations that had been there 4 days.

In your case, the nomination had been open for four days, had a long list of problems with the article, and had no supports. I don't leave nominations on there just for the sake of leaving them there. If it doesn't have a fair shot of being promoted, I'm going to archive it - which is what I did.

Now, I'll tell you what: normally we suggest that people wait at least a few weeks after a failed FAC nom before nominating that article again. Go ahead and address the problems that have already been identified, and I'll be ok with you starting a new FAC nom sooner rather than later. Raul654 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC) :OK. The main problem was whether some of the sources were reliable or not. Now that most of them have been replaced, I will probably renominate it later tonight. Onto a seperate thing, someone during another FAC I'm involved in has told me that the article needs to be thoroughly copy-edited, despite the fact that it's already been copy-edited twice. I've replied saying that if he just tells me what the problems are, I'll sort them out, but it seems like he's unwilling to back down. Should I really get it copy-edited during an FAC, as the comments above his comments (Tony1 incase your wondering) would be ineffective and useless. Thanks, Davnel03 09:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the sources issue, and have renominated it. I've noted that you have allowed me to nominate it again so soon after it was failed. Thanks! Davnel03 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nemesis-SG1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nemesis-SG1.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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fix needed to Al Gore FAC

Raul, can you fix this malformed nom (unless another admin sees it first)?

Al Gore was submitted to WP:FAC as Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Al Gore/archive2, when it should have been submitted at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Al Gore. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Al Gore/archive2 needs to be moved to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Al Gore and then archive2 needs to be deleted. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done Nishkid64 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Nishkid64. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Trescothick FAC

Hi,

Would you be so kind to take a look at this (failed) FAC: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick/archive1? It was closed without warning, and as far as we can see, the vast majority (if not nearly all) of comments were addressed and fixed. Was the failing simply down to a time factor (i.e. not getting the required 'supports' within 2 weeks), or are there other issues that need addressing? It is in the back of my mind just to nominate it again, but that seems a bit pointless.

One problem may have been that some of the reviewers didn't come back to see if their work was done, despite a polite reminder.

Thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dien Bien Phu

Hey Mark, I hope you don't mind me commenting on the DBP article. It would be good if someone is able to provide the Vietnamese side of the story. (Not me!) Alot of the stuff on show in Vietnam is clearly propaganda, but much of it tells an interesting and different (not necessarily contradictory) story to the one in wikopedia. One specific suggestion - I won't make any changes myself, as it is not my intention to get into a edit war:-) Why not add a sentence to the article stating that the Vietnamese only had one surgeon (doctor?) at DBP. It sounds far more convincing than just saying they had no effective medical services. Also, why not add a comparison with the French medical services (they had a lot of problems too!). I still can't quite believe that the Viet Minh transported 50,000 men, along with heavy artillery and AA guns through the mountains, and across rivers, but they only thought to bring one doctor along. But there you go ;-) 222.123.143.133mja —Preceding comment was added at 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not one doctor - they had one surgeon and six "assistant doctors". Raul654 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Chinua Achebe

HI Raul. I'm sorry to trouble you but I don't know what to do in this situation. In a nutshell, I've opposed this article as it doesn't use the appropriate national variety of English. The nominator responded by contacting various editors via their talkpages - Awadewit, Kaldari, WillowW, and Qp10qp - asking them to comment/support/help him in the ENGVAR debate. This is a highly selective group, who were all vociferous in a similar recent debate. Awadewit and Kaldari have already posted against my oppose; and WillowW has !supported the article. I don't think it's appropriate to stack the debate like this. This is all a bit too POV and a bit too political. I really don't understand why this particular group is making such a fuss. --ROGER DAVIES 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-sysop request

Was wondering if you could resysop me, I requested desysopping back in June voluntarily in order to take a break but now I would like the tools back since break time's over. Thanks. Pilotguy 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene Amdahl

Do you know how to get in touch with him? --David Shankbone 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have any contact information for him whatsoever :(

I brought it up in IRC, and Gwern found this pic of him on flickr, and suggested I contact the copyright holder. I have - I'm still waiting for a reply. But assuming that doesn't work, what's the next step? Raul654 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran

Hi Raul! We've not "met" before, but of course I have seen you around, and I realize you're involved in this issue. I will say I'm not at all involved, other than just having seen Mel around Misplaced Pages in the past, but I did notice that a non-admin blanked Mel's userpage and talk page, tagging them with the sock tags. Melsaran has requested the talk pages be restored, until the issue is resolved one way or another, so I thought it would be best if you or someone else involved replied. Thank you for taking the time to look into this! Ariel♥Gold 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a request for an article to go on the front page. Honest.

I've read the debate on nomming articles for the front page and the current instructions - and am not going to make a specific request. I just wanted to put a thought in your head: the Formula One motor racing Wikiproject has three as yet unused FAs that might provide some (more) variety on the front page: Tom Pryce (a driver killed in unpleasant circumstances in the late 1970s), Brabham (a racing team) and Brabham BT19 (a unique racing car). I'm guilty of being the lead contributor on the last two. Ignore as you wish! Cheers. 4u1e 12:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Make-Up FAC

Thanks for the heads up on the Make-Up FAC. I've been ridiculously busy that last few weeks, so I've been unable to devote much attention to Misplaced Pages. That said, I'll try and find some time within the next couple days to address the last of the concerns, and hopefully wrap that FAC up soon. Thanks for the message. Drewcifer 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Mississippi

You have greatly abused your admin powers in fully protecting this template. I don't have to, as you said, "have a good reason". Nor does anyone own a template, including admins. Misplaced Pages:Talk page templates states that while it is a guideline, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Misplaced Pages:Talk page templates doesn't say I have to have a good reason. It, in simple terms, says this is a guideline but you don't have to follow it but use common sense and if a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Misplaced Pages, ignore it. But no, it's your way or no way. The background color of the template is uniform with the WikiProject Mississippi scheme and it should stay as I had it. Aside from the color issue, I now do not have any access to the template whatsoever to make any kind of other administrative changes and I think it's petty and a waste of time to have to hunt down an admin to make the changes for me if I need them made immediately. Just thought I'd let you know what I think about it. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)