User:Raul654/archive21

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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" 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. Papa November (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Well, I'm surprised there hasn't been more outrage already. Splashing 'cunt' everywhere on the main page is appropriate for an educational tool, is it? This is an uncomfortably broad interpretation of WP:CENSORED. --78.146.235.139 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said when I was first asked about this article a couple months ago, it's close to the line. But there's nothing really explicit or objectionable in the article - it's just the name. Raul654 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you say so... --78.146.235.139 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul654. I won't expect a reply but would like to register my discomfort with today's choice for FA. There are several, valid arguments it seems, for the inclusion and exclusion of

Hi, I use the word to which this article is clearly intended to draw attention. I have no issue with others using it. I do not find it objectionable per se.

However, I don't expect it to be the first word I read in the morning!

I think the decision to place the article on the front page is both unproductive and purile. A bad decision that does you no credit. As another contributor has already said, it smacks of "look I can use naughty words and you can't stop me". leaky_caldron (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the deconstruction of a word used to objectify women and its formation in practical use. Words are not inherently obscene; they are made so by community treatment of them (a la the entire magic world's treatment of Voldemort's name to "He Who Must Not Be Named"). The article is neutral and academic in its discussion. I don't find anything naughty about it. The greater furor over the article the more attention it gets. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm greatly surprised there's been very little internal drama (polite discussion here and on Talk:Main Page) and zero outside notice whatsoever. But if the press come, you're answering the calls ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There's time yet! North America has not woken up yet. Still early morning over on the West Coast. leaky_caldron (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You missed

WP:ERRORS earlier but it got removed. I really enjoyed reading the article, good choice! Regards, Woody (talk

) 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that the purpose of TFA is not only to feature our best work, but to educate the reader. Today had been successful in both regards.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First bit of press, and it's Popbitch! http://www.popbitch.com/home/2009/07/09/expect-house-prices-to-rocket/ - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I hate to pitch in on this kind of thing, as I'm firmly behind
  WP:NOT#CENSORED, but I was surprised to hit the main page and see this in front of me. Took a few looks to actually confirm that yes, there was an article about a street once known for prostitution named 'Gropecunt' on the main page. I don't have filters in my office, but that would've tripped them if I did, almost certainly; a lot of folks have pointed that out. I don't have a great issue with naughty words, but as noted here and elsewhere, splashing it on the page that we use as our face to the world might have been a bad idea. I expect some of our media detractors to jump up and down on it shortly; considering the media coverage that we're getting on a more regular basis, it might be a good idea to keep in mind that there are watchdogs with international reach keeping an eye on what happens here when selecting main page FAs in the future? Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!)
  16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And if a Linconshire lad wrote a FA on Scunthorpe or saltwater intrusion would that have tripped your filters? We're not responsible for other peoples' software.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not responsible, but the developers spend a lot of their time giving other peoples' software some heed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• A brave (and IMHO correct) decision to feature Gropecunt Lane on the front page. Are you sure you'll get more backlash over Jenna Jameson? :-) Paulbrock (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• I don't get it. Why is it "brave"? The homepage doesn't need to be some sort of electronic crusader breaking new ground and sticking 2 fingers up to the public does it? I believe Mark has made an ill-judged decision and one which appears to have insufficient regard for the
  Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule. leaky_caldron (talk
  ) 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Have to agree with the detractors on this one; sure, Wikipedia is not censored, but splashing this on the front page has generated a lot of ill-will, both onsite and in OTRS.
  talk
  ) 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• The choice for Gropecunt Lane as a main page article causes needless conflict and ill-will. I strongly prefer that interesting but not highly controversial article be used on the main page. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Add my support for this article being featured. If it's worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia it's encyclopedic, and if it's encyclopedic it's FA-worthy. Academia doesn't shrink from such topics. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why in the name of Fetter Lane are you footering aboot with that sort of language? Ok, I can see the sensitivities and appreciate the reasons of those taking umbrage, but well done. Very informative, and nice to have some variation in the outrage. . dave souza, talk 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• I have no problem with WP censorship rules for the encylopedia as a whole, but his isn't about censorship it is about good taste. I have a problem with this article appearing on the main page as that is what people will see when they first come to the encyclopedia, regardless of what it is they want to view. I think this choice of FA reflects badly on WP. A lot of people in favour of this article being on the front page seem to be taking the high morale ground but the reality is social mores cannot be completely ignored. This article being on the front page is unacceptable for the same reason it is not acceptable to walk down the street yelling fuck repeatedly at the top of your lungs. Unfortunately I now find myself reconsidering my involvement in the project. I thought we were out to provide useful information to people, not be shocking for the sake of it. Robert Brockway (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• This was a bonehead move. It gives the impression of a decision made by a sniggering 12-year old saying "tee hee hee, look at me, I used a naughty word". This makes Wikipedia look bad to the general public. Friday (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Taking a one-off risk in good faith is ok, something helpful can be learned from it, but if another FA like this shows up again, it'll be Fonzie on water skis, taken by far too many readers as would be a middle school prank. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of editors applauding the decision to feature this article on the main page. Frankly, I find most of the arguments against it rather disheartening. To claim that this is an excuse to be "naughty" or is analogous to "yelling fuck repeatedly at the top of your lungs" is to insult the editors who diligently authored a well-sourced article about a notable topic. The idea that this is "shocking for the sake of it" is ludicrous.
  The article itself documents the terminology's impolite connotations in an encyclopedic manner. It is not an endorsement of such use. The notion that we ought not place content on the main page that might "offend" people is downright irresponsible. If a mere word is to be avoided, surely we shouldn't run any articles whose subjects pertain to religion (as seeing the "wrong" religion on the main page will offend people). Also, we mustn't link to articles about homosexuals or anyone else engaging in behaviors deemed sinful (and therefore offensive) by large segments of the population. And of course, some cultures prohibit females from holding positions of power/authority, so to avoid offending people, we'll have to exclude all mentions of women elected to office. —
  David Levy
  18:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• A "notable" topic? What is notable about an obscure, extant London street name that changed it's name 460 years ago? If it's "cunt" you find notable why not get that to FA quality. There's nothing notable about it at all. It is a good article for sure but not appropriate for the landing page and the decision to put it there violated WP:Responsibility which is not confined to articles but applies to any activity. Let's be more careful in future. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

above ref. to

WP:Reasonability leaky_caldron (talk

) 23:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You clearly haven't bothered to read the article, as it's not about a street in London. --

Fatuorum

18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, please familiarise yourself with wikipedia's notability guidelines. Gropecunt Lane is covered by several sources, and has been included in academic publications such as the one written by Holt and Baker.

Nev1 (talk

) 19:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We'd better not feature any

David Levy

19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea - I don't contribute to them! I read the FA long before it was featured and have no issue whatever with it so let's not get a bandwagon rolling between you and the authors that I have an issue with the subject matter. Check out my posts; each one refers to the FA selection - not the article itself. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I viewed your contribution history and saw several edits to Harry Potter-related articles.

2. I'm pointing out the problem with barring "offensive" material from the main page. —

David Levy

19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record I have made 2 very minor edits to HP articles in over 3 years (not several). leaky_caldron (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I count twelve edits to articles with "Harry Potter" in the title (not that this matters). Can you please address my actual point? —

David Levy

20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: For the record I have made 12 very minor edits to HP articles, mainly copy_edits, all but 1 was 3 years ago. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Too late. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. —

David Levy

19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the two significant authors of this article I'd like to say that I too was surprised when Raul picked it for today's TFA but, unlike many others commenting here, pleasantly surprised. We worked hard on that article to make it as sound as we could, and for anyone to consider it in any way prurient or a high-school prank is simply insulting. So people are challenged by seeing the word "cunt" on the main page. I say good, people should be challenged more often. --
  Fatuorum
  18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Suits me. I'm always happy to learn, and I'm not offended by "dirty words". Just ... learn to be less offended.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Count me as being in support of this article appearing on the front page. It is a very interesting topic, and I expect that the overwhelming majority of people who've looked at the main page today learned something. That is entirely what we are about here. The manufactured outrage will evaporate the moment John Calvin goes up. Resolute 20:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• As the other main author of this article, I'm quite frankly mystified why people get so offended about a simple four-letter word. You don't see the same amount of anger over articles describing various atrocities, such as the Holocaust, or Jack the Ripper. I never expected to see this on the front page, but I'm glad it happened — its done a very good job of raising some important issues, and the (minority) negative reaction bolsters the content of the article quite nicely. I don't see why knowledge should be avoided at the risk of offence - if that were a problem, then we'd remove the images of Muhammed from his article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• In North America, at least, society has gotten so ridiculous that we are desensitized to violence, yet a bare breast will send everyone ducking for cover. The power of words is even more extreme. Resolute 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not offended by the article, but I am offended by the decision to feature it on the main page. WP is an all-age resource, and en.WP.org is the natural way into it for English-speakers of all ages. Putting this article on the front page was, at best, a crass misjudgement. Making this very specific, would Raul654 like to stand in my shoes, with a 7-year-old daughter who might well click into en.WP.org and ask for an explanation?

I'm trying to assume good faith on Raul654's part, but that's quite difficult after reading Raul654's comment on the front talk page 2 days ago: "We have a nice, non-objectionable street article scheduled for the day after tomorrow. <grin>" It appears that Raul654 could see the storm coming, and relished the prospect — unless of course Raul654 would like to explain this comment some other way?

I'm disappointed that, going by the above, some people will regard my view as pro-censorship. I am not advocating censorship (by which I mean limits on what content can be created and published), but I am advocating — indeed, expecting — self-restraint and the avoidance of gratuitous provocation (in other words, what pre-existing content should be actively promoted to people who aren't seeking it). Anyone who doesn't understand this difference, or the need for self-restraint, is not (in my view) an appropriate person to manage the front page.86.4.197.177 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Wikipedia is an "all-age resource"? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

From experience. I wouldn't let my children go just anywhere on WP, of course; but the front page at least should be safe for all ages. Same for any medium that is not age-barred. 86.4.197.177 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So...you're fine with your daughter seeing information about such topics as war and genocide, but the word "cunt" is a big problem? —

David Levy

22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, of course that other stuff is not "fine" for young users; I didn't suggest that it was. Yes, of course this one is a problem; it's obvious why.86.4.197.177 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"That other stuff" appears on the main page. If you don't want your daughter to see it (or the word "cunt"), don't allow her to visit Wikipedia. You were incorrect in your assumption that the main page was suitable for "all ages." —

David Levy

00:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But it could be, without any compromise on quality, and it would be a better main page for that.86.4.197.177 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how omitting information about deadly events (even as they occur in the world) would not compromise the main page's quality.

Our goal is to disseminate notable information, not to provide a child-friendly website. —

David Levy

21:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the TFA has very often dealt with upsetting issues, killings, wars, massacres, disasters, stuff that would really upset kids. Last year we had a Nazi as TFA. Earlier this year, we had a DYK hook that used the word "shit", and ITN routinely deals with issues that kids might find upsetting. But because of the name of this article, and the repetition of the two words that went into making up the name, you're pissed off. (pardon my French). Have you tried going to the Disney web site? You may prefer it. As for your daughter, if you allow a seven year old girl to surf the net without adult supervision, Gropecunt Lane is the least of your worries!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote about this TFA because I saw it; I didn't see the others that you mention. I really am not a puritan, censor, etc but sadly the right of free speech goes to some people's heads, and they forget the responsibility to use it with consideration. Front page editors would do WP a favour by keeping that responsibility in mind. To your last point: we do supervise our kids, but we don't hold the mouse for them; it only takes one click to be reading TFA.86.4.197.177 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course Mark knew that featuring the article on the main page would generate complaints. (This happens whenever we fail to "

David Levy

22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As others have written, TFA is a showcase for WP. To knowingly generate controversy, criticism, censure, etc by headlining in TFA "one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock" appears dumb, or mischievous, or both.86.4.197.177 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote above.

If a mere word is to be avoided, surely we shouldn't run any articles whose subjects pertain to religion (as seeing the "wrong" religion on the main page will offend people). Also, we mustn't link to articles about homosexuals or anyone else engaging in behaviors deemed sinful (and therefore offensive) by large segments of the population. And of course, some cultures prohibit females from holding positions of power/authority, so to avoid offending people, we'll have to exclude all mentions of women elected to office.

All of those subjects are controversial. Should we therefore avoid placing them on the main page? —

David Levy

00:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think any subject ought to be ruled out. But I do think that the potential for offence should be given some non-zero weight, case by case, alongside whatever other criteria are used to pick TFAs. Do you agree?86.4.197.177 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No. —

David Levy

21:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's such a thing as wisdom. If an article is so keenly written, the topic so fetchingly fit, that it might be an FA, but the title bears one of the most kerfluffle stirring words in the English language, I'd say make it an FA, but write the main page blurb along the lines of An eye-opening historic street name in England, blah blah blah, please be aware that the title of this article may be upsetting to some readers... Meanwhile there is no reason not to show off highly encyclopedic articles about controversial topics of any stripe, don't shove family-work unfriendly words or snaps at folks on the main page is all and mildly warn them if something like that's coming their way straight off if they click something on the main page. Must this be done? No, but I think it would help a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've got nothing new to add here, but I just wanted to add my name to the editors who applaud Raul for not passing over a FA just because is has a naughty word in it, and say that I'm glad that we have Raul654 as TFA "director" and not some self-appointed morality cop. (Or, heaven forbid, having a giant morality/censorship debate every single day, sucking in who knows how much editor time.) APL (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And he's showing his wisdom by keeping out of this street fight.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for both the supportive and critical comments here. For the record, I count six OTRS complaints about this FA (ticket #s 2009071010026255, 2009070910065493, 2009070910064421, 2009070910044461, 2009070910041848, 2009070910017722). At the same time, the article got over 200,000 hits, and a message of support from Stephen Fry. The hit count is is nearly a record - as far as I am aware, the only more popular FAs to his the main page were Obama/McCain on election day 2008, and Musuem of Bad Art on April Fools 2008. So far, there's been basically zero press reaction. Raul654 (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• With the benefit of hindsight would make the same decision? Would you take account of some of the suggestion made, for example by Gwen Gale, above? leaky_caldron (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm startled to hear a British comedian posted kudos that a naughty bit made it onto en.Wikipedia's main page :) This aside, I guess I should remind that none of my comments have had to do with worries about this article or even how it was handled on the main page, as a one off. As I've said, I think the article is wonderful, keenly written and sourced, I liked reading it and learned from it. Moreover, it's ok to try things in good faith (and yes, good faith can be had with a grin, even a snicker). I've only been talking about how to deal with any dodgy words/snaps which may later pop up on the main page owing to FAs, that from a marketing outlook (which is what the main page is all about), some notion of

I think all major points have been made, and Raul has acknowledged them. As far as I know, the only other "naughty" article we have at FA is the Jenna article and Raul has indicated he's disinclined to run it. If another one makes its way through FAC, time enough to discuss it then. So why don't we all get back to building an encyclopedia?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the article was "naughty" and I see no harm in talking about how to handle things to come. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

UK

I've noticed that since June 29, the TFAs have included a British sitcom, a British military operation, an English castle, a queen consort of England/Scotland, Scottish wildlife, an English international sportsman, and an English street name. So seven of the previous nine TFAs have had a strong connection with the UK. I know it's just a coincidence, but still, after the Welsh railway next week, it might be worth avoiding too many more UK-themed TFAs for a week or two. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just that we in the UK are more prolific in writing articles on interesting topics, like the one being discussed above. :-) --

Fatuorum

18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with England/UK articles being promoted to Featured status, nor with them appearing on the Main Page (I'm British myself, so I'm more than happy to see such good coverage!), it's just that I'd rather see them spread out over a longer period of time, rather than a "British week" once a year or so :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

TFA view count

Hey. Just out of curiosity, would you happen to know which FA was viewed the most while on the main page? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably Musuem of Bad Art, which if memory serves me got upwards of 300k hits on April Fools. Raul654 (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that Gropecunt Lane got north of 200K, which was slightly better than Thriller did!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to know how the article stands in terms of complaints received, or whinging monitored. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Both Barack Obama and John McCain beat Museum of Bad Art when they were on the main page November 4, 2008. Obama: 620,000 McCain: 338,000. --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone

You know, it'd be helpful if you told us why you rollbacked Roux's edit—particularly when we had already checked it. And also why you did the same with his mention of it in the talk page. I've rollbacked your reversions. If you want to remove that piece of prose, then say why, don't just go rouge with the rollback bit.

Just a note that it was Reelx09 (talk · contribs), not Roux (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

cultural insults

please take a look at

Wdl1961 (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I enjoyed reading

Simple IP-block Request

I was user-blocked several years ago and over the intervening time I've been trying to figure out how to make amends and fix the ever-worsening mess. Everything I said or did only made things worse. I was in the middle of fixing up my past errors with the related admin(s) and users (

Are you able to remove the block so I can continue the amends-making with BillCJ and AKRadecki? (I'm not sock-puppeting - I'm using the Internet Cafe at the local college, so please don't IP-block the college!) Many thanks, Bushcutter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.64.158 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your revert at David Legates

Raul654, I would appreciate if you could please read this at User_Talk:I Feel Tired and self revert at David Legates. User:I Feel Tired did his revert by mistake. I would appreciate if you could take any other issues to the Talk:David_Legates#Reverts_by_User:Raul654. Thank you.--70.234.164.230 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Talk:David Legates#Reverts by User:Raul654 and am kindly inviting you to explain your edits there. Thank you. --70.234.164.230 (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit to An Inconvenient Truth

Would you please explain why you reverted my correction of an error? [edit: I've now found where I could have done better following accepted procedure."Pij" (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)] And were you being deliberately patronising when you referred to my "test" when it should have been obvious I was trying to make an improvement? "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

"Pij" (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were detrimental to the article, for the reasons mentioned by Stephan and Lorax on the article's talk page. Raul654 (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Laws

On your user page, "a few discovered by others" seems like a bit of an understatement. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Thanks for all your work at Wikipedia:Today's featured article. I have a small request though. Do you think it would be possible to work a few days further ahead than currently? This would enable more time for other editors to check the leads of articles and make improvements before they get cascade-protected. In particular there is an editor who is regularly making good suggestions Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors but he is unable to make these edits him/herself. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to reply to this? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I try to keep the queue scheduled to at least 2 or 3 days ahead of time, but I'm not going to promise to do that. (This week has been unusual in that I had a family emergency that required me to travel across the US twice in less than a week). Raul654 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Left-aligned images in the lead

A fairly exhaustive RfC at Joseph Priestley regarding its left-aligned lead image concluded over a week ago with (surprisingly) no consensus. While the supporters of the image's left-alignment are particularly talented, established, and prolific editors, I nevertheless want to make FA directors and delegates aware of the fact that there is no consensus on this issue. I only bring this to your attention as image alignment has been raised in subsequent FACs (e.g. John Calvin and John Knox) and some editors have potentially been misrepresenting the extent to which left-alignment is settled or stable consensus beyond their particular interpretation and substantial dissent from other editors (as indicated in the RfC). Madcoverboy (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd arbcom

Hard to argue with this, but you should fix up the headings and so forth. Right now it's under "Proposals by Abd" which seems not quite right...

What will happen with Arkady Renkov's evidence for this case? Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hello, Mark. I was recently blocked by you for "Range used by Scibaby". Now, I would not mind, as I certainly can edit from this account, but I prefer to edit quasi-anon (IP). I would dearly appreciate it if you could unblock my IP address, 24.205.42.102. My ISP does use dynamic IPs, but it changes rarely; roughly once every few months. Therefore, it's unlikely that scibaby would end up with my IP before the block expires, anyway. I understand if you refuse; it's a short block, and I can wait it out/use this account. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Riffraffselbow (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Global warming scepticism, Ian Plimer and his book

Hey Mark, I see you had an interest in pages concerning global warming before. Your comments at the RfCs on this Talk page would be gratefully accepted. Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Hehe, I was in the middle of typing my response to that comment. Oh well, you're probably right. Best not to muddy the waters for the arbcom -- just let them ban him, and be done with it. Raul654 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to add evidence to the arbcom case but it looks like Abd is slowly self-destructing. For the moment I'll just sit back and watch it unfold.

talk

) 03:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

At least voice your opinions and suggestions on the workshop -

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop. I'm thinking about suggesting a finding of fact regarding Abd and GoRight's relationship (To wit, that they have formed a support group for trolls, so that when one gets in trouble, the other shows up to claim all the evidence is wrong) Raul654 (talk

) 03:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as the primary editor of this article, along with several others, I am confused as to why it is on the main page at this date. Bringing the article from this was obviously not an easy task, through three FACs. :) I was planning to nominate it for November 13, 1985, as that will be the date of its 25_th anniversary, but I would just like clarification on why it was chosen for today. I know you put tons of thought into your planning and organization, so, please get back to me. Best, ceranthor 13:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Chutzpah

Removal of content from case pages

Hello, Raul. Thank you for your assistance in dealing with the recent sockpuppetry incident; I've now blocked Arkady Renkov and removed the remainder of his posts from the case pages. For future reference, however, we would appreciate if you could speak to a clerk regarding the removal of posts or content from case pages, either directly or at the

In the future, I'll call them (the sockpuppets) out but let the clerks remove their postings. Raul654 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for putting Rampart Dam on the main page. It's my second TFA, but it's always so awesome. I appreciate it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator (film)

Just a quick heads up, you slotted Alien vs. Predator (film) in for July 23rd, but the link in the blurb goes to Alien vs. Predator, the start-class article about the series, not the FA about the film. --PresN 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You missed the More... link ;) Regards, Woody (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Raul654 (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Filter capture

On

He looks legit to me (his account is from 2006). I'm going to defer checkusering him until and unless he does more editing. Raul654 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been throwing some false positives, but I think it may have

talk

) 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's him. Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - to get a list of all hits on that filter, go here Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tufts fame

I saw a beautiful photo from nature at Tufts, blown up, attributed to someone with your name. Could it be yours? It looked like it was from someone who had been at the university at the time it was taken. Did you get involved with the NIH event last week? How are you doing? +sj+ 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's mine -- I've been to Boston a few times, but I don't think I've ever been to Tufts. No, I wasn't at the NIH (I'm currently working on the other side of the country) but I might get involved in future NIH dealings as it's not too far for me. Raul654 (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC

This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you.

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter David

Hi, Raul. I did a lot of extensive work on the Peter David article, putting copious amounts of sources in it, rewriting and rearranging it, removing unsourced material, adding material, etc. It is currently rated a C on the quality scale. Do you know how to request a reevaluation, or can you tell me what can be done to improve it to a better status? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Something that may be of use to you

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive45#Reverting in unsourced material to BLP articles is interesting reading. At the time Fredrick Day wasn't banned only indef blocked (was banned later) but Abd saw fit to wikilawyer over whether he was banned or not, and revert all his edits on the basis that he was banned even to the point of adding gratuitous BLP violations back to articles. That seems to be the exact opposite of his approach when acting as a proxy for Jed Rothwell, correct? As the last post in that thread shows there's more details in the AN/ANI archives from that time, don't have time to dig round for links for them sorry. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Could you delete the last two words ("of lies") here? This tends to provoke negative reactions, regardless of whether the characterization is true.

Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, but also watch out for

talk

) 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The filter helps locate him .... but

... he is crawling out all over the place.... Yonkers Sam is definitively him. Several ip-edits are also him - i've given up on marking down everywhere he edits.

You where right. The ip-range blocks where a large help, and now we see it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather busy dealing with other things at the moment, so I'll leave it up to those short-sighted admins who pushed to get rid of the rangeblocks to now deal with the mess they've created. FWIW, you might want to compare the new IPs with the list of recently unblocked ranges here. You might also want to start another AN or ANI thread. Raul654 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You honestly think that long-term blocks on over 400,000 IPs (based on your Scibaby subpage) are justified to prevent one POV pusher who's fairly easy to identify? I'd like to see what approach you would have taken to handle Grawp vandalism. For what it's worth, I believe these blocks have helped to some degree, but he's always managed to sneak away onto an unblocked IP to edit. I don't think this partial effectiveness is an arguable defense against preventing hundreds of legitimate anonymous contributors from editing Wikipedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you aren't the one who has to clean it up now that he does get through.... And we're just seeing the tip of the 'berg now, since he can just create new puppets for slow ripening, without any form of hindering. Now i'm not saying that massive ip-blocks are good - but the situation now isn't better... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This certainly sounds difficult to deal with! 84.134.152.44 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with you. I myself deal with vandals who simply don't understand that there is more to life than disrupting Wikipedia. Kim, what do you think about semi-protection? Will that help? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It won't help, because he ages his accounts. Do you know someone with checkuser access who would be willing to share the load?

talk

) 13:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am someone with checkuser access. I have been sharing a small part of the load over the last month or so. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Nishkid's comment above - Grawp is easy to detect. In fact, his MO is so obvious that there are now automated tools to deal with him. Scibaby, contrary to your claims, is not easy to detect. It requires someone with checkuser access, who watches the affected articles, knows what to look for, and runs lots of checkusers. If he were easy to spot, checkuser access would not be required, and this would be a non-issue.

Of course, Grawp is easy to detect. I never said he wasn't. He's difficult, however, to handle. From my limited experience with Scibaby, I've found that he targets a somewhat specific subset of articles. Patrol the articles and you've hit most of the Scibaby socks (of course, there is the occasional page that goes undetected). If you want me to handle Scibaby, I'll do it. I run dozens of CUs every day, and adding a few Scibaby checks now and then won't make me complain. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Patrol the articles and you've hit most of the Scibaby socks - and how is someone without checkuser supposed to tell the difference between an ordinary newbie who happens to have edited the wrong article and a scibaby sock? If it requires checkuser to tell the difference, then by definition he is not easy to detect. Raul654 (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe these blocks have helped to some degree - the blocks were highly effective in dealing him - he went from registering 15 or 20 socks at a time to doing them in singletons. (So quantitatively, that makes them 93%-95% effective. If you hit 93% in baseball, they'd call you the greatest player who ever lived.) Only someone totally ignorant of his behavior could claim they were not effective.

I take issue with the ridiculous 5 year blocks you made on a number of IP ranges. Of course, these blocks helped, but it was easy enough for him to figure out that he could just go down the block to make another set of accounts on a different ISP. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how he waited out the 3, 6, 12, and 18 month blocks I started with, 5 years was the natural next step. Raul654 (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

but he's always managed to sneak away onto an unblocked IP to edit. - that's because he registers new accounts using his cell phone. IIRC, he uses the Sprint network, which is a huge, highly dynamic range, akin to what AOL was before they implemented XFF, except with *far* fewer legitimate users. The whole network should be blocked until they get XFF.

Yes, I've seen. Sprint PCS, same UA every time. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this partial effectiveness is an arguable defense against preventing hundreds of legitimate anonymous contributors from editing Wikipedia. - this is a strawman argument. Virtually all the blocks were anon-only. Anyone who wanted to could request an account, just as they would for any other website on the internet, and be totally unaffected by the blocks. What we're really talking about is the handful of users on those blocked ranges who wanted to edit, but didn't want to request an account. Compare that to the dozens or hundreds of regular editors on the affected articles who *very much* don't want to deal with a massive influx of sockpuppets. Raul654 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One of things people should realize with experience is that an anon is only going to create an account to make an edit if he feels it's really worth his while. Most of the time, he'll see the block notice and leave the article alone. I consider this to be a concern that still needs addressing by the community. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One of things people should realize with experience is that an anon is only going to create an account to make an edit if he feels it's really worth his while. - At that point, it becomes just as "hard" to participate on Wikipedia as it is for any other website on the internet, and this is not an especially high bar to participation. If I have to choose between making it easy to edit for those potential contributors who aren't all that interested in creating an account, and keeping Wikipedia sane for the actual regular editors who have to deal with Scibaby, it's a no brainer. Raul654 (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Senedd

Would you please review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Senedd/archive1. Even under the new expedited rules this seems harsh: promotion was denied on the basis of one oppose, all the objections of which had been dealt with when the candidacy was closed - one was unsound, but that's a detail. Am I missing something? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The FAC had been open for almost a month (28 June to 25 July) with no Support (your Support, Pma, was entered after the FAC was archived). (I'm wondering wht the "new expedited rules" might refer to?) Please feel free to inquire on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely procedural. Steve Smith and Eubulides approved the article, even if they didn't use the magic word Support.

I see then than the nominator was correct in asking me to refine my position. I made a comment (not an oppose) and was fully satisfied. I regret that I did not respond to his request faster.

Sandy, I thought we went through this; please archive, close, and put in the {{poll}} tags at the same time; this was days.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check your math; GimmeBot tagged it closed less than 24 hours after I closed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not approve the article. I approved only the article's alt text (which is pretty much all that I read of the article). I use the magic word Support only when I support the entire article. Unfortunately I often don't have time to read whole articles carefully. Eubulides (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We have {{FACClosed}} for that purpose, but editors don't always have the time to put it in. Also, Steve Smith didn't necessarily register his support, he just noted that image issues were fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The FACClosed template can be added by any editor once the FA director or delegate has moved a FAC to the promoted or archived log. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New rules?

Hello, Raul. What are these new "expedited" rules that I see referenced, and are they the reason for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Coggins/archive2 being refused after 2 weeks with no opposition while Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Coggins/archive1 went on for over a month? -- Avi (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no new expedited rules (I'm also unclear what PMA is referring to). Two weeks has always been typical, while I've always tried to let them run longer (up to a month) if the page isn't backlogged. One way nominators can help improve the situation is by helping out with some reviews; many editors have to review each FAC before they can be promoted, so if nominators help out by reviewing some others, everyone wins. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Sandy does not take credit for her actual accomplishment, of speeding up the FAC from its old norm (for which two weeks would have been minimal) to the present faster pace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Four to five days has always been minimal; review old archives. In fact, I have slowed down the pace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(to Avi) It helps if you ask reviewers if their concerns have been addressed, and if there's anything left, et al. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby

I suspect this is another for you - if it isn't already spotted and handled, that is: User:Jonny Jameson - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See above - until further notice, I'm going to let others deal with Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No hassles. I can well understand why. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

TFA html.

He Raul, can i propose this ? The extra p that is currently being created in TFA's is having unexpected alignment issues on the new mobile site. The HTML generated with these changes is cleaner and will prevent any further problems. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to doing that. Raul654 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is important to have <div>[[Image:]]</div>, without linebreaks. The linebreaks in the div will cause the actual extra paragraph to be inserted. The new styling is just to correct the margins. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Raul654 (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR again

Can you take a look at the FARCs at the bottom for Aramaic language, Krag-Jorgensen and Peterboroguh Chronicle please? I can't close them and Joelr31 said he would but has only made 1 edit in the last three weeks (to say that he would close them) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I'll review these later tonight (in 5 or 6 hours). Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I missed yesterday, but I'll definitely get to them today. Raul654 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never. I closed 2 of them, but left Aramaic language there a bit longer for Gareth. Raul654 (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Lake Burley Griffin and Cane toad are nearing closure. Most people will be satisfied soon in the next week I think; I was involved in renovating both of them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes,

Krag-Petersson and Sheffield is now a while old but I was involved there too. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV

03:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping. Sheffield is now being worked on....No movement on Aramaic YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping again for FAR! YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Feature lists on the main page

I recently

• I am particularly interested in getting the
  talk
  ) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

CO2 and methane

Can you clarify what you mean here?[2] Presently the radiative forcing from increased CO2 is about 1.7 W/m2, versus about 0.5 W/m2 for CH4.

I reverted because it looked like vandalism to me - a relatively new editor comes in and changes a long-standing answer in the FAQ to say the opposite of what it had previously. (And IMO it could go either way because methane causes far more warming on a per molecule basis, although there's less of it so it causes less total warming.) If you think the change is OK, then I'm fine with you reverting me. You're the expert. Raul654 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What, me expert? Anyway this guy been running around to various articles reorganizing FAQs into this drop-down format. He means well, but he doesn't know the subject matter in all of these articles so he sometimes screws up the answers. I'm going to wait until he's done and then go back and fix the content.

talk

) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I just went looking for Scibaby socks, to see if the filter could be improved. I found three socks (Yonkers Sam, Spe Yndle, and Stuz23), of which two are unblocked as of this writing (Nishkid blocked Yonkers Sam). Worse, I wasn't even trying anything fancy to find them -- I just took the remedial action of checking the recently unblocked ranges. Worse still is the fact that Stuz23 tripped the filter and nobody did anything about it! Conclusion - the situation is still intolerable. Further time spent pursuing this is not well spent. The only bright spot, so far as I can tell, is that the 205 filter is optimal as far as type II errors are concerned. Raul654 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for you

Well since it is claimed that we are members of some kind of

We have a secret handshake? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Life is just not fair, Boris. Too bad you're going to miss the party, but you know, members only...

Woonpton (talk

) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ack, and i've been thrown off completely - now i only feature in a small part in the text itself.... And i also wanna know the handshake! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Accusations

Greetings, Raul654. In reply to this: you and I seem to have differing opinions about what is true and what is false. You said "lying about Abd's actions" while giving a diff of GoRight saying "Abd's statements regarding policy are always backed by the clear text and spirit of the policy in question", a statement which is perfectly true as far as I'm aware. In an attempt to demonstrate the falsity of GoRight's statement, you then quoted Abd saying "We have a claim that Arkady Renkov is a sockpuppet, but no identification of the puppet master, nor any clear confirmation of policy violation". These are three true statements about the situation. They are neither statements about policy, nor false. You state that Arkady explicitly admitted to being a sockpuppet, but give no evidence of such: only a diff of Arkady admitting to being a user who has previously used a different account; and even if Arkady had admitted to such, Abd's statement that there was a claim would still also be true. Your argument about the third statement is a circular argument if the only offense was editing an arbitration page in an otherwise nondisruptive manner; circular arguments can hardly be considered "clear confirmation". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god, this wiki-lawyering is reaching epic proportions. Let me see if I get the gist of your argument -- You claim that Arkady is not a sockpuppet, if "sockpuppet" is defined as a 'malicious alternative account', rather than the commonly used definition of 'any alternative account'. Furthermore you claim that Abd's statement wasn't false statement about policy because, assuming we accept your 'malicious' definition of a sockpuppet, the policy as written states that In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings -- which, if we accept the premise of your argument (that a sockpuppet is a malicious account and by definition all activities of such are banned) would render that a vacuous statement. Is that about right? Raul654 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that GoRight was "lying" and that Abd made false statements about policy, and your claims do not seem to me to stand up to scrutiny. I'm not claiming that the Arkady account was or was not a sockpuppet, and neither was Abd. Your mileage may vary, but it makes sense to me to use the definition given right on that same policy page, i.e. "A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes..." and "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses." I suppose you could argue, if you wish, that all sentences beginning with "In particular" are vacuous, but I think such sentences serve to emphasize, clarify and strengthen policy as applied in specific circumstances. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your claims about what a sockpuppet is do not seem to me to stand up to scrutiny. Whatever the policy page says, "sockpuppet" in its common accepted usage means an alternative account. I suppose you could argue, if you wish, that all sentences beginning with "In particular" are vacuous - no, that's *exactly* what you *are* arguing, such as in your first statement on this thread that, where you said that: Your argument about the third statement is a circular argument if the only offense was editing an arbitration page in an otherwise nondisruptive manner. My argument is that alternative accounts of any stripe are prohibited from editing arbcom pages, while you are trying to wikilawyer away the definition of a sockpuppet to include only malicious alternative accounts, and consequently you argument is that explicit policy statements that sockpuppet accounts are prohibited from participating in arbcom proceedings are vacuous and redundant. And this is a wacky interpretation of policy if I've ever seen it. Raul654 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see as much creativity in your interpretation of policy, and in your informing me of what I (according to you) must have meant, as in your interpretation of Abd's and GoRight's original statements. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re this comment: I don't consider your description of what you allege I'm trying to do to be accurate. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see as much "novelty" in your interpretation of Wikipedia policy so that certain parts of it (such as the prohibition on the use of sockpuppets in arbitration) are meaningless as I see coming from GoRight and Abd. Raul654 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I also see the arbitration committee has defined sockpuppetry as it is commonly used, and contrary to your supposed definition of it, thus demolishing your argument. Raul654 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I didn't find a definition of sockpuppetry in the link you give. Could you tell me which subsection it's in?

If someone edits an arbitration case with an admitted alternative account, my approach would be to ask them what their reason is for using an alternative account, and if necessary point out to them the sentence about arbitration proceedings in the sockpuppet policy. Given the existence of that sentence, they had better have a good reason. For example, if the person declares the name of their main account, states that their alternative account is for the purpose of posting from public computers, and confirms this from their main account, then I would consider that sufficient. There may be other good reasons. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As it says clearly on that page, The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. This contradicts your claim that sockpuppets are malicious and prohibited by definition. In short, the arbitration committee has implicitly defined a sockpuppet as the term is commonly understood - as any alternative account, whether used for good or not. That is why they go on to state explicitly: Abuse of sockpuppet accounts... is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. I hope this has been enlightening for you. Raul654 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. If I understand correctly, when you read that sentence in the sockpuppet policy, you understand the word "sockpuppet" in the way the arbitration committee has used the word, not in the way the word is defined in the first sentence of the policy. I suppose under that interpretation, an alternative account for use on public computers, as I describe above, would be technically disallowed, though presumably allowed under IAR. Before claiming that Abd has made a "false" statement, wouldn't it make sense to ask him which definition of "sockpuppet" he was using? I intend to continue to use the definition in its first sentence when interpreting the policy unless I see good reason to do otherwise. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Re this comment: Your wording seems to me to indicate a prior assumption that there was an intent to deceive, when no such intent need be postulated to fully understand and explain Abd's actions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, while we could all do as you do and go the extra mile to see no problems with Abd's behavior, I prefer to base my conclusions on evidence rather than gut feeling. The evidence - his behavior - clearly shows that his first statement was intended for public consumption, and does not reflect what he actually believes. Raul654 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's behaviour is perfectly consistent with openness and honesty, along with the occasional mistake as people commonly make whether his age or not. Not everyone understands some of the distinctions he makes, that's all. I don't agree with your assessment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Just saw you edit, so I had to nag you again YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I promise to tend to FAC and FAR by tomorrow at the latest. Raul654 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I should be OK to get through FAC this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to nag again....YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's my bad. I scheduled the main page FAs as promised, but didn't get to FAR. I've done it now. Raul654 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you removed Aramaic language from the list but haven't put it in the archive as kept or removed. Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Howdy there

As I understand it,

Thanks as always for your work on this stuff! -Pete (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No problems here -- just make sure you update the main page blurb so it goes to the new name and not the redirect. Raul654 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance -- where does that live? -Pete (talk)

Never mind...found it...fixed :) Thanks. -Pete (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR interview

Hey there. I would like to conduct an interview regarding the Featured Article Review process over the next week or two. Are you available / are you interested? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested, although mid-September or later would work better for me. Raul654 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why was the link you removed considered "inappropriate"? It was a much higher-value and specific link than just linking to the article about the Olympics for that year. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Because a link to the 2008 Olympics, which Johnson didn't play in and probably didn't attend, is not appropriate. It has no place in the at article. Raul654 (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see. Thank you for your prompt response. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, wouldn't it make sense to link to Basketball at the 1992 Summer Olympics instead of removing the link altogether? I think the insertion of 2008 was a typo. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. Raul654 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I reinstated it. Can it be reinstated in the Main Page blurb? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 12, 2009

Hey, I just wanted to ask if you could consider finding a replacement for this. I was planning on nominating it for December 25, and it does still need a bit of work before it's suitable for the main page, I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Christmas in August!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-triggering new message bar, to ensure you see this thread. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ffmpeg2theora

I used this to convert the MP4 downloaded from Apollo 8 MP4 to file:Apollo8Launch.ogg but it lost the sound. Is there a way to keep the sound in the conversion? Bubba73 (talk), 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I'm not sure

I respectfully disagree - it's ridiculous that he's been able to flaunt the meatpuppetry policy for so long. Attempts to deal with it up until now have not worked. I think it's long past time to start documenting it as publicly as possible. Raul654 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I tend to wait until misbehavior becomes absolutely blindingly incontrovertibly obvious, but there's also value in acting before that point. I'm tending to be more and more of a

talk

) 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Block of 129.82.40.0/20 affecting IP 129.82.47.113

Hello Raul654,

This does not affect me so much since I have a user account (as you see I am logged in) but I just wanted to let you know that your block of the IP range 129.82.40.0/20 is also somehow affecting the IP address 129.82.47.113. I am not too up on the complete details of how a block works, but I just wanted you to know that this was happening.

I also believe the IP range you blocked may have been reassigned since your block as that range is now used by the Colorado State University Computer science department in our new building (which opened since the block took affect.) If your could review the block to make sure that it is still doing what you intended, that would be great. --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 20:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

request for your input

Hi Raul,

A month ago, I proposed unprotecting the TFA blurbs until a few days before they go live at

As long as the blurbs stay formatted as I format them, match the contents of the article, and people don't edit war over them, I don't have any problems with letting non-admins edit the main page blurbs Raul654 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have lowered the protection of these pages so that any confirmed user can edit them. Today's and Tomorrow's remain fully-protected of course. It might be an idea to add some of those formatting guidelines to an edit notice? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

FARs to close this weekend

I was going to tend to them now, but I see they got closed. Raul654 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Long time no talk! Let me know what you're up to nowadays. Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Linuxbeak! I'm good. These days, I'm doing performance analysis of scientific code at Los Alamos National Lab. Once I wrap things up here next month, I'll be going back to the east coast to (hopefully) finish my phd. What are you up to? Let me know here or drop me an email. Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Water

I understand that you are in charge of Featured Articles. Well, is there anything else that Water needs to be to become one?--Launchballer (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered reapplying for Good Article status first, after addressing the issues that caused it to lose that status? After you do that, and possibly a peer review, you might want to submit the article at

WP:FAC and see how it fares.--Wehwalt (talk

) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

just fyi...

A Counter-proposal (September 26) is being discussed at DC 8 (talk).
--NBahn (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cabal communique 2009.419

DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING IF YOU ARE NOT A CABAL MEMBER

One of the cool things about watchlists is that you can watch a redlinked page to see when it's created. I've just put

NONMEMBERS MAY RESUME READING

Thanks for the tip. When I add a red link to my watchlist, I usually just manually edit the raw watchlist to add them. Raul654 (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul absent for the next two weeks?

At the start of the month, Raul scheduled 17 days of TFA. Normally he doesn't do it very far in advance, I saw often only 3-4 days in advance in recent times. Does anybody know if he will be away until then? Did he announce it anywhere? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say anything to my knowledge, but of course he could have on a page I don't have watchlisted. It may not be as long as that, four of the five TFA/R nominations were between the 12th and 17th, and he might have pushed ahead further than he needed to in order to clean out the page and give other articles a chance to be nominated and evaluated.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul, that discussion also spread to

Heads up -- I'll be leaving tonight for the Grand Canyon, and won't have any internet access again until Sunday. Raul654 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Have fun ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop in on talk:FAR after I get back. Raul654 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

But could you take a look at this if you get a chance? Hope you enjoyed your time off. Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

300th birthday heads up

Raul,

Your objective input is requested on Christianity and abortion

I am currently on the brink of an edit war with a revisionist contributor (User:IronAngelAlice) who wants the Christianity and abortion section to suggest that Christianity has taken a somewhat equivocal and lenient view of abortion. Your objective opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the history. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

An article of mine

Hi, I made an article a few months ago called Las Hermanas Montoya, and for some reason, it still isn't appearing on Yahoo! search. In fact, until recently, it was displaying my userpage as one of the search results, until a few days ago when it stopped picking up everything. It displays fine on Google, but not on Yahoo!. Can this be resolved? Thanks! --Hatman1960 (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the issue is with Yahoo. There's not much we can do about it. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
September 12, 2009
Time: 3 pm
Location:

University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the

The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.

Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by

Essay that you may be interested in

Hi Raul. I have written an essay about censorship and the Main Page, aptly titled Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page. Given your prominent influence in the Main Page, I thought you may be interested in it. Cheers, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, we are a diverse community, and the easiest way to gauge consensus over whether to censor material is to ask. - there's a big, obvious problem with this approach. If 50 people have a discussion about what is and is not appropriate on the main page, there will inevitably be 50 different, irreconcilable opinions. From my perspective, the problem is intractable. Raul654 (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Please accept this overdue barnstar as a token of appreciation for all the good work you do... Johnfos (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) Raul654 (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Daily Kitten

Is it possible to add a couple cat pictures I have on my userpage into the queue for the Daily Kitten pics? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. Raul654 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how, but here are three you can use. No credit needed, I just took them of my cats for decoration on my userpage. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gallery's e-mail

The response I received was, "Thank you for your interest, howeve, we do not have a public gallery. Try some of these fine New York galleries: [www.artdealers.org] ..." I'm not sure where to go from here. What do you think? –blurpeace ^(talk) 00:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, it means they exist only to sell paintings, not to display them. In other words, they're a dead end. Hopefully the Goodrich papers will have photographs of their works which I can scan. Raul654 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Museum photography and organized events

Sorry to say it Raul, but I don't think we can really do museum photography as part of organized events without getting permission from the museums. So I don't think this will work for

I've already considered that. All the things I requested from the PMA are in the permanent collection, for which photography is permitted (Photographs may be taken without flash, using natural light, in most areas of the Museum. However, photography of works on loan and in special exhibitions is not permitted.-- http://www.philamuseum.org/visit/12-15-8.html). I've asked the La Salle gallery about it and I should know tomorrow - I expect they'll say yes. St Charles Borromeo Seminary doesn't say anything about it on their website, but since the Eakins paintings are available by appointment only, whoever goes can ask when they make the appointment; ditto the one in the Upenn radiology department. The only one I have no idea about is the David David gallery. Raul654 (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would love to be able to accommodate all of your photo requests, but frankly we already have a long backlog of assembling teams and task lists and negotiations with third parties that are really essential to getting this project going at all. We do not at this point have the appropriate volunteer resources to be able to devote toward working with these institutions at this level in a really professional way. I hope very much to follow up on your leads later, but I am afraid that the time is not now. Thanks for your understanding in all this.--Pharos (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Re: After Saturday comes Sunday. What's the policy governing the notability of slogans? I ask, because I've never heard of this slogan and I speak fluent Arabic and live in Nazareth and no one I know, knows about this "famous" slogan. Considering the ambivalence expressed in one source regarding its supposed meaning, is it fair to state that it means what you say it means without any qualification? Do you have any other sources? If you do, please provide them, because I'm thinking of nominating the article for deletion.Tiamut^talk 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we have a specific policy covering the notability of slogans.

Considering the ambivalence expressed in one source regarding its supposed meaning, is it fair to state that it means what you say it means without any qualification? - the article cites three sources, all of which define it the same (almost verbatim, in fact). It gets 13,000 hits on google, which is quite a lot considering it's a translation. If you want more reliable sources, I notice that Google books lists 25 books with that phrase:

• After Saturday Comes Sunday - HAMAS wasn't just a threat to Jews, its Islamicization of the struggle made Palestine's Christian community particularly nervous - To Rule Jerusalem‎, Roger Friedland, Richard Hecht, 2000
• 'After Saturday comes Sunday, an Arab tells me' — the proverb meaning that after the Jews are massacred it will be the turn of the Christians. - Crescent and star: Arab & Israeli perspectives on the Middle East conflict, Yonah Alexander, Nicholas N. Kittrie , 1973, page 262
• "After Saturday, comes Sunday," meaning that the forces of Islamic fundamentalism will turn to fighting the Christians after they have fought the Jews. - Joint Publications Research Service, United States. Foreign Broadcast Information Service
• And the list goes on and on. Raul654 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the 25 listings at google books are from English language guides. (I just checked myself too.) There is perhaps one other source you missed: Bat Ye'or. I notice most of the sources use it in passing (in other words, they are primary source examples of usage of the term). The only two real secondary sources are Bat Ye'or and one other author whose excerpt you cite in full on that page. That's pretty much it. I'm not sure it meets our notability guidelines (is there one specifically for slogansI don't think a viable article can be made out of it, considering how limited its usage is and how limited source material on it is. But I'll hold off nominating it for deletion for now to give you and others a chance to prove me wrong. Tiamut^talk 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the 25 listings at google books are from English language guides. - The vast majority of them are books on the Israeli/Palastinian conflict. "I saw the battle of Jerusalem‎", "Christian communities in Jerusalem and the West Bank since 1948", "The Middle East peace process: interdisciplinary perspectives" - these are not guides. They are clearly subject-specific books, closely related to the topic of the article.

I notice most of the sources use it in passing - so what? Short of finding a dictionary of Arabic phrases written in English I don't see how you are going to find a usage that cannot be described as written in passing. (Note that I have no intention of doing this, because it's a ridiculously high bar to set)

The only two real secondary sources are Bat Ye'or and one other author whose excerpt you cite in full on that page. - that is false. Most, if not all, of the books I linked above are secondary sources about the conflict.

I'm not sure it meets our notability guidelines - I disagree. The phrase clearly has a substantial popular and academic use.

I don't think a viable article can be made out of it, considering how limited its usage is and how limited source material on it is. - the article has three cited sources, with another 25 more being provided here after you asked for them. That is far more than most articles, let alone a 1 paragraph stub.

If you do, please provide them, because I'm thinking of nominating the article for deletion. - I have provided them. If you don't think the 28 sources I have cited are enough, go ahead and nominate it for deletion. I would be extremely surprised if the article is deleted. Raul654 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided 28 sources. Looking at the google link you provided (a search including the word "jew" which filtered out the english language instruction books I spoke of):

• Islam and Dhimmitude: where civilizations collide‎ - Page 179

by Bat Yeʾor, Miriam Kochan, David Littman - History - 2002 - 528 pages "After Saturday Comes Sunday" In the conceptual and political context of jihad, Zionism represented for the Jews the only means of freeing themselves from ...

• • The one I referred you to. Note Bat Ye'or's views of Islam are well-known.

• Christian attitudes towards the State of Israel‎ - Page 126

by Paul Charles Merkley - History - 2001 - 266 pages ... sections of Jerusalem and Bethlehem: "After Saturday, comes Sunday! ... Those Jews unable to flee Iran live in a mileu of intolerable harassment, ... Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library

• • Already cited in the article. So with the three that are already cited there plus Bat Ye'or, we have 4 in total so far.

• To Rule Jerusalem‎ - Page 376

by Roger Friedland, Richard Hecht - Religion - 2000 - 604 pages After Saturday Comes Sunday HAMAS wasn't just a threat to Jews, its Islamicization of the struggle made Palestine's Christian community particularly nervous ...

• • This seems to be used as a title to a section, oddly, but okay, number 5.

• by American Universities Field Staff - History

There is a decade-old saying in the Near East that "after Saturday, comes Sunday ," meaning that after the expulsion of the Jews, whose Sabbath is on ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

• Reports service‎ - Page 28
  • this is number 6. Who is saying this?

• by American Universities Field Staff - History - 1961

There is a decade-old saying in the Near East that "after Saturday, comes Sunday ," meaning that after the expulsion of the Jews, whose Sabbath is on ...

• • this is the number 6, same as above.

• Crescent and star: Arab & Israeli perspectives on the Middle East conflict‎ - Page 262

by Yonah Alexander, Nicholas N. Kittrie - Social Science - 1973 - 486 pages ... alia: " 'After Saturday comes Sunday, an Arab tells me' — the proverb meaning that after the Jews are massacred it will be the turn of the Christians. ...

• • this is number 7. Some unnamed Arab tells him, yup.

• Mother Jones Magazine‎

Magazine - Mar-Apr 1993 - v. 18, no. 2 "After Saturday comes Sunday" is a famous Muslim saying, sometimes interpreted to mean that after the fundamentalists finish the Jews, they'll deal with the ...

• • this is already cited in the article (its by Israel Amrani), so we are still at number 7.

• The PFLP's changing role in the Middle East‎ - Page 178

by Harold M. Cubert - History - 1997 - 235 pages Another slogan, After Saturday comes Sunday', could be understood as an indication that after finishing with the Jews, Hamas will turn to the Christians . ...

• • Number 8. Notice the ambivalent language "could be understood as".

• Barbed wire shall not return to Jerusalem‎ - Page 9

by Yosef Tekoah - History - 1968 - 43 pages The report states, inter alia: "'After Saturday comes Sunday, an Arab tells me' -the proverb meaning that after the Jews are massacred it will be the turn ...

• • this is the same as number 7, which means we are still at number 8.

• Joint Publications Research Service report. Near East & South Asia‎ - Page 8

by United States. Joint Publications Research Service, United States. Foreign Broadcast Information Service - History ... "After Saturday, comes Sunday," meaning that the forces of Islamic fundamentalism will turn to fighting the Christians after they have fought the Jews. ...

• • Number 9.

• Note that on the 2nd page of the search you linked to, the listing shrinks to 19 instead of 25. And there are the following:

• Joint Publications Research Service report. Near East & South Asia‎

by United States. Joint Publications Research Service, United States. Foreign Broadcast Information Service - History Page 9 After Saturday comes Sunday. The latter slogan was the most serious since ... the Jews today, the resistance will move to resisting the Christians tomorrow. ...

• • Number 10.

• I saw the battle of Jerusalem‎ - Page 2

by Harry Levin - History - 1950 - 288 pages They never quite forgot the old cry of the Moslem fanatics' "After. Saturday comes Sunday," after the turn of the Jews come* that of the Christians. ...

• • Number 11.

• Problems of World War II and its aftermath‎ - Page 269

by United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs, United States. Congress. House. Committee on International Relations - History - 1976 But you talk with most Arabs and they will tell you, "And don't forget, after Saturday comes Sunday," moaning after we kill the Jews, symbolized by Saturday ...

• • Number 12.

• Selected executive session hearings of the committee, 1943-50 ...‎ - Page 269

by United States. Congress. House. Committee on International Relations - History - 1976 But you talk with most Arabs and they will tell you, "And don't forget, after Saturday comes Sunday," meaning after we kill the Jews, symbolized by Saturday ...

• • Same as number 12.

• Selected Executive Session Hearings of the Committee, 1943-50; Volume II ...‎ - Page 269

by United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs, United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee No. 2 (Foreign Affairs)., United States. Congress. House. Committee on International Relations - History - 1976 - 600 pages ... after Saturday comes Sunday," meaning after we kill the Jews, symbolized by Saturday, we go to work on those symbolized by Sunday ; in other words, ...

• • Number 13.

The last 4 listings we cannot know what they refer to since we cannot see inside. Note at least one of them seems entirely unrelated being entitled:

• Tracing land use across ancient boundaries: letters on the use of land in ...‎

by Walter Clay Lowdermilk, United States. Soil Conservation Service - Business & Economics - 1939 - 133 pages [ Sorry, this page's content is restricted ]

So there is a total of 13 sources, not 28. Three of them are from US foreign house committee meetings, all held in 1976. Two of these are, "Joint Publications Research Service report. Near East & South Asia‎ by United States," of unknown date (could they perhaps be referring to the committee meetings?) One is an American universities field report from 1961. That means at least 5 (arguably 6) of the 13 total sources are from US government affiliated bodies dating between 1961 and 1976. Its not clear who the speaker is (if its part of a debate, on what, etc.) and whether some of these are summaries of one another. The 7 sources left, well if you think they establish notability and provide enough information for a decent article, I guess we can politely disagree. I'll see what happens to the article with time. Like I said, I think its an American invention. No one I know uses it, or even understands what it supposedly means, and its dissemination by people who are not known for their love of Islam or Arabs makes me suspect its propaganda. Anyway, happy editing. Tiamut^talk 00:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I've requested you retract this. ATren (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Consider your request rejected. Raul654 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you won't retract it, because you know the rules don't apply to you. That's precisely the problem Abd is trying to address, and while I wish he would refine his approach and not post so much verbiage, I still support his argument. Judging by the current state of the case, I think many on the committee and in the community agree. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I'm not the one wearing blinders. ATren (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you won't retract it, because you know the rules don't apply to you - you are the one who seems to think reality doesn't apply to you. You don't get to play the role of GoRight apologist for months or years at a time, then demand someone not call you one. That's precisely the problem Abd is trying to address - yea, his cabal allegations, for which the arbcom is passing an FOF that they have no credibility whatsoever, were real convincing. Judging by the current state of the case, I think many on the committee and in the community agree. - what are you talking about? There is broad community support for sanctions on Abd, and GoRight has done an excellent job of demonstrating to everyone there that he isn't much better. Raul654 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blinders, indeed. ATren (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is in relation to a separate comment, but the general gist of it is the same; comments such as this cross the line into personal attacks ("You contribute nothing of value to Wikipedia - if this were the case, he'd have been blocked long ago and we wouldn't be here.) Your comments have taken a generally more pointed tone of late, and I do need to ask you to tone it down some. If users are asking you to retract or rephrase comments, please try to take an objective look at them and consider rephrasing. The belief that others are behaving with a less than optimal standard of behavior does not give you leave to do the same. Thank you.

a/c

) 04:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your analysis. I think it's a fully accurate description of Abd's behavior, and in addition to Abd I can cite numerous exceptions to your claim that if this were the case, he'd have been blocked long ago and we wouldn't be here. (Plautus Satire, for one). Nonetheless, I have removed the comment. Raul654 (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul, you claim recent "disruption" by Abd on

Blacklight Power. Can you point to the specific disruptive edits there? He made 3 copy-edits on 8/18, and there have been 5 short, non-confrontational comments on the talk page. Is there a disruptive post I missed? If not, then I would suggest you remove that claim as well. ATren (talk

) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this one, where Abd announces a "breakthrough" paper, which he admits has no critical analysis, was published in a low-visibility journal because "Breakthrough papers" can have difficulty finding publishers, and for which the announcement was later removed. Raul654 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your example of disruption? A short statement from Abd about a new possible source, on the talk page where it would be applicable, a source which others analyzed, and which Abd later agreed with others' assessments? Under what definition of "disruption" could this possibly apply?
This is yet another example of the real problem: some editors consider any discussion which may counter their own view to be disruption. That attitude is far more disruptive than "walls of text". I stand by my request: there is no support for your allegation of recent disruption on Blacklight Power, and you should remove that claim. ATren (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the real problem, as the arbcom is finding in their FOFS, is that Abd has edited cold-fusion related articles disruptively. That thread is a perfect example of that in miniature - he finds an unreliable source to push his fringe POV, and then other people have to come in and explain why it's inappropriate for the article. Multiply this happening by a hundred-fold and you begin to get an idea of Abd's "contributions". Raul654 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, clearly, that was the sole extent of your charge of "disruption": Abd politely presenting a source for analysis on a source page, then agreeing with the conclusions of others that it is probably inappropriate. My GOD, the man's a menace! :-)
This is yet more evidence that you view any disagreement with you as disruption, and anyone who defends the people you attack is an "apologist". If a newbie behaved this way, making false accusations in an arbcom case, they would be quickly indef blocked. But you do it with impunity. That is the problem. Experienced users should be expected to adhere to the same standards they set for others. ATren (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, clearly, that was the sole extent of your charge of "disruption" - are you intentionally misrepresenting me, or are you just that ignorant of the case? I already very clearly provided substantial, cross-referenced lists of Abd's misbehaviors. His article disruption, pushing a fringe POV using unreliable sources, is one misbehavior of many. Abd politely presenting a source for analysis on a source page, then agreeing with the conclusions of others that it is probably inappropriate. - If this were his first time, nobody would notice it. The fact that he's doing this, while an arbitration proceeding against him for POV pushing on cold fusion article is on-going, shows an extremely lack of common sense and only serves to reinforce the well-established fact that Abd is impervious to behavioral modification. This is yet more evidence that you view any disagreement with you as disruption - tell that to the numerous independent editors who have commented to say they agree that there's plenty of evidence of disruption. The same people that Abd has labeled as "cabal" members based solely of the fact that they have commented negatively on his misbehavior. and anyone who defends the people you attack is an "apologist - if you act like an apologist, repeatedly defending the undefendable misbehaviors of a troublemaker, don't be surprised when people call you one. Experienced users should be expected to adhere to the same standards they set for others. - Agreed. If I see an experienced editor behaving like Abd does, I'll be sure to deal with him in the same way. Raul654 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Give an example from the last 12 weeks or accept the statement as factual and fully acceptable per

WP:SPADE. I find it somewhat disgusting how real threats and personal attacks seem to be ok if sufficiently veiled and buried under a landfill of verbiage, but much more harmless statements are deemed unacceptable because they are in the clear. Apparently nobody filters through Abd's output for diamonds (yeah, right) or turds anymore. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 07:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If such an example of Abd contributing actual content exists, it should be easy to identify: He's only made a handful of edits in article namespace in the last 12 weeks: [3]. Despite the walls of text (of the magnitude of one features article every two days), out of his ~2000 edits in the last 12 weeks less that 6% (115) were in article namespace. It appears, Abd is not here to write Wikipedia articles. He is here because he likes to engage in discussion. And what articles would be better suited for this, than the controversial ones? Last October he spent a month at

Global warming, soon after he moved on to Cold fusion. But finally he seems to have found an even better place for endless debate... I really don't see the problem with Raul's comment. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?}

08:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's main contributions to the project are in areas of application of policy: as one example, facilitating the unbanning of Wilhelmina Will, who continues to contribute productively to mainspace. Abd also contributes directly in mainspace, and in spite of being overwhelmed by the arb case, has also continued to do so recently: (selected examples [4] [5] [6]). He also recently facilitated the arrival at consensus over what had been a long-term edit war at Rebecca Quick, and has contributed to the project in many other ways. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Abd's main contributions to the project are in areas of application of policy" -

If this is a joke, it's not funny. Raul654 (talk

) 17:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This rationalization of attacks is typical of the problem that Abd is trying to address. Raul attacks with unsubstantiated charges, and the same 12-or-so people come to his defense, piling on the victim with more unsubstantiated claims. Yes, he has a problem with verbiage, and it's a severe problem that he must address, but it doesn't mean he should be subject to these kinds of attacks. He hasn't contributed anything? Please! Just because you disagree with what he does, that doesn't mean he doesn't contribute. It seems that some editors here believe that their POV is sacrosanct, and that anyone who challenges them is unproductive or even disruptive. That's the real problem. ATren (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This rationalization of attacks is typical of the problem that Abd is trying to address. - actually, Abd sees many problems that he tries to "fix". For example, he seems to think it's a problem that our science articles are based on reliable published journals and textbooks, and instead seeks to replace them with references to crackpottery in highly unreliable sources. He thinks that bans are warnings which can be ignored, and that when other people violate their bans, he's free to revert war to restore their comments. He seems to think that basic rules of etiquette, about not drowning out others in conversations, are outdated. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Raul attacks with unsubstantiated charges - correction: I make charges based on the evidence of Abd's behavior; charges which the arbitration committee has more-or-less accepted in their entirety as true. but it doesn't mean he should be subject to these kinds of attacks - Translation: Atren wants to stifle candid discussion of Abd's misbehavior. It seems that some editors here believe that their POV is sacrosanct, and that anyone who challenges them is unproductive or even disruptive. - no, the people here believe that Wikipedia should use reliable sources and should accurately describe the reality of the world, and that it shouldn't be a platform for crackpots pushing their nutty beliefs. Raul654 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"I make charges based on the evidence of Abd's behavior; charges which the arbitration committee has more-or-less accepted in their entirety as true." - Bringing this back to reality, you cite examples of things that Abd has done, true, but your assertions that these substantiate your claims, as with the "evidence" you present against me, are shall we say "exaggerated" beyond all reasonable relationship to "the truth". --GoRight (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee, GoRight -- who himself is guilty of many of the same misbehaviors that Abd is about to be sanctioned for -- doesn't think the evidence is convincing. Who could have seen that coming? The arbitration committee felt them more than suffeciently justified, hence the FOFs in the case. Raul654 (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no truth to your recent charge that Abd disrupted

Blacklight Power, yet you refuse to retract it. Why is that Raul? As for me "stifling candid discussion of Abd's misbehavior", look at how many times I've berated him on his talk page for his verbiage, then tell me again how I want to stifle discussion. The fact is this: you are not discussing, you are accusing, and falsely accusing at that. I don't care who you are or what Abd has done, to falsely accuse him of disruption on that page is disruptive and abusive. As for the crackpots and nuts -- if everyone who disagrees with the prevailing theory is a "crackpot", then science is no different than theology, and Wikipedia is the 21st century version of the Scopes monkey trial. ATren (talk

) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no truth to your recent charge that Abd disrupted

Blacklight Power, yet you refuse to retract it. Why is that Raul? - because you are flatly and totally wrong. His behavior there was the *exact* same behavior that got him into trouble on the cold fusion article, in minature. But why let facts get in the way of a good rant? The fact is this: you are not discussing, you are accusing - agreed. I have no desire to discuss Abd's misbehavior with him. Others have tried that over and over again without success. I see no sense in wasting my time. Instead, I'm going to make sure the arbitrators are fully aware of his misbehavior, so that the arbitration case results in a decision that actually does limit his disruption. and falsely accusing at that. - Many independent editors have agreed with my evidence. Your claims are false, as usual. I don't care who you are or what Abd has done, to falsely accuse him of disruption on that page is disruptive and abusive. - Frankly, I don't care about the opinion of an Abd apologist who is throwing around baseless accusations. As for the crackpots and nuts -- if everyone who disagrees with the prevailing theory is a "crackpot", then science is no different than theology, and Wikipedia is the 21st century version of the Scopes monkey trial. - Then by all means, go over to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and make the case for why we should allow crackpots and nuts to put their various theories into Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk

) 22:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"because you are flatly and totally wrong" - No, it is because you are secure in the knowledge that your

WP:DR proceedings? Pfft. You are the one with the team of blind apologists, not me or Abd. --GoRight (talk

) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm done here. It's clear there was nothing disruptive in Abd's recent comments on Blacklight Power (5 short comments, all of which were short, polite, and not at all escalating in tone). It's also clear that you will refuse to admit that fact, even though the diffs are right there for all to see. So I'm done with it. ATren (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Just more baseless accusations. --GoRight (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Rule 5, Raul (the real Rule 5, not the one the Cabal shows to outsiders).

Kids for cash

Regarding this diff, I agree that this scandal should have an article but I don't think that "Kids for cash" should be the title. How about Luzerne County juvenile detention scandal? By the way, I can't recall hearing that term, do you have a source that shows the scandal is generally referred to in that way, rather than that being simply a tabloid news hook? Best, Sswonk (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kids for cash scandal looks easy to source as a name for this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added a sentence to the article citing [7]. However, I think "Kids for cash" would need to be a redirect, not the main title. Sswonk (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've put an RD at

Wikipedia:Title#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name for why such a name would most likely be ok, say if the topic further widens. Gwen Gale (talk

) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards agreeing with you on that title for the main article. But, editing the article to redlink it is now not going to work. Thoughts? Sswonk (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my edit and let me know what you think. Meanwhile, I don't see any support at all for calling it Luzerne County juvenile detention scandal. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I've been reverted. COI/PoV, maybe? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, your edit looks OK, I will try to throw something together with the Kids for cash scandal title. There is a little bit of support, just as a "summary of the Google summaries", for that other more formal title. It really isn't necessary to create it as a redirect; now that we've investigated a little, I think what disqualifies it would be using "Luzerne County" to begin the title, making it more obscure. I.E., a book title on this would more likely be "Kids for cash: the 2008 Luzerne County judicial kickback scandal" rather than the other way around. Legal readers, in my experience, would be more prone to recognize the jurisdiction before the informal reference, but the guidelines suggest using the latter. Since ec: not sure about motivation, Mystery has been editing it for a few days. I'll engage on the article talk. Sswonk (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Our guiding principle in these matters is to use the common name, and I think it's pretty obvious that "kids for cash", or some variation thereof, is by far the most common name. (Googling seem to show that "cash for kids" is a bit more common than "kids for cash", about 64,000 hits to 12,000 hits) The article, as it now stands (in a scandal called "Kids for cash" in 2008. The scandal has been referred to as "kids for cash".[4]) is horrifically bad. The first sentence is unnecessarily bloated, and the second is entirely redundant. I'm probably going to revert to my version if nobody else does it first. Raul654 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No argument it was horrific. My mistake in jumping back and forth. Check it now. Sswonk (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's improved ("in a scandal called kids for cash in 2008") but my version ("in the kids for cash scandal in 2008") was better, especially if 'kids for cash' is a blue link. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading above, you can see that I needed convincing that "Kids for cash" wasn't just a tabloid news hook. Count me as convinced. How's the lead look now? Sswonk (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Now someone should turn the redirect into a real article - which is why I put a red link there in the first place :) Raul654 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected the Ranks of Nobility template?

Hi, you seem to have protected this template during my edit. Is there a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuralwarp (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected it months ago because it was getting a lot of anon edits and many of them were vandalism. Raul654 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice

To all interested parties, I have opened the following discussion at

Note - I have opened up a discussion on GoRight's continued disruption of Wikipedia here Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you see this? [9] Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Southey

I noticed this. Normally, people don't redlink unless they have an interest. I have to (well, I was asked to) put together summaries on Southey's poetry. To kill two birds with one stone, I will add Wiki pages. I assume that you were interested in this one, no? Are there any other Southey poems you may be fond of by chance? I will most likely work on them in subspace, so, if you would want me to link you before pushing them forward in case you want to join in, I would be happy to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I red-linked it because it appeared on a list of articles we need -- Wikipedia:Stanford Archive answers/2 -- which I have been trying to prune down. I don't personally know much about the topic, though. Raul654 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aww, I was hoping that there was a Southey fan out there. :) Regardless, I will be working on them (but more of a shotgun approach because no one has any favourites it seems). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kids for cash scandal

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

NW (Talk) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

your question answered

please check my talk page. Freshymail-user_talk:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 06:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sept 1 FA request

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#September_1_2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)