User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:34, 4 October 2007

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

Melodifestivalen

Could you close the FAC nomination please? After I started the nom, the League of Copyeditors began copyediting it, and because of that now's probably not the best time for it to be there. Thanks. Chwe ch 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 05:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main page image for intelligent design

Any ideas what will work for a main page image on October 12? Would either the photo of William Dembski or Richard Dawkins be adequate for that in your judgment? ... Kenosis 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered those, but neither of them are related closely enough to ID to merit a mention in the main page blurb. Having a picture of either of them would simply confuse readers.

I hit on this very point at the end of July when I posted on the talk page asking for image suggestions, and nobody came up with one. If ID had a logo (or the DI itself) that we could use, I'd be all for it, but for now, I don't see any images that should go in the main page blurb. Raul654 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson

I believe that you are responsible for selecting this article as an FA. I put up the original AfD on this crude puff piece but it was removed. Where does it say in any policy that an article featured on the main page cannot be the subject of an AfD? Albatross2147 08:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your not the first person who has tried AFDing today's featured article. No such nomination has ever been successful (In fact, now that I think about it, nobody has ever successfully nominated any featured article for deletion, Nude celebrities on the Internet not withstanding) I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but you're wrong, and if you proceed with it, your AFD nomination will not be successful. Chances if someone sees the daily featured article and thinks it should be deleted, he's almost certainly wrong. Put simply, deletion-worthy articles don't get that far.

So, to answer your question, we don't allow AFD nominations on the daily featured article because to do so would be to invite havoc. It makes Wikipedia look bad to have AFD tags on the featured article, and most of the time they are put there because of vandalism or breaching experiments. I don't know if that's written down anywhere, but that's just the way it is. Raul654 05:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross is still asking the admin who closed Ernest Emerson to overturn and reinstate the AFD, and it is still being tagged as an advert. Good old mainpage. I tried to clean up that horrid South Park article, but it's one of those articles that doesn't attract stable editing/editors. Shows like that remind me of why I don't watch TV, even when it's not competing with the playoffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Hi — I'm puzzled by your edit linked above; according to its history, this middot template is almost a year old, its use appears to be established in numerous places and the rationale for it on its page seems sensible. Please enlighten. Thanks, Sardanaphalus 11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons - Primarily because I don't really see how it's any different than that we currently have, but more importantly because it makes the page more complicated and harder to maintain. The vast majority of changes to the text (by character length) are me updating it to add new articles, and so any changes like this impact on me particularly. Raul654 05:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I was prompted to make the change as the line wrapping looked a little odd and I'd seen this template that appeared to be a tailor-made solution. Sorry to've perturbed your system. Sardanaphalus 09:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMA and WIAFA

He's just added the dispute tag to the criteria. Sigh. It's an on-going campaign to take a shot at the MoS whenever possible. Marskell 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats?

Hi Raul (and possibly any other admins watching :-). Re "alex" the t:GW anon, could you take a look at his talk page [2] for a possible legal-threats problem. Though I'm never sure how seriously these should be taken William M. Connolley 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those are legal threats, but JoshuaZ already took care of it. Raul654 05:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that William M. Connolley 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my monobook!

Take a look at my monobook.js! I've been compiling from different users and scripts I've found. You can take a look at User:Yamakiri on Firefox/monobook.js or add importscript('User:Yamakiri on Firefox/monobook.js'); though, most people choose not to paste an import of another user's monobook for security reasons (JavaScript cookies). YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 10-2-2007 • 22:47:40 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you could include another users's monobook settings like that.

But it's neither here nor there, because I don't use monobook. I prefer classic skin (one of the last...). But at least I convinced Brion make sure that oversight works in non-monobook skins :) Raul654 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trying to reach out...

Hi Mark,

I've been trying to reach you via your email address @comcast.com but its been failing.

Is there a way I can reach you and respond to your email to me re: Musopen.com

-Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic5227 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Is it going through or bouncing? I checked my spam filter on the off chance it's the former, but I didn't see any legit emails (My spam filter is very good - I've never had a false positive in 4 years).

Regardless, I check this page very often - many times per day. So you can communicate (nonprivately) with me here. Otherwise, you can try my University email address: markpell at udel.edu

I prefer to keep Wikipedia stuff off of that account, but this is an exceptional case. Raul654 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philly meetup #5

Please look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 5 and give your input about the next meet-up. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's day 2008

I know that it's six months away, but could you possibly put Toledo War on hold for that day. Frankly, I think that would be a good article for April Fool's Day, not believing it myself. The Placebo Effect 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 207.250.84.10

I've reversed your block of the above IP. You may wish to review our blocking policy, as there was nothing appropriate about this block. No warnings, no communication, no POV pushing (your reason for the block), and certainly nothing remotely warranting a block. If you disagree with somebody's edit, discuss it. Do not revert them and block them; this was not vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't look at his edits all that hard.

His edits calling an Inconvenient Truth controversial have been reverted many times [3] [4] from that article. His edits to The 11th Hour (a movie about the generally bad shape of the environment) make his POV pushing even more clear - he adds a criticism section sourced exclusively to a well known contrarian (falsely labelling him one of Greenpeace's cofounders) [5], and then deletes criticisms of that contrarian.

I am going to be keeping an eye on him, and if I see any more edits of this sort, I will be reblocking him. In the future, you should do a modicum of investigating before reversing another admin's block. Raul654 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did review his edits before reversing the block, and the fact remains, you didn't even attempt to explain to him the problem. We have standard warnings for a reason, but when they don't apply, you are still expected to warn a user if they are violating policy. Blocking somebody without an explanation serves no purpose other than punishment; if they don't know what they did wrong, they'll continue after the block. This is especially true of disputes related to content and neutral point of view issues. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5-article limit

What's with the 5-article limit on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests? It'd make more sense to limit it to 30-days (2-weeks, whatever)in the future. Here's the problem. Right now there are 5 articles listed going to Nov 2nd, but UserDarthgriz98 wants to list one for Oct 31 (not halloween related), but technically she can't. Carried out, people could list things for next year and block listings for the immediate future.Rlevse 16:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is limited both ways - requests must be for a date in the next 30 days. And because I don't want the page to balloon back up to 200 requests, I've limited it to 5. The big, bolded text at he top of the page - Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests on this page at any time - makes this clear. So no, people cannot list things for next year (until December rolls around). Raul654 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if there are legit requests for the current 30 days, all at the end of the period, they can't submit one? That's simply not right.Rlevse 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative (that there is no limit) means the requests page will balloon back up to 200 requests, and that's simply not acceptable. The system's not perfect, but it meets everyone's needs. If someone has to wait until a request gets fulfilled or removed to make another one, I consider that an acceptable trade-off. Raul654 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 :It is limited both ways - requests must be for a date in the next 30 days. And because I don't want the page to balloon back up to 200 requests, I've limited it to 5. The big, bolded text at he top of the page - ''Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests on this page at any time'' - makes this clear. So no, people cannot list things for next year (until December rolls around). [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 ::So if there are legit requests for the current 30 days, all at the end of the period, they can't submit one? That's simply not right.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
+:::The alternative (that there is no limit) means the requests page will balloon back up to 200 requests, and that's simply not acceptable. The system's not perfect, but it meets everyone's needs. If someone has to wait until a request gets fulfilled or removed to make another one, I consider that an acceptable trade-off. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)