Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fowler&fowler (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 10 January 2008 (→Western Chalukya architecture: ps). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Archive 1: August 2003 - November 2003
• Archive 2: December 2003 - March 2004
• Archive 3: April 2004 - July 2004
• Archive 4: August 2004 - November 2004
• Archive 5: December 2004 - March 2005
• Archive 6: April 2005 - July 2005
• Archive 7: August 2005 - November 2005
• Archive 8: December 2005 - March 2006
• Archive 9: April 2006 - July 2006
• Archive 10: August 2006 - November 2006
• Archive 11: December 2006 - February 2007
• Archive 12: March 2007 - May 2007
• Archive 13: June 2007 - August 2007
• Archive 14: September 2007 - December 2007

Request for a redress of greivence on an FAC recently closed

Good afternoon, Raul654. I hope this message finds you in good holiday spirits. I am writing to inquire as to whether or not it would be possible to reopen a closed FAC for a few days to allow for additional comments due to special circumstances.

In Mid-November MBK004 (talk · contribs) nominated the battleship USS Illinois (BB-65) for Featured Article status. Shortly after the nom was placed on the FAC page objects were raised over the citations and the size of the article (supposedly less than 10kb, but I have no wayt o verifiy this). As the point man for the majority of the Iowa class battleship FAC articles I was quick to lend my aid to the defense of the article, but was unfurtunetly disctracted by upcoming finals and thus unable to adequatly adress the concerns for some weeks. Early this morning, about 6:00 AM my time, I placed a newly rebuilt version of the article in the article namespace and noted this on the FAC page (at that time, still open to comments), inviting the previous nominators - both those who supported and those who opposed - to review their comments in lew of the new version that had been placed up. To my distress, however, Gimmebot closed the FAC as unsuccsessful before anyone had a chance to comment on the FAC page for the newer version.

Ordinarliy I would accept this and try again later, but with the newer version on the article namespace and no alloted time for editers to comment on it I would like to request that the FAC be reopened for a few days (no more than week) so as to allow those who prevously left comments to read the new version and reevalute their position on the article. I ask this because it will be a win-win situation no matter how the dice fall: if the article's new versions gains a concensus of support then the article will be promoted to FA status, and if it doesn;t recieve enough support to reach FA the oppose comment left on the FAC page will deal with the new version, allowing editers who check the FAC page to implement suggested changes to the current version rather than the previous version.

As the FAC director, I realise that you have the final say in all matters related to promoting our Featured Articles, and as such I will respect whatever opinion you render on the subject. Although I do have a stake in the succsess or failure of the FAC, I wish to impart to you that I write this not as an editer upset over a failed FAC, but as a contributer genuinely concerned about the closing of this FAC before any comments were rendered for the new version.

Sincerly,

TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I closed that FAC because the commentary on the FAC seemed to indicate you wouldn't be able to finish up for quite a while because of your school commitments. I waited many days from the last comment, and thought it was a done deal. You are welcome to re-initiate the FAC right away, as I only closed it because I thought you wouldn't be able to attend to it. I just saw the final comments you entered on the FAC, and you entered them just as I was archiving the FAC. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

With SandyGeorgia's permission I have refiled the FAC for the battleship. I thank you both for the chance to get the article through. It measn a lot to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 16, 2007

• Are fair-use images allowed on the Main Page for WP:TFA? If not, should fair-use images be removed from the old WP:TFA templates on which they are displayed? Cirt (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The image was removed from Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 16, 2007. I guess this means fair-use images are no longer used at WP:TFA? Cirt (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
    • Nevermind, my questions were answered at the talk page of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), thanks anyways! Cirt (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Philly meetup 6

I'm working on planning the sixth Philadelphia meetup, and I'm looking for ideas and votes about the place and location. Since you RSVP'd for the last one I thought you might like to weigh in. Thanks, and I hope to see you there! --TexasDex ★ 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wedjj

We've been wondering about this guy (see William's talk). Did you run a checkuser? Any more imaginary friends out there? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, and I found several socks. See my contribs. Raul654 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(heavy sigh...) What a pain to have to put up with this stuff. Thanks much. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Brusegadi (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another likely one: Zymoticus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't turn up anything suspicious. Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sterculius seems to have familiar edits. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And by familiar, I mean familiar. ~ UBeR (talk)

I just caught another 4 socks, including Sterculius. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminy, he's persistent. Can you verify User:Bacteriophage and User:Unnatural gas? Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They appear to have a similiar IP patter to each other, yes. Raul654 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, but could you check User:Chemical Euphoria as one of these? I'm 99 44/100% sure, but... Thanks -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talk • contribs) 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Too few edits to make a match. But if you think it's him, go ahead and block away. Raul654 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Extending the olive branch

You and I have had some conflict in the past, and I understand that you don't particularly like me. You opposed my recent reconfirmation RfA with the statement "Manifestly not competent to be an admin."

Now that I'm an admin again, I hope that I can make a fresh start and regain your confidence. I apologise for any hostile remarks I've made towards you in the past (and particularly for the uncivil tone of some of my comments on the ArbCom voting pages). I respect the work you do for this encyclopedia, and I hope that you in turn can recognise the value of my work.

I will do my best to be more civil and co-operative towards you in future and to make amends for past hostility. Walton 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology. You do good work here. I shouldn't have said what I did on your RFA - and for that I too would like to apologize. Let's bury the hatchet and start over fresh. Raul654 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Walton 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Decision

The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.

I have decided to give up on Misplaced Pages. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Misplaced Pages. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.

Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.

This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.

The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring. More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.

Now some comments about Misplaced Pages. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.

I have a problem with some of Misplaced Pages’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Misplaced Pages has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Misplaced Pages does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Misplaced Pages claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Misplaced Pages had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.

You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.

There are ways that Misplaced Pages can improve their product. Misplaced Pages could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind. However Misplaced Pages does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page request limit

why are only five requests allowed at a time? You used to allow more. I didn't read the fine print before posting one and it was removed. It will be very difficult for me to find a time when only four are on the request page.--Ted-m (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death (See the TFA talk page archives). Long story short - the last requests page had no limit and became unmanagable large. I wanted delete it; limiting it to 5 was a compromise. (But seeing as how I'm constantly having to deal with answer this question, I'm starting to rethink the value of this compromise) Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I still gotta say I agree on this one. I think you are being too limiting in this aspect. — BQZip01 —  06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747

Hello. I learned that you are the FAC Director. I noticed that there aren't any commerical airliner and very few aircraft FA. This may change with the Boeing 747 article! People seem to like the article. There's a little misunderstanding about a "related content+template below" which appears in most/all aircraft article but which one editor objects. See and .

I just want guidance to improve WP, not trying to pick sides or crush the opposition. Since this is my first time, if you are inclined to deny FA, would you let me have a chance to fix it first? In general, people think it passes but there's always the first time jitters. Archtransit (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture FAC

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have opposed the West Chalukya architecture FAC (which, according to user:SandyGeorgia, you will be attending to). For the last two days, I have been adding detailed (sometimes sentence-by-sentence) comments on the review page. The main author of the FAC, User:Dineshkannambadi, to his credit, does respond in short order to the comments and sample copy-edits I provide, but I'm afraid his improvements don't extend much beyond that. It is my opinion that the article can't be fixed on the fly in the FAC process itself: it has too many errors of grammar (simple subject-verb agreement problems, dangling modifiers, ...), style (convoluted, discursive) and cohesion (things are said out of order, transitions are abrupt) for that. I am myself traveling now and will likely not have reliable internet connection for the next three weeks. I do understand that you don't really judge the articles yourself, but rather only whether consensus has been reached in the FAC discussion. However, I just wanted to state that my (possible) silence in the coming days should not be interpreted as a sign of consensus. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC closings

Raul, although I am listed as one of the top 10 contributors to Bird (because of extensive ref cleanup I did during peer review months ago, no content additions), I feel OK closing it myself since it's now unanimous + 5 and has been up 12 days. I hope that won't be controversial, but 'ya never know. :/ The bottom seven (everything from Western Chalukya architecture down) need your attention. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I expected criticism, because there are so many factors to be accounted for, and it may take some time for the community to get used to me doing the same things you did. It looks they aren't ready for me to pass/fail on slim margins as you could. I appreciate the support, and please let me know when I goof. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC) PS, I'm also glad you raised the "List" question, since I don't want to be in the position of having to add the first article to WP:FA that begins with the words List of ... without broader discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Louis Slotin

Why was the article promoted? It is scandalously incomplete and even the main author said in the FAC that he wants to expand it. He said that he couldn't find more references, so last night, I added a number of references that he needs to incorporate into the article and I was just about to add 30 more references, when I noticed you had promoted the article. The promotion of this article is a sad commentary on how articles that are a little more than stubs, (11 KB text size), and are still full of inaccuracies, can become Misplaced Pages feature articles, only because the people weighing in with their support are themselves clueless. Here, by the way, are the 30 references whose content should properly have been incorporated into the text, which needs to be about twice its size (in the compressed box):

Very disappointed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/December 22, 2007

Hi there! I am a significant contributor to the Aggie Bonfire article, which is going to be on the main page this Saturday, 22 December. The editors of that article and I have made one small addition to the lead, which we would like to see done to the main page entry as well. We have changed the second sentence to "For 90 years, Texas A&M students, known as Aggies, built and burned a bonfire on campus each fall", adding the phrase "known as Aggies". We thought defining "Aggie" here would clear up any confusion readers may have as to what an Aggie is. Also, we have a better free-licensed picture that we would like to see replaced with the current one. If you could make those two changes, we would really appreciate it. Thank you very much! BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Happy Holidays from Marlith /C Please feel free to contribute to Misplaced Pages:Song/The Twelve Days of Christmas

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Marlith /C 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

)

Two questions: restarts and quickvotes

1. Should discussion about restarts be refactored from the individual FAC page to the WT:FAC or the talk page of the individual FAC?

WT:FAC Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd think it optimal for an uninvolved party to do that refactoring, so you and I don't appear to be "taking sides". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for that. In fact, (on second thought) the comments can stay there - it won't materially affect the outcome of the FAC nom. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

2. I am concerned about what appears to be "quickvotes" at FAC. Of course, I recognize the possibility of tabbed browsing, as well as AGF.

• Feedback on 8 articles in 20 minutes
• Feedback on 6 articles in 8 minutes
• Feedback on 2 articles in 4 minutes
• Feedback on 3 articles in 3 minutes
• Muskrat in 3 minutes, Boeing in 4 minutes

I used to review this many articles in one sitting: I typically took three to four hours to get through FAC. I have no problem handling Opposes that aren't founded in policy or WP:WIAFA; the Supports present a different issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to handle them either. Thoughts? Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I can answer my own questions :-) My take on how to handle every declaration (whether Support or Oppose) is that I should view it in the context of the article and the criteria and the strength of the individual's review in relation to other reviews of the same article. That means that some declarations (whether Support or Oppose) may carry less weight than another well reasoned opinion. Also, even when I'm concerned about any individual's contributions, I still must take every one of their comments into consideration, because occasionally they hit an issue spot on. My concern is that poorly justified supports on FACs that have numerous well substantiated Opposes are a big part of what contributes to the FAC backlog. UNPA was a perfect example. I concurred with your ultimate promotion because the article was eventually raised to featured status because Tony and I dug in and Sasaparilla got it fixed, but it had initial support of "Pass & support: On the basis that it meet #1e Stable, and the low standards that it sets." That logic for a Support can be discounted. One FAC up now has a Support followed by a comment that the article needs copyediting. I'm inclined towards discounting Supports like these in the same vein that invalid Opposes can be discounted. I also suggest that the "community" needs to provide more feedback on some of these kinds of issues, so that you and I can remain neutral. Part of my runs through FAC used to be to highlight invalid Opposes and unsubstantiated Supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I spent ten hours yesterday fighting with my (surprise) new computer, so I should be able to catch up later today. Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) I second that concern on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution in the list above. Thanks--Random Replicator (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Once future king cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Once future king cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Curveaway (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Ariel♥Gold 16:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence

I reverted, welcomed and cautioned User:Sterculius for an edit on global warming. I see that User:William_M._Connolley blocked the user, and that you changed the block to an indefinite block as a sockpuppet of User:Scibaby with the template to refer to checkuser for evidence. Unfortunately, I can't find the checkuser report. Could you point me in its direction? - Enuja (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no report. I ran it myself and I didn't post the evidence anywhere. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a new template or an edit to Template:SockpuppetCheckuser to add a parameter for who performed the checkuser in lieu of a link to a nonexistent checkuser request. I think it would save the time of other editors who might be checking for a checkuser report. Unfortunately, I'm not competent to edit templates myself. - Enuja (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, I have looked for reports in vain before. Another good idea is to run another check. When are there enough puppets to request some from of ban? this is annoying. Brusegadi (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeff dowter is another possible. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan today's featured article

Hi Raul. I would like to thank you for choosing Nancy Reagan to be Misplaced Pages's featured article for December 24. I have worked very extensively on this article and I view its selection as a personal accomplishment. Thank you.

There is however a minor problem. I read what the entry currently is and noticed some wording and gramtical problems. I was going to change them, but the page is protected. Just a few minutes ago, I changed the article's lead to reflect some of Nancy's fashion interests and glamor, and I have improved the sentence structure. I think something like what is below would work better for the main page entry:

Nancy Davis Reagan (born Anne Frances Robbins on July 6, 1921) is the widow of the former United States President Ronald Reagan and was First Lady of the United States from 1981 to 1989. She was an actress in the 1940s and 1950s, starring in films such as Donovan's Brain, Night into Morning, and Hellcats of the Navy. She married Ronald Reagan in 1952, who was then president of the Screen Actor's Guild; they have two children. Nancy became the First Lady of California when her husband was Governor from 1967 to 1975. She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981 with Ronald Reagan's presidential victory, experiencing criticism early in her husband's first term due largely to her decision to replenish the White House china. Nancy restored a Kennedy-esque glamor to the White House following years of lax formality, and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention. She championed recreational drug prevention causes by founding the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, which was considered her major initiative as First Lady. More controversy ensued when it was revealed in 1988 that she had consulted an astrologer to assist in planning the president's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt on her husband's life. The Reagans retired to their home in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California in 1989. Nancy devoted most of her time to caring for her ailing husband, diagnosed in 1994 with Alzheimer's disease, until his death in 2004. As of 2007, Nancy Reagan has remained active in politics, particularly as relates to stem-cell research.

I only added in one more sentence (technically per WP:LEAD) and improved wording of the First Lady of California bit. These changes would improve the article's main page entry, so please consider adding them. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I hope I didn't act out of line by taking care of it already. The amended version isn't too big is it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Raul, you generally do not add the birth name or the birthdate, so I reverted that part that Casliber added. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Happyme22 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH tour

We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

‎

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

May God bless you! From Amandajm (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Attalus head.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Attalus head.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

Hi Raul.

Can you delete this page Teddy bear effect?

This article is an hoax. We've got the same page on it.wiki (here and its deletion request is pending here). This page does not cite references nor anything. If you look on google you can find out that all pages that are talking about this supposed "Teddy bear effect" have Misplaced Pages has reference. On google ..we've only 64 results, many by wikipedia' mirrors and other are citing wikipedia as reference, but there are no references on psychology websites or books. I hope you can delete this page/hoax.

MERRY XMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!

ByeBye!:)--DrugoNOT (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

TFA Jan 1/08

Hi Raul,
Thank you for selecting Ulysses (poem) for TFA, Jan 1. When I saw this, I decided to spruce up the article's lead a bit, and I've posted a new TFA lead on Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/January 1, 2008. Could you please move this over to the protected project page? It's slightly longer, but not much. New Year's Day seems special--are you looking at the poem as thematically appropriate to "fresh starts" and "resolutions" in the new year? Or is this just coincidence? :) –Outriggr § 08:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

ANI Notice

Hello, Raul654. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your block of User:GusChiggins21. The discussion can be found under the topic Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GusChiggins21 blocked for edit warring by involved admin. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. --Rjd0060 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello..

Hello Raul654, I am aware that you are the featured article director and an administrator, and I was wondering if you could clarify this, can wikipedian(s) oppose a list, featured list status merely because is isn't "long enough". It does not state so, in the featured list criteria, however there argument is based on the following two statements, "A featured list should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work" (from Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates) and "The featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists in Misplaced Pages" (from Misplaced Pages:Featured lists).

I was wondering, if there is a requirement (in length) that featured lists must be - however it does not say so, in the featured list criteria. And if they are able to oppose it because, they "have a taste in long lists?" I believe, a statement clarifying that the length does not matter for featured lists, should be included into the criteria, as this has happened before, see Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Nation of Ulysses discography.

Also, it was raised by User:Colin: "This band simply hasn't done enough or been written-about enough to generate enough encyclopedic content for featured status." However, I believe, "It is not due to a band success or number of releases, which makes their discography a featured list, but the referenced well-written, well-formatted article itself."

The featured list candidate discussion is at, Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Harry and the Potters discography, I would greatly appreciate you to clarify this mess up. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Election condolences

Sorry you didn't get reelected. You were one of the best. Let the consolation be that you seem to be at the head of Jimbo's list of alternates to fill in any vacancies. Now we just have to poison one of the sitting arbitrators ... :-) --AnonEMouse 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, AnonEMouse. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

remove request

Is it ok if I remove Io (moon) from the request page? Buc (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/December 31, 2007

Need to fix the spelling in the very first sentence where it says Chick-fil-A Peach Powl.. that should be Bowl, not Powl. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

IceKarma got it. Raul654 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Super-duper environmental hot-current TFA proposal

Just thought of this - the Japanese are not going ahead with killing Humpbacks but will take a quota of 50 Fin Whales this season. Fairly topical at the moment. My only involvement with this FA was was sprucing it up a bit - it hasn't been on the main page and Clayoquot got permission for a really cool pic in the taxobox....Didn't nom at TFA as there is no particluar day and not sure how long topic will stay hot....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll schedule it. Just to make sure all the i's are dotted, have him forward the permission email to permissions at wikimedia dot org, and let me know what the subject line of the email is (so I can search for it and find it). I can then tag the image as OTRS approved. Raul654 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on User:Clayoquot's page as I am not sure the exact process that was done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I got Casliber's message. I sent the email to the permissions@... address a while ago; the ticket number is #2007072010005388. I got the impression that the photographer would be pleased to have her work at the main page, so please don't hesitate to email her or contact me if anything needs to be confirmed. By the way, I'm a "her" not a "him" :) Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Raul, I'm running through FAC now, but after I finish, would you mind looking at Marskell's FAC (Battle of Musa Qala), Ceoil's FAC (Las Meninas), and I'm still leaving Western Chalukya architecture and Józef Piłsudski to you. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I would not like to make any FAC decisions in the coming weeks. Can you please take over until further notice? Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take over. I'll do my next batch of promotions on Sunday, including the ones you mentioned (I'm currently travelling with a slow dial up and won't get back until that afternoon) Raul654 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I am willing to do the job for a 2 week trial. I have recently had a nomination approved so I have some idea about FA's. I am observant, diplomatic, and have the big picture in mind (WP improvement and not to discourage editors). If selected, I would like to limit it to one area at first, such as new FAC's only or FA review. Archtransit (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'll wait for Sandy to get back. Raul654 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take some time off, Raul; I hope it's only about a week. I'm sorry to leave you with the work, but I need to find restored energy and joy in editing. Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need, and come back refreshed. Raul654 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Fnlayson and I have been hard at work at the Boeing 747 article which has just been granted FA status! I would like it to be on the main page on September 30, 2008, the 40th anniversary of the rollout of the monumental aircraft. I've seen complaints that the request page fills up fast (but it's not full at all now). Any advice for placement, let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to remember to do it in August.

Come September 29, 2008, I'm planning to add a sentence to the introduction mentioning the rollout on September 30 so people will notice it. Archtransit (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Put a note on the requests page (at the appropriate time). If it looks like I'm going to schedule the date soon and you haven't been able to use the requests page, then drop a note here. Raul654 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season

A secret request

Raul: I know this is not supposed to be done, so let's keep this hush hush, but would it be possible to feature the Bruno Maddox article on the main page sometime soon, on any day of your choosing? Only possible motive would be to illustrate the difficult career of a literary writer.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

5th December

Hi Raul - I see you have decided to put Prince's Palace of Monaco on the main page on the 5th Jan. That is great and I was truly pleased but would you consider changing it for Queluz National Palace. While I was the chief contributor to both pages, Queluz is in Misplaced Pages terms a very much more important page as it was the result of a great multi-national team effort. One of the things I have been keen to encourage since I came here. While I could be called the leader of the pack not since the writing of Sanssouci have I been involved in such a truly good natured effort. It was amazing - from the complete lack of ownership issues from the primary author to an editor risking eviction to take photographs, numerous to copy-editers and advisors. One could say the page was written in a week as the result of a mass pile-on. So putting Queluz on the main page would encourage a lot more competent mainspace writers to repeat the experience than the Monaco Palace, which can always go on at sometime in the future. It really would give a lot of people a lot of pleasure to see it there who have perhaps never been involved in a main page article before. as you know it is hardly a new thrill for me. Thanks. Giano (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. It is a really good example of Misplaced Pages at its best and as it ought to be always. It will be fantastic to see it there. Giano (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Raul. I thought you should see the thread that's developing here. Your input would, of course, be valuable. Happy New Year. --Dweller (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• New link; I blanked my talk page while I'm forced to deal with The Other Situation, which is taking all of my holiday time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hyperion cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hyperion cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at 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 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hirohito article

Hi. I answerd your message on my own talk page, as I always do. Švitrigaila (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Photo submission

He Raul. I think the new contact page is a great idea. I was just wondering though, if it might be a good idea to point to a FAQ or something on our image policy? Common issues I have seen when requesting photos are:

Q: "why does wikipedia not allow a non-commercial licens"

A: "freedom != gratis"

And other things like imagesize, imagequality, EXIF attribution etc.... These same questions might still be a problem for people who have already reached this contact page. What do you think? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep that page a simple as possible. To that end, I would like to avoid loading it with unnecessary discussion or links. Raul654 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why i suggested pointing to the FAQ. I'm not saying "include the FAQ" :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we find the images that got submitted? (I asked that on the talk page, but no responses yet.) --AnonEMouse 14:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What I know about this kind of stuff is that such emailsubmissions are dealt with by m:OTRS volunteers. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of that particular queue, the only people who have access right now are the OTRS admins and me. But I'm happy to see others tend to it, provided they have the requisite understanding of copyright and a modicum of tact. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TFA 10 January

The article scheduled for 10 January 2008 is now listed at FAR. Gimmetrow 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with it on Sunday when I'm no longer traveling. Raul654 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy McAleer FAC

Hi Raul654,

I just wanted to alert you to a situation that has developed on the Jimmy McAleer FAC. Early on, a reviewer opposed the article's promotion on the ground that it contained POV material. Three other reviewers challenged this assertion, arguing that the piece was well referenced and included no language that qualified as POV. The article now has the support of five reviewers. The opposed reviewer has failed to revisit the article. Similarly, this reviewer has not responded to a message confirming that the article was revised. I consulted another reviewer about the best way to proceed. This reviewer suggested that I "make the situation known." Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul, The opposed reviewer on the Jimmy McAleer FAC apparently has a history of "hit-and-run" reviews. Until now, I have never encountered a reviewer who presented a list of actionable concerns and then closed with a request (demand, really) that the nominator send the article to the GAC. In this case, the reviewer's critique (yet to be revisited) was challenged by three other reviewers. Is there a policy in place to deal with such negligent reviewers? I suspect they are a source of frustration to everyone involved in the FAC process. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Palazzo Pitti

Happy New Year Raul.

This article is one of Giano's, currently at FAR here. The review has been relatively tame, but is split. OK, I'm being a total coward. Kept or removed, I'm sure I'll catch hell for this one. On the one hand, it is well written and Giano will tell you it's accurate. On the other, with a single intext citation, it in no way resembles current successful FACs. (Unless you want to argue there isn't a single thing in it likely to be challenged.)

I don't want to close it. If it's kept, it would amount to a new precedent and a form of grandfathering, which was rejected in early '05. People will call it a double standard. If it's removed, Giano and others will be angry. I don't want another FA drama, so advice would be appreciated. Marskell (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Date holding

Is there a way to keep a date open for main page requests? I just got my first FA (Godsmack) and I would like it featured on the main page on August 25, 2008, as it will be the ten year anniversery of the band's debut album. Is there a way I can keep that date open for home page? And if so how will I get it on the main page requests page if there is a limit of five articles? Replie on my talk page please. Thank you,

Burningclean  02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Emperor Naming

I saw your comment on AN about the naming of Hirohito, and followed up on it here Talk:Hirohito#Proposed_article_page_MOVE, since previous debates were spread over several pages, with few participants, and it seems like User:Švitrigaila is a rather firm believer in the Showa name, I'm thinking a content RFC might be in order. I've never filed one, so I'm wondering if you could point me to a completed one that I could use as a model (best practice)? Watching here, thanks. MBisanz 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Swedish emigration

I made a comment concerning the mainpage blurb for Swedish emigration to the United States at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article#Swedish emigration. Thought I'd give you a heads up in case you hadn't noticed that thread.

Peter 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with this tomorrow or the day after. Raul654 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your threat on my talk page

I polietley suggest that you try engaging in reasoned discussion with people with whom you disagree, rather than attack their motives and make threats. Doing so will help you be more persuasive, and better conform to Misplaced Pages policy.

Now, that being said, I invite you to challenge me on the mertits of the concerns I have expressed about the langugage of "scientific consensus" in various Misplaced Pages entries.

My recent edits (such as here) are essential in making our articles conform to Wikipeida's laudable "neutral point of view" policy. While the claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming is widely reported by many sources, it is not universally accepted. It is not Misplaced Pages's business to decide on behalf of readers which theories and opinions are right and which ones are wrong. To illustrate the distinction I am making, I urge editors to consider the example of the article on scientific consensus on global warming. In contrast to the article we are editing, the article "scientific consensus on global warming" appropriately reports specifically which individuals and which groups claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming; it does not make the claim itself. (For instance, the article states the "IPCC Third Assessment Report ... issued a joint statement ... IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science." Again, the Misplaced Pages article itself does not declare the theory of man-made global warming the "scientific consensus; it merely reports the views of certain groups that have done so.) I have no problem with reporting the authorities that have asserted there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. However, a Misplaced Pages article by itself should not make that assertion per policy. The Noosphere (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I do not believe for a second that you're new here. Second, we get deniers (or their sockpuppets) here all the time attempting to water down the language in our global warming articles, and/or to fill them with pseduoscientific nonsense manufactured by the oil industry. I leave it to William M. Connelly, Raymond Arritt, et al to debunk that. I step in when one of the never-ending string of deniers/sockpuppets they have to deal with becomes excessively disruptive, and in this case that's you. You've already recieved numerous warnings (which you promptly deleted from your talk page), but you will receive no more. If you do not immediately discontinue your disruptive behavior, I will block you. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh??????????? I'm just a college student from Florida. I'm not a part of some conspiracy by the oil companies to deny global warming on Misplaced Pages. (At least that's what I think I read from what you're implying.) If my views on global warming are so stupid and I'm such a dupe of the oil companies, why not respond to the merits of my comments? That should be easy. After all, if you're right, demonstrating why some dupe like me is wrong should be even easier than making threats and making up conspiracies. The Noosphere (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(a) You misinterpret what I wrote. Global warming is a topic around which swirls much disinformation, created by oil companies (and the scientists they fund, and the think tanks that promote their research, etc).

(b) Yes, your views on global warming are very wrong. Although it is not our job to explain to you (to your satisfaction) exactly why your views and understanding are wrong, others here have taken considerable time to explain to you what you are mistaken about. Apparently it was a great waste of time, because you continue to disrupt the GW articles. Raul654 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The Noosphere

He's now on User:Friday's radar as well. Best to let an absolutely, totally uninvolved admin like her deal with him so there will be no question of the block sticking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Friday offered me some constructive criticism, and I accept that. From my brief impression of him/her, he/she strikes me as fair-minded and ethical. The Noosphere (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hey there. You OK? --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine Raul654 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Happy to help with any FAC issues you may have piled up in Sandy's absence. I know you have a lot on your considerable plate. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Awbrey

Wow. Good job. Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside FAC

Why did you shut down the FAC discussion for University of California, Riverside after just five days? I think that was far, far too short in this case. Tony1 raised some 1a concerns, but when you removed it from the FAC list, I was in the middle of thoroughly copyediting the article, with the goal of going beyond Tony1's specific concerns. Other (minor) concerns are being actively addressed by me and Amerique. Did you think the FAC wasn't generating enough discussion or attention? Or do you think the nomination was too premature, or that there are problems that haven't been addressed by objectors? szyslak 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not demanding that you reopen the FAC discussion. I figure only the most extreme circumstances would merit such an action. I'll just continue doing my copyediting thing, and send it back to FAC whenever it's become truly "brilliant prose". szyslak 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the closure either, but it happened so suddenly I thought the GimmieBot was responsible. If I may say so, UCR article has undergone tremendous improvement in five days, and I don't see the reason for shutting it down before any other comments or criticisms could be made. Amerique 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul

I hope we will get to know more about each other in the future. I think we have certain atributes in common. I will advice later when it is tm,e for us to have a chat. But if you need me to show you where we going, I am your shining star to destiny! Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Attempting to address the issues with Illinois’s FAC has proven to be both difficult and frustrating because the commenters are dragging the length and the notability of the incompleted battleship into the FAC discussion, neither of which ought to be issues for the FAC -- length is explicitly penned as a non-issue, and arguments on the notability point should be taken to the notability page or addressed with an afd. In any case I do appreciate your intervention in the article (though I must say I am sorry to see it has come to this), and I am trying to address the issues brought up by the oppose voters when such objects cite things that can be fixed. In particular, BQZip01's objection list has been greatly appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN friendly poke

Hello Raul! Sorry to bother you, but it seems like people (myself included) would appreciate some 'crat input on the latest WP:BN thread. Just thought you'd like to know. :) Happy editing! Best, Keilana_(recall) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture

I noticed your post on Gianno II's talk page. Before anyone decides to renominate this article in a hurry, let me point out that the article has major outstanding problems of cohesion and coherence, and by that I don't mean organization of sections. I mean problems of flow of prose and more importantly flow of information in prose. If you give me ten minutes, I'll pick out two paragraphs in the article and annotate them on the talk page of the article. I'm sure, once I point out the problems, user:Dineshkannambadi will try to fix them as best as he can, but I guarantee you that I will then find two more paragraphs and do the same, and two more ... Coherence (which includes logic, time order in paragraphs, etc.) takes time. Give me ten minutes, and I'll post something on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see Talk:Western_Chalukya_architecture#Clarity.2C_Cohesion_and_Coherence. Sorry, it took 20. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Update Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Is that editor a sock of a banned user? I noticed you are reverting his edits on sight, and without summary, so I was curious. Bellwether _C 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've caught 3 of his socks in as many minutes. I don't know if it's a previously encountered sockpuppeteer or a new one, but I'm shooting on sight. Raul654 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FA Process

A brief questions that you may be able to address in regards to Introduction to Evolution FA attempt. The page has become a bit messy; owed somewhat to my inexperience so I created a well organized list of concerns on Talk:Introduction to evolution and attempted to address them. They are specifically numbered with a plea for commentary. Does this constitute a good faith effort for following up on criticisms since it is not on the FA page? There was a bold notification on the FA page Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution as well as messages posted on their user page. If you look at Item 9 and 11 on the discussion page, there is a plea for specifics so that I can address the rather vague criticisms. I assume it is a common problem for people to drop in, oppose, then never return? Maybe its not a brief question! Try again. Does conversation on the discussion page of the article factor into the process of determining "If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements". Sorry, newbie here its just frustration when you get this; and no follow-up, after adding an addition 40+ citations.

Oppose: there are unreferenced paragraphs. --Brískelly --Random Replicator (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

--Random Replicator (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly two opposes came from "professional voters" both average 3-4 opposes in 30 minutes are less; accounting for a new found career of opposing / supporting articles. In one case the contribution page is an endless list of Featured Article reviews since Christmas. I'm working my butt off to address concerns and getting machine-gunned by drive-by shooters. Should I be specific or would you automatically note such things in the closing process? Sorry to be a nuisance --- no doubt it is even more frustrating on your end. Just point me to a policy! Cheers. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

John Day (printer)

I expect you de-scheduled it because it is on FAR. Fair enough. User: BuddingJournalist and I had got it ready for its big day, though, and I think it's in FA shape. I hope it can be put back on the front-page list soon. qp10qp (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture

Hi Raul. I have a bit of a situation here. Giano was doing a fine job copy editing the article (for which I am thankful) until Fowler's post that he (Fowler) and Mattisse should re-write it, once Giano is finished. This has become a de-moralizer (understandably so) for Giano who is now reluctant to go further with the copy edits (understandably so). This I feel is a sort of unique intimidation on the part of Fowler, who at this point seems to have re-conciled to keeping out of the FAC discussion, after being warned by an admin to stop taking stabs at me. How do I deal with this situation. Too much work has gone into this article, which seems to be almost "there". I understand, anyone has the right to contribute to an article, but not with the attitude that Fowler has shown. Please help.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I have said nowhere that I plan to rewrite it. Please see user:Mattisse's post on my talk page here. And, no I am not "re-conciled to keeping out of the FAC discussion" (implied) as a result of user:Nishkid64's warning on my talk page (see here). He, in fact, is encouraging me there (and elsewhere) to be bold and copy-edit the article myself, an enterprise for which I lack both the time and the interest. I have withdrawn from the discussion simply because, after reading user:Kiyarr's post, I have lost interest in this candidacy, and have consequently changed my "strong oppose" to "abstain." As for the article being "almost there," please reread my first post in the second FA review, especially the paragraph I provide there as an example. Any article that after forty days as an FAC has a paragraph like that, does not, in my opinion, meet criterion 1 (a), not even remotely. I do believe that a rewrite by user:Mattisse is the quickest and surest way of fixing the outstanding problems, but my suggestion to that effect is not meant to be intimidating, "unique"-ly or otherwise. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)