No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 317: | Line 317: | ||
:::::Moreover, your analogy is transparently false, as is the logic behind it. Statements like "this band sucks" or "this band is awesome" are obviously subjective. The number of critics of global warming is not subjective. The number of critics has been steadily decreasing for 20+ years (down to a quantifiable few; indisputably fewer than 5 or 10 years ago) and continues to decrease as the evidence piles up. Obedium's edits are, then, flatly false. And I find it very convenient that you choose to ignore his obviously misleading edit summary ("Improved phrasing"). [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
:::::Moreover, your analogy is transparently false, as is the logic behind it. Statements like "this band sucks" or "this band is awesome" are obviously subjective. The number of critics of global warming is not subjective. The number of critics has been steadily decreasing for 20+ years (down to a quantifiable few; indisputably fewer than 5 or 10 years ago) and continues to decrease as the evidence piles up. Obedium's edits are, then, flatly false. And I find it very convenient that you choose to ignore his obviously misleading edit summary ("Improved phrasing"). [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective, so it's not worth mentioning, especially in this case. Also, I believe you are incorrect on policy. [[WP:VANDALISM]] quite clearly states, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is ''not'' vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated" Your lack of good faith in editors is apparent across the board. Simply because you lack good faith in many of our contributing editors does not warrant edit warring. The policy continues, rather clearly, "NPOV violations ... Making bold edits ... Unintentional misinformation ... Unintentional nonsense ... Stubbornness" are '''not''' vandalism, and you cannot treat them as such. Own your mistakes and apologize for them, or you your should very well be blocked. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
::::::What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective, so it's not worth mentioning, especially in this case. Also, I believe you are incorrect on policy. [[WP:VANDALISM]] quite clearly states, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is ''not'' vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated" Your lack of good faith in editors is apparent across the board. Simply because you lack good faith in many of our contributing editors does not warrant edit warring. The policy continues, rather clearly, "NPOV violations ... Making bold edits ... Unintentional misinformation ... Unintentional nonsense ... Stubbornness" are '''not''' vandalism, and you cannot treat them as such. Own your mistakes and apologize for them, or you your should very well be blocked. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::''"What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective"'' - I don't know what weird, [[truthiness]] filled-world you come from that with a straight face you say something like that. In the real world, the one that I live in, there is an objective reality. There are things that are true, and things are not. The world is not flat. The earth circles around the sun. It's 2006 AD. And the number of global warming skeptics is decreasing. And in this real world, we create encyclopedias like Wikipedia to document these facts. Someone who edits the earth article to say the world is flat is vandalizing the article. It's not subjective, it's not a judgment call - it's flat out wrong. And if you are unable to grasp this not-too-difficult concept, then you have no business trying to lecture anyone about our policies. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The 1RR provision exists only through the consensus of involved editors. If we allow editors with a history of POV-pushing and sockpuppetry to game the 1RR provision in order to insert outright lies, then that consensus will (and should) dissolve. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 01:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
:::::::The 1RR provision exists only through the consensus of involved editors. If we allow editors with a history of POV-pushing and sockpuppetry to game the 1RR provision in order to insert outright lies, then that consensus will (and should) dissolve. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 01:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I agree, Dr. Arritt, "1RR is a delicate thing and abuse must not be allowed." Just as 3RR should not ever be violated simply because [[WP:DISPUTE|you disagree]] with the content, 1RR should not be abused if there is a consensus to have it in place as you say. And I think our [[Wikipedia:Edit war|policy on edit warring]] explains why rather well. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::I agree, Dr. Arritt, "1RR is a delicate thing and abuse must not be allowed." Just as 3RR should not ever be violated simply because [[WP:DISPUTE|you disagree]] with the content, 1RR should not be abused if there is a consensus to have it in place as you say. And I think our [[Wikipedia:Edit war|policy on edit warring]] explains why rather well. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] ([[User talk:UBeR|talk]]) 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:26, 17 November 2007
- 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
Wikiquette alert
- Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Leranedo SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Categorizing PR
Hi Raul. After much discussion of possible reforms at the Wikipedia:Content review/workshop I have started a thread regarding categorizing Peer review, here. Thought you might want to comment. Thanks, Marskell 08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
DC meetup #3
Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Will you be running for the arbitration committee elections again? I can't think of a more qualified and experianced canadate.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good luck, not that you'll need it, of course.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know :) Raul654 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't that sort of like asking: Have you well and truly scrambled your brains? It's bad enough that Raul was crazy enough to put up with a full three year term to begin with. ;-) Dragons flight 04:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I had no idea that it was inappropriete to ask such as question. And I think that Raul is fully qualified.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- In case you missed it, the smiley face indicates sarcasm. Dragons flight 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- True, and Raul's re-running for Arbcom indicates either a saintly amount of patience or a total disregard for personal sanity -- Avi 04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- In case you missed it, the smiley face indicates sarcasm. Dragons flight 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I had no idea that it was inappropriete to ask such as question. And I think that Raul is fully qualified.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you can say my sense of humor is way off tonight, Dragons Flight. I never thought that ;-) was a smilely face. I thought it was just a typing mistake. Now, Avi's, I could probally tell. But anyway, as long as no harm was done on my part, then I'm happy.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, the beauty of graphic emoticons, a poor, yet workable, substitute for the infinite variations and variegations of non-verbal communication that can be perceived in face-to-face communications. :) -- Avi 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Another sockpuppet of User:Imbrella on Talk:Creationism
Hi Raul, I noticed that you recently blocked a number of sockpuppets who have been trolling the evolution-related talk pages recently. Today a "new" (SPA) user, User:Partgreen has surfaced making similar nonconstructive comments and baring a strong resemblance to the previous socks (e.g., language use, writing style using strange phrasing like "that sounds like OR", unwillingness or inability to indent talk page comments, etc.). Would you mind taking a look and blocking him if necessary before he wastes any more time and sucks a bunch of other editors into his senseless, off-topic debates? Thanks. — DIEGO talk 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did more digging and it seems Imbrella is actually user:Raspor Raul654 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- You forgot to extend the 1-week block of User:Partgreen, but I just indef-blocked him on your recommendation. Tim Vickers 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
FAC Nom withdrawal request
Hi. I nominated Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Air_transport_in_the_United_Kingdom for FA. The comments coming back make it clear to me that whilst the article covers the subject I intended it to, the title does not. It's not likely to succeed and rather than labour on under this misnomer I'd like to withdraw the nomination so that I can rename the article and edit it a little to make it clear what the article is actually about. Is that possible? Thanks. --FactotEm 14:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- FactotEm, Raul seems pretty busy lately; I will archive the FAC nom as "withdrawn" for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy. I'll get around to archiving the FAC in the next day or two. Raul654 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're going to find lots of messy ones when you get there :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks both. I appreciate your help. --FactotEm 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're going to find lots of messy ones when you get there :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy. I'll get around to archiving the FAC in the next day or two. Raul654 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Raul, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta has 22 Supports right out of the gate, in spite of serious issues, with canvassing of "100 or so editors". Some progress was made today, but considering the work needed and the length of the FAC already, I'm wondering if this is a good candidate for a restart when you run through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Tomorrow's FA
I hope this is the right place to ask. The blurb for the main page has "in Rummer Street" as the last three words to match the main text of the article. This was removed in the main text. I later removed it from the lede, and a little birdy confirmed it was probably wrong and is unnecessary even if it is right. Can it be removed from the main page blurb too? The edit tab seems to be missing for me on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 3, 2007, so I suppose it is protected. Andplus 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Main page blurbs are protected as a matter of course. I have fixed the proble, though. Raul654 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This is going to be a very candid question, because I don't know much about the Main page FA process. An editor asked on WP:ERROR why the "CIA-backed" part of the lead does not appear in the front page. Since you're the one who prepared the lead, I was wondering if you could reply there (I am also interested). Thanks :) -- lucasbfr talk 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Replied there. Raul654 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach
Hello, I accidentally noticed your edit to the article in which you wikified the lute suites. You did it some time ago. Thing is, the links you provided are for some reason mentioning Mozart, ie. "Suite in E minor (Mozart)", etc. My first instinct was to revert this as vandalism, but then I noticed who made the edit, and I've seen your work before, so I decided to ask whether there is some new theory about those works or something..
Also, why did you wikify those particular sections? Are articles in the works for those pieces? Jashiin 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's an error on my part. We have some recordings of the lute suite, so I wanted to make sure that got red-linked and eventually someone adds an article on it. Raul654 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Overdue header
Have you ever thought of adding a box like they use at WP:FLC to call peoples attention to candidates that need more opinions. I think either 21 or 30 days might be reasonable for WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Q&A Page
Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.
The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.
I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.
If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan talk 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I nominated this for FAC a few weeks ago, see here. The nomination for some reason has been removed from the main FAC page, but the article has yet to be promoted or not promoted. Can you please either promote the article, or readd it to the FAC page? In my view, it should be passed, as it has a clear consensus. Thanks in advance, Davnel03 11:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- It has been promoted, see the Featured article log. Gimmebot just hasn't gone round yet. Woodym555 11:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. Someone added a star to the article, but it was removed. I've readded it. Thanks for the link - I never knew that. Davnel03 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, congratulations on your star, GimmeBot will do the rest some time soon. Woodym555 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- It has not been promoted. That user just has a bad habit of saying "Pass & Support" instead of just "Support". Check his talk page where someone else tells him this is not the correct way of supprting it. He is not an admin and can not promote articles. TJ Spyke 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- In fact it has been promoted. This is the definitive edit; if Raul adds it to the FA page, it's an FA. He doesn't add the stars. Mike Christie (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Leranedo did not "pass" the page, Raul did, as the links show. When GimmeBot gets to it, the official "archiving and updating" will occur. Woodym555 17:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- In fact it has been promoted. This is the definitive edit; if Raul adds it to the FA page, it's an FA. He doesn't add the stars. Mike Christie (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- It has not been promoted. That user just has a bad habit of saying "Pass & Support" instead of just "Support". Check his talk page where someone else tells him this is not the correct way of supprting it. He is not an admin and can not promote articles. TJ Spyke 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, congratulations on your star, GimmeBot will do the rest some time soon. Woodym555 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. Someone added a star to the article, but it was removed. I've readded it. Thanks for the link - I never knew that. Davnel03 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the bot also add the star to each new FA page? --Melty girl 18:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, you can add the star yourself if Raul promotes an article by moving it to the WP:FA page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clear-up on that confusion. Thanks! Davnel03 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- To some, it is the reward after all that work: finally being able to add {{featured article}} to the page. Woodym555 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, that's cool! Off I go... 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melty girl (talk • contribs)
- To some, it is the reward after all that work: finally being able to add {{featured article}} to the page. Woodym555 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clear-up on that confusion. Thanks! Davnel03 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Just pointing out (again) that this is spelled out at {{FAC}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, but if it takes 12 - 24 hours for it to update, it can leave some people, especially if they haven't gone through the FA process that much, confused. We really should have it done and changed instantly, but that's inpossible. I would update the ArticleHistory for D2D myself, but that would probably make the bot screw up. Davnel03 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Best to leave it for the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thich Quang Duc FA
Hi Raul. Can I get a quick comment on what extra things you are looking for in this article? It doesn't have any objections and has quite a few supports. The only outstanding comment was an alternative structure for the lead which the reviewer felt was optional. Best regards. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about Calliopejen1's copyright objections. Those need to be dealth with. Raul654 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot to make a comment about that on the actual FAC page but I did post a comment to his general talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear, he moved his account and I posted on the old one so he didn't see it. Anyway, if people encourage others to reproduce/reprint their work and "spread the word" freely, as this material is, would it not be a free image? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I FUed them but hopefully I'll get a confirmation that the pictures are free. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear, he moved his account and I posted on the old one so he didn't see it. Anyway, if people encourage others to reproduce/reprint their work and "spread the word" freely, as this material is, would it not be a free image? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot to make a comment about that on the actual FAC page but I did post a comment to his general talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
List of users by pages created
User:Bryan/List of users by pages created. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 09:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Neat! I'll let the signpost know. Raul654 15:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
An award
The Builder Award | ||
For your meticulous and indefatigable work on coordinating the Featured Article process, I present you this Builder Award. May you continue to lead the way for Wikipedia excellence for years to come. – Scartol · Talk 15:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
Articles
Wow thats amazing I didn't know I was actually the Number 1!!. Yes I am all about trying to build this into what it is clearly capable and enjoy seeing it develop beyond belief. Increasing the scope of wikipedia is what I am all about on here rather than wiki councils which probably reflects in this statistic over the last 20 months or so. I hope everybody is proud of my work. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Meetup
We actually met at the meetup, I just had to leave the museum early so we didn't get a chance to really chat. ScienceApologist 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Protection level of GameFAQs
Just to tell you that I removed the expiration from the protection you put to prevent the move protection to fade automatically. I fear that nobody will think of putting it back when the protection expires. Of course that does not mean that the protections shouldn't be removed in a few hours. -- lucasbfr talk 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Restarted FAC's
I don't have a problem with the restarted nominations, but is there policy about how these re-nominations work? – Ilse@ 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, they are treated as the same as the old nomination, except with all supports and opposes wiped out. Anyone can re-copy their support or oppose from the old one to the new one, provided it is still applicable. (So it's perfectly fine for someone to copy his oppose over, provided it hasn't yet been addressed) Raul654 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Information Request
User:A.Z. has been blocked indefinitely and his talk page locked. I would like to know:
- Did the Arbitration Committee request or endorse these actions ?
- If so, until what date or condition will these actions continue ? (I know the term is listed as "indefinite", what I don't know is if the intent is for this to be a permanent block or not.)
Thank you,
StuRat 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Song samples
Hi Raul. I have noticed you do quite a bit with adding sound samples. I'd like to find a sample to add to the classic "Linus and Lucy". Wondered if you had an idea of where to look and also wondered if asking permission for sound samples was the same as asking for permission for images? Same license etc.? ♫ Cricket02 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't do samples - I do full length songs, for songs whose copyright has expired. What you're asking for is - I think - the peanuts theme song. It's not difficult to locate. But that music is still under copyright, so we can't really put it on Wikipedia. Raul654 20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I was thinking I could ask someone who had recorded a version for permission to use - but since it is still under copyright, that would still not be allowed. Okay, got it. Thanks Raul. ♫ Cricket02 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- With music copyright, both the composer and the performer get a copyright on the work. (And changing one note in the score creates a new copyright work, so in theory all recordings should be done using old out-of-copyright scores; in practice, it's essentially impossible to tell the score from the recording). Raul654 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I was thinking I could ask someone who had recorded a version for permission to use - but since it is still under copyright, that would still not be allowed. Okay, got it. Thanks Raul. ♫ Cricket02 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Make WP:VANDALISM less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort"
Would you comment on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort", please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
why reverting?
hi. you reverted my edit on Paul Tibbets without any reason. the articles have discuss page for talking the people. if you have good reason for revertivg say it on this, or not plz don` revrt the other`s edition. about that, the article in first paraghraph must xplain the what is exist on resume. regards,--Gordafarid 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- note: u didn`t answer to me, however when u havn`t any reason for reverting plz don`t revert anther people contribution! thanks.--Gordafarid 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Congratulations! Your image Image:LOC - Jefferson building.jpg was the random picture of the day for November 6, 2007. It looked like this:
. Again, Congratulations! - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please consider for main article
Hi Raul. I have been a major contributor to 9 FA's starting with the first one in November 2006, none of which have made it to the main article. Please consider one of them for main article appearence this month. Since I dont have a special date for any for this month, please consider Hoysala architecture because it is a unique topic and is a proposed UNESCO world heritage site.thanksDineshkannambadi 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you close the FA nomination for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pule (Holiday)? The article was speedily deleted as a repost after the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pule (2nd nomination). Feats-O-Strength (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to want to bring this article back any way he can, and his FA nomination is one way to do so.
I don't know all the particulars of delisting and archiving a failed FA nomination (assuming that it should indeed be marked failed), so if you could do the honors, that would be great. Thanks. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Raul, because the article has no talk page, it will stall GimmeBot. I moved to archive and cleared the FAC; I'd like to remove it from the archive file and manually tag it closed, if that's OK with you, so it wont' stall GimmeBot when he tries to update articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Works for me. Raul654 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I left it in the archive file for the record (a number of opposes), but botified it manually so it wouldn't stall GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Works for me. Raul654 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ogg file difficulty
Greetings, Raul654. Can I request your assistance, please? I've tried three times now to upload the file Image:Chry_1.5OSGR_Starter.ogg, and although it plays fine for me locally in Audacity under OSX, when playing it from the wikipedia page after upload it winds up with gaps. I've uploaded the file to one of my homespace test pages here. Am I doing something wrong, or have I angered the Wikigods somehow? Thanks --Scheinwerfermann 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The ogg file on Wikipedia plays perfectly fine for me - I don't here any gaps or distortions. It's possible the ogg file is perfectly fine, and you hear gaps because it's a browser/java problem. Trying playing it on a different computer and see if the distortion remains. Raul654 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm getting the same gap, at exactly the same point in the file—just prior to 0:01—on three different computers (two Macs, one PC). --Scheinwerfermann 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment request
Hi Raul,
Can you comment on a claim that there was private checkuser confirmation of some kind by yourself (and Becca), here?
Edits timestamped 14:00 and 14:08, 8 November 2007, refer.
Thanks!
FT2 (Talk | email) 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
TFA 9 Nov 2007
The blurb doesn't indicate who's pictured in the accompanying photo: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2007. -- Super Aardvark 21:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- The alt-text does. Hover your mouse about the picture and you get his name. Raul654 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom still valid?
RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term_edit_warring_at_Winter_Soldier_Investigation is a case which you were involved in.
Is the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement still valid? The one year revert ban has expired, but the Ban violations and Parole violations have not expired. Is this correct?
Thanks in advance. I will watch your page for the response. Travb (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting Webley Revolver on the front page!
Just a quick note to say thank you very much for arranging to have Webley Revolver featured on November 8th- I really appreciate your time and assistance with making it possible! --Commander Zulu 11:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thin Arthur
Hi Raul654. You posted an April 21, 2007 Checkuser tree, but left it unfinished. In that tree, the only name you posted "(Legit user?)" next to was Thin Arthur. See this post. Thin Arthur now is included in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbromage (which I am working on) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. I'm not sure what you meant by "(Legit user?)". Also, I am not sure how to read that checkuser tree. If you have more information on Thin Arthur or if that checkuser tree reveals information that would help out at SSP, please post it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbromage. F.Y.I., there is an open checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dbromage. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- "(Legit user?)" means that I was not sure when I was doing the checkuser if that user was a legit user or not.
- The structure of the tree is (conceptually) easy to understand: all IPs under a username are IPs that user has been known to have used; usernames under an IP are usernames that trace to that IP. Repeats are omitted as they are found. Raul654 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
An Invisible Barnstar | ||
To Raul654, for Wikipedia:Today's featured article, the "Rings of Jupiter". Jupiter has been here but I have never been there—thank you and if it is all right to say so, Jodi Foster and Co. and a cast of thousands for Contact. Wow. Best wishes. Susanlesch 19:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC) |
Protection of Balzac
I notice Balzac is slated for Today's Featured Article on Nov. 17 – cheers for that. I notice also that you've removed the semi-protected status for that page. Alas, I worry that when he is put up on the front page, clever 12-year-olds around the world will go nuts with the vandalism. Maybe we should re-protect it on the 16th or so? – Scartol · Talk 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the semi-protection expired before I got there (07:46, 26 October 2007 Riana (Talk | contribs | block) protected Honoré de Balzac (vandalism of an unsavoury nature [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] (expires 07:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC))) (Change)) I just removed the semi-protection template (which was on an unprotected page). Raul654 02:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
An Inconvenient Truth
Why have you reverted my edits? Please discuss this on the AIT talk page.
- Because you are sytematically introducing POV into that article by adding claims made by the TGGWS pseudo-documentary propaganda film, removing subsequent paragraphs describing the film as such, removing criticismo of the NSTA's actions. Raul654 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you would participate in the discussion page rather than here. All of my actions are adequately discussed in the discussion page, none of yours are.
- As for adding the TGGWS section, I did not. It has been a long standing section which was introduced by someone other than myself. I simply reverted a deletion by another editor who provided no satisfactory reason for the deletion. It is POV pushing that I am seeking to avoid here, not introduce it.
- The information removed was redundant and available elsewhere (which I attempted to clarify on the page when you conducted a second revert).
WikiProject Iowa
Here you go.. since you're all about policing template colors and such... {{WikiProject Iowa}}
{{Template:WikiProject Iowa}}
Enjoy. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. Raul654 03:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Requested sound files
Is there a category and template analogous to {{reqphoto}} for articles needing a sound file? I am planning on doing some recordings of medieval and baroque music, and it would be nice to identify articles looking for specific pieces. If there is no category or template, I'd happily create one. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Today's featured article/requests
Are we allowed to make non-date requests on this page? Buc 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- If by a "non-date specific request", you mean a request that doesn't specify a date -- no, you have to pick some date. However, with that said, the date you pick doesn't have to have a relationship with the article being requested. Raul654 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Nag
Sorry if I'm disturbing you....FACs.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
FAR
Music of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
It was put up for MFD. I have speedy closed this as keep. Honestly! However, due to privacy concerns and because of confusion with Facebook, I have moved it to a more appropriate title. I've also permanently semi-protected the page to stop anons from abusing it. I'll also keep a permanent watch on the page - those who add images of others without their permissions will get reverted. Could you also add it to your watchlist? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that WP:Facebook was moved to Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians. Right now its on MfD again: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). As page creator you might wish to comment. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Say goodbye to this extremely useful page Raul. Looks like the MFD deleters are at it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Seattle
Hi there, We of WikiProject Seattle have been working diligently to correct all the issues brought up during its Featured Article review, and do believe we've brought it back up to snuff. The original nominator hasn't been seen in the discussion for a while and we were wondering when and how the review can be closed. Thanks! --Lukobe 08:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
main page queue
Hi Raul, noticed it's a bit short and wondered if you'd consider including Chess, or do you have a policy of not featuring an article for a second time? That'd be logical given so many have never appeared, but... :-) Also, fyi, 20/12/07 would have been the 102nd birthday of Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) if he hadn't already gone to the great cricket pitch in the sky... --Dweller 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring on Global warming
Hi Raul, I'm a little concerned about your recent edits on Global warming. There seems to be a consensus that the lead sentences are to be subjected to a 1RR. From a report at WP:AN/3RR, I see you've reverted twice already[1][2]. Two reverts would not normally be a problem, but you've already been blocked for edit warring on this article. Please think about this and discuss your future edits to the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- The second of those reverts was to vandalism (changing it to increasing - which is flatly objectively false, and using a misleading edit summary to boot). Vandalism reverts are not normally counted against 3rr and whatnot. Raul654 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can reasonably state that the second revert was vandalism. You may believe that it is completely false, but the other user doesn't think so - It's a bog standard edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's vandalism for the same reason that if I go to the Earth article and edit it to say that the earth is flat, that's vandalism too. Both statements are flatly, objectively not true. Raul654 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The truthfulness of a statement is not considered in vandalism. I may very well say Metallica is considered a good band by [most] Americans, which is not true, but it wouldn't be vandalism. It's a content dispute, and as such fall under tendentious editing and edit warring. Additionally, you have no absolutely no ground to say whether dissenting scientists are increasing or decreasing in number, especially since I suspect nobody knows. This is obviously a content dispute, and your edit warring helps none. (Note, boldface text was edited after original post, to convey original meaning.) ~ UBeR (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks your your pontifications on what is and is not vandalism, however, policy disagrees with you (Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.) Deliberately adding false information into an article is vandalism.
- Moreover, your analogy is transparently false, as is the logic behind it. Statements like "this band sucks" or "this band is awesome" are obviously subjective. The number of critics of global warming is not subjective. The number of critics has been steadily decreasing for 20+ years (down to a quantifiable few; indisputably fewer than 5 or 10 years ago) and continues to decrease as the evidence piles up. Obedium's edits are, then, flatly false. And I find it very convenient that you choose to ignore his obviously misleading edit summary ("Improved phrasing"). Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective, so it's not worth mentioning, especially in this case. Also, I believe you are incorrect on policy. WP:VANDALISM quite clearly states, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated" Your lack of good faith in editors is apparent across the board. Simply because you lack good faith in many of our contributing editors does not warrant edit warring. The policy continues, rather clearly, "NPOV violations ... Making bold edits ... Unintentional misinformation ... Unintentional nonsense ... Stubbornness" are not vandalism, and you cannot treat them as such. Own your mistakes and apologize for them, or you your should very well be blocked. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- "What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective" - I don't know what weird, truthiness filled-world you come from that with a straight face you say something like that. In the real world, the one that I live in, there is an objective reality. There are things that are true, and things are not. The world is not flat. The earth circles around the sun. It's 2006 AD. And the number of global warming skeptics is decreasing. And in this real world, we create encyclopedias like Wikipedia to document these facts. Someone who edits the earth article to say the world is flat is vandalizing the article. It's not subjective, it's not a judgment call - it's flat out wrong. And if you are unable to grasp this not-too-difficult concept, then you have no business trying to lecture anyone about our policies. Raul654 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective, so it's not worth mentioning, especially in this case. Also, I believe you are incorrect on policy. WP:VANDALISM quite clearly states, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated" Your lack of good faith in editors is apparent across the board. Simply because you lack good faith in many of our contributing editors does not warrant edit warring. The policy continues, rather clearly, "NPOV violations ... Making bold edits ... Unintentional misinformation ... Unintentional nonsense ... Stubbornness" are not vandalism, and you cannot treat them as such. Own your mistakes and apologize for them, or you your should very well be blocked. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The truthfulness of a statement is not considered in vandalism. I may very well say Metallica is considered a good band by [most] Americans, which is not true, but it wouldn't be vandalism. It's a content dispute, and as such fall under tendentious editing and edit warring. Additionally, you have no absolutely no ground to say whether dissenting scientists are increasing or decreasing in number, especially since I suspect nobody knows. This is obviously a content dispute, and your edit warring helps none. (Note, boldface text was edited after original post, to convey original meaning.) ~ UBeR (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's vandalism for the same reason that if I go to the Earth article and edit it to say that the earth is flat, that's vandalism too. Both statements are flatly, objectively not true. Raul654 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can reasonably state that the second revert was vandalism. You may believe that it is completely false, but the other user doesn't think so - It's a bog standard edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The 1RR provision exists only through the consensus of involved editors. If we allow editors with a history of POV-pushing and sockpuppetry to game the 1RR provision in order to insert outright lies, then that consensus will (and should) dissolve. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, Dr. Arritt, "1RR is a delicate thing and abuse must not be allowed." Just as 3RR should not ever be violated simply because you disagree with the content, 1RR should not be abused if there is a consensus to have it in place as you say. And I think our policy on edit warring explains why rather well. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The 1RR provision exists only through the consensus of involved editors. If we allow editors with a history of POV-pushing and sockpuppetry to game the 1RR provision in order to insert outright lies, then that consensus will (and should) dissolve. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Even if a change from "A few" to "An increasing number" is demonstrably false (and while I'm not sure that you can indeed demonstrate that, I agree it is against the orthodox view and can be perceived as an attempt to mislead) I do not believe an indefinite block is called for, barring a long history of similar and intentional disruption. Thatcher131 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake, it was a week. Still, that seems rather heavy. Do you realize how much easier Arbitration enforcement would be if I could drop a week on anyone without warning for single edits? Unless there is a long history with this user making delibreately misleading edits to GW topics, I think a week is pretty long. Thatcher131 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please unprotect Obedium's talk page. Tak page protection is generally reserved for users who abuse the unblock template, thereby wasting other admins' time. There is a broad consensus that users can remove warnings; it is still there in the history and your edit summary is easily visible as well. Thatcher131 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- As Raymond says, this is most certainly not out of the blue for this editor, seeing as how he's been warned for doing this several times before: [3][4][5]. (which is why letting people scrub these warnings is not a good idea). Beacuse you asked, I've gone ahead and unprotected his talk page - I expect he'll get rid of the current block message too. Raul654 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- In fact there is a long history of this user making deliberately misleading edits to GW topics (see also his User:Scibaby sockpuppet). So, it's not as if it were a week's block applied out of the blue to an otherwise-constructive editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)