User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:22, 26 March 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

Categories versus lists

In discussing biota by country, and whether they should be lists or categories, a user mentioned that categories had been started because there were too many long lists. I notice you have the first post on the current WP:Categorization. Know anything about the reasoning behind implenting categories? Thanks. KP Botany 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request from on old FAC contributor

I know its been a while since I've been a regular FAC contributor, but I have a request to make. I know there's probably a page to formally request this, but I can't find it. I have a friend in real life who has a lot of issues. Because his favorite movie is the Boondock Saints, could you please make it the FA for August 19th, which is his birthday? It's an FA, and if it still meets the mark, it would mean a lot to me, and my friend, if that were the day's FA. It would be a great gesture. Let me know. Either way, thanks a lot, not only for hearing my request, but for all of the work you do. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom activity

Hi. We have you listed as currently inactive for calculating the majority in pending ArbCom cases. I saw that today you offered proposals and voted in InShaneee. Please advise if you want us to move you back to active status in the other pending cases that are in the evidence or voting stages. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my intention (at least of this writing) is to intervene in the Inshanee case. Raul654 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock of 208.57.179.100

Hi, I had sent two emails back in February but haven't received a response regarding an autoblock of an IP. I've reproduced them below:

There's an IP (208.57.179.100) that was auto-blocked as being used by "Cplot", who's apparently a user who had been banned earlier in the year. I'm a registered Wikipedian & sometimes login from work; this happens to be the IP that comes up from my work address. Looking at the modifications made by 208.57.179.100, however, I don't think it ever had anything to do with Cplot...? Perhaps it was misidentified?
...from looking at your page, it seems that you guys blocked the entire Class B subnet that "Cplot" was using, so that's where the block comes from. I believe that XO Communications sub-leases portions of the Class B from MPower, although I don't know how much. Can this be pared down to the appropriate class C subnet, for example?

And, actually, looking above, it seems that other people have also complained about the block of the Class B as well. Thanks in advance. --Diogenes00 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking class C's is ineffective - Cplot has access to so many of them that his supply is effectively inexhaustable (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Cplot). The blocks on those ranges were unfortunate but necessary. Raul654 14:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VII reverts

Hey, you might want to keep a closer eye on your reverts; you did this three times reverting today's FA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first time I did that, I went back to an earlier version and reverted, but apparently that revert to a legitimate version got edit conflicted out by some damned anon blanking the article. After that, it wasn't too difficult for me to keep reverting to the same bad versoin. Raul654 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake. Raul654 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. No problem. I was confused by all the edit conflicts I was getting. Easy to see what happened after looking at the history. --Onorem 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Converting Sound

Can u help to convert the sound at http://www.baruah.in/wiki/kaziranga.wav for the article Kaziranga National Park. The article is upoladed by another wikipedia member User:Bikram98. pls hekp. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the copyright status on that recording? Raul654 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Final Fantasy VII

You removed the talkpage organization scheme with the comment "my eyes, they burn". Was that in regard to the small text of the two boxes? I personally feel it looks a lot more organized using the format, although I do think that the two small boxes are better off as normal. — Deckill er 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-tempaltes within metatempates are awful. In addition, the talk header template IMO should be deleted; by any standard it doesn't belong on that page. Raul654 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas turnpike

Drawing your attention to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kansas Turnpike. Gimmetrow 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page - FAR is not an appeal for failed FACs. Raul654 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's based on some confusion with the GA process, where GA/R can be used to appeal failures. Also drawing your attention to one cross-namespace redirect - been in place since July 2004. Gimmetrow 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirects aren't bad unless they go out of the main namespace (and yes, that redirect does amuse me) Raul654 00:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this article, it mainly failed because the concerns were addressed, yet people didn't fix their votes. What would you suggest at this point? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been willing to let it go a bit longer if *somebody* had (besides the nominator, obviously) had supported it. After chatting on IRC about it with SPUI, I offered to renominate it (normally renominating it so soon would be considered bad form, but in this case an exception can be made). Raul654 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing FACs

Did you mean to put this in the section below named closing FAC's? --Joopercoopers 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - thanks for the hint. Raul654 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else closed an FAC

Someone who isn't even an administrator just closed this: [1] . I thought you were the only one who closed FACs? Personally I think the article will not be FA quality in the near future, however the closing looks weird to me. Kla'quot 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. First I removed it from the FAC and archived it, and then Gimmetrow's bot worked it over. This is how things are supposed to work - nothing strange here. Raul654 03:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what happened now. Sorry, my mistake there. Kla'quot 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot shooting

Be nice to bots [2], they often feel unloved, and if you break them too hard then you are showered in small parts and springs and gizmos popping out in all directions. Georgewilliamherbert 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots which do useful work (God bless User:GimmeBot) deserve many songs of praise; nag-bots deserve a bullet. Raul654 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding an old image of yours: Image:NYC meetup Jimbo.jpg

Could you please either relicense this photo under a free license or delete it? I would think that Jimbo Wales would readily agree that this photo should be under the GFDL or another free license. I am surprised that someone who is an administrator would have a photo with a licensing mess as this one. Also, you might want to go through your back catalog of old photos and clean up any similar licensing messes as this one. I have seen some discussion of changing policy to kick off a massive speedy deletion campaign against all noncommercial use images a month or two ago, and I do not remember where the discussion was. Thank you for your time. Jesse Viviano 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

Hello. I'm trying to create accounts with the usernames Geber and Safa but both seem not to work. There are no contributions with these usernames. Can I obtain them? Waiting-for-username 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite impolite not to answer to my request. Waiting-for-username 13:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts have been registered but have not been used to edit. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations Raul654 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge answer

I believe I have the answer: you are the source. — Deckill er 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Raul654 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your evil twin? — Deckill er 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Raul654 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Google came up with no hits. — Deckill er 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be much of a challenge if you could Google the answer :)

Would a hint help? Raul654 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah :) — Deckill er 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote originated from a television show. Raul654 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something makes me suspect this is from Battlestar Galactica, but as I've never watched it I don't know why. --YFB ¿ 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've heard the "I hope the robo-pilot can take it from here..." line, but I think it was in a video game, not a TV show. Meaning either a parody or a coincidence. --tjstrf talk 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block user: Orangemarlin

Orangemarlin is not being constructive on the Intelligent Design and Evolution talk pages and is making many personal attacks on Intelligent Design and not backing up his claims with legit research. I feel like him, and many others who are unwilling to form a consensus about the introduction are preventing resolution. There seems to be several anti-ID users who are unwilling to treat the ID article with a NPOV because they have strong opinions against it. This seems very unprofessional, and it would be helpful if some users were blocked. Wyatt 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April coming soon

Just wondering what's up with this. I don't see anything related in the FAC queue. Also, this is probably a little odd, but would it be a sort of in-joke to have an unusual featured item below the featured picture? I'm thinking a "featured disambiguation page" or maybe a "featured template". Gimmetrow 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured unencyclopedic page? — Deckill er 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Just wonderin'. Gimmetrow 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but a "featured disambig page" doesn't seem all that funny, just sort-of lame. There are many, many articles I'd love to feature that day, but none of them meet the three requirements I laid out on Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article. Raul654 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another issue, I've seen these templates requesting comment at TFA/requests. Do you use the requests in any meaningful way? From what I can tell, you don't use the summaries, and you usually don't use the requested dates unless they are requested somewhere else (like here). Gimmetrow 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the requests, but almost-always rewrite them from scratch. And I really, really don't like the requests template that goes on teh talk page. Raul654 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a third question - do you know how the various FA-related categories are used? The old templates used a number of categories like Cat:Featured article candidates (contested) and Cat:Featured article review candidates (closed). If these are not actually used, can they be eliminated? Gimmetrow 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't touch the FA cats. I don't like categories in general (the implementation, the way they are used, 'etc) so I tend to steer clear of them. Getting rid of them would not upset me greatly (but I believe there may be some people that do use them). Raul654 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA pic

Could you at least discuss changes you make before you make them? We've been discussing the pic problem on the talk page and all of a sudden after we decide what to do you revert it. I don't see the problem with the pictogram; it's not ridiculous at all. Using an un-free image is. Could you revert it please, until we decide on the talk page what to do, together? _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in every respect. First, the pictogram picture should not have been chosen. Second, whatever you might think, it is standard procedure to use an unfree pic if we don't have a free one available. Raul654 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award you the tireless contributor barnstar for creating over 400 articles, and for filling so many roles on Wikipedia. Congratulations!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 :Featured unencyclopedic page? &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 :: Yep. Just wonderin'. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
+:::Maybe it's just me, but a "featured disambig page" doesn't seem all that funny, just sort-of lame. There are many, many articles I'd love to feature that day, but none of them meet the three requirements I laid out on [[Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article]]. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 On another issue, I've seen these templates requesting comment at TFA/requests. Do you use the requests in any meaningful way? From what I can tell, you don't use the summaries, and you usually don't use the requested dates unless they are requested somewhere else (like here). [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
+:I use the requests, but almost-always rewrite them from scratch. And I really, really don't like the requests template that goes on teh talk page. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 And a third question - do you know how the various FA-related categories are used? The old templates used a number of categories like Cat:Featured article candidates (contested) and Cat:Featured article review candidates (closed). If these are not actually used, can they be eliminated? [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
+:I don't touch the FA cats. I don't like categories in general (the implementation, the way they are used, 'etc) so I tend to steer clear of them. Getting rid of them would not upset me greatly (but I believe there may be some people that do use them). [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 == FA pic ==