The Original Barnstar
		For putting up Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as TFA despite the flames. meshach (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

...and for resisting the temptation to say what I would've in your position. —WFC— 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Keep up the good work, Raul. —David Levy 01:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.SPAMFILTEREVASIONexaminer.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikipedia-features-cartoon-anal-probe (delete SPAMFILTEREVASION)

Alarbus (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Oh no. Greg Kohs doesn't approve of the job I do and bad-mouthed me in a column that nobody will ever see. However shall I cope? Raul654 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the sound file (which I shall now go and listen to with much pleasure). I have juggled it and the two nearby pictures around slightly, which leaves all three files adjacent to relevant text. Tim riley (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've schedule it to appear on the main page in three days.

Your future reference, the way I got the song was extremely simple - youtube now allows you to search for CC-licensed works and there's an online youtube-to-ogg converter here. SO if you happen to be editing music articles, now it's very simple to find music to add to them. Raul654 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I say! That search and converter facility sounds really excellent. Thank you so much for letting me know, and I'll look out for other sound files for future articles. I've copied and pasted your message above to my "How To" cheat-sheet. More power to your elbow! Tim riley (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggested a few minor changes to your write-up Raul.[1] See if you like them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Raul, I've tried to update the new TFA for MOS but it has two dead links, I wonder if (in future), you should have a reserve FAC which is always ready to go and top notch? I'll try to fix those links, although Norwegian isn't by first (or second or third .... or fifty-third language).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about doing that before. What I could do is put a note on TFAR that in the event of serious problem X, to go ahead and use article Y. And then some definition about what kind of events would qualify. Raul654 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth having one in your pocket, this one is a tiny bit ropey, I can't find an easy replacement for one of the two deadlinks yet. Will go over the text shortly. Will this now just run until midnight UTC today? Is that a precedent? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it will only be on the main page 7 hours. Admittedly that's a bit unfair to the article's authors, but I figured that there are many, many hurricane FAs and this wouldn't greatly impact the supply. Raul654 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem unless it's another TFA precedent (like SOPA-day!) in which case I guess we'll need to be prepared for a "why wasn't this checked for copyvio before TFA" dramaz. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've had to switch one out mid-day. In those cases, the replacement article always stayed for less than 24 hours. The current situtation is just following those precedents.

The SOPA blackout was different from those other situations because I knew the blackout was coming days ahead of time. Raul654 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, no problem, just trying to avoid more drama as we've seen more than our fair share over the past few days. On Nate, I've done my best to remove dabs, ensure external links are live etc, hopefully no further issues. But as I said, always worth having an FA or two in reserve, probably a couple of recent ones which have undergone recent scrutiny per WP:WIAFA so there's less work to do to make sure they're fit for main page. Also, do you (semi-)protect main page FAs? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) FYI, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency was created in November 2011; it's linked at the top of WT:TFAR but perhaps a few more links around the place would be helpful. (2) TFAs are move-protected only, usually. WP:SEMI says that the TFA "may be semi-protected just like any other article. But since this article is subject to sudden spurts of vandalism during certain times of day, administrators should semi-protect it for brief periods in most instances." Bencherlite^Talk 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Bencherlite, you spoil us... Maybe Raul wasn't aware of that (I certainly wasn't but I'm a real TFA-noob) however it seems like a good idea... After I asked about the TFA protection I realised how silly it was, the FA itself will be open to "editing" but the TFA blurb (I assume) will be protected. Same as the stuff I'm used to at TFL. I'll learn one day how this place works. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're doing very well for a newbie, TRM. Keep it up and someone might nominate you for admin. The TFA blurb is cascade-protected like TFL blurbs, as you worked out. Bencherlite^Talk 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the emergency TFAs page. It looks like it was created by Wehwalt and edited by almost no one else. About the TFA blurb and protection - the blurb is automatically cascade protected 24 hours prior to hitting the main page. Until then, anyone can edit it. Raul654 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, perhaps we can keep one or two historic (klaxon: easy) FAs in the wings just in case we have a sudden issue like today. Nate is a weak FA and hopefully we could do better in future, especially if we have a process in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am probably going to designate a few pre-written emergency blurbs (I just might make the page Wehwalt created official). I'm more concerned with the specifying the conditions under which they are to be used (by someone other than me). There are some conditions I can think of where anyone with the applicable bits can do it (like, for instance, Dabomb and I fail to schedule an FA, as happened last Thanksgiving); there are others (like today) where judgement is needed and I don't want to throw open the door. Once the RFC closes (dear lord is it ever going to close?) I'll probably open up a discussion on WT:FAC about this. Raul654 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, opening up a possibility of "replacement TFA" is serious and useful. However, the "anal probe" would have been replaced/re-replaced/replaced/edit-warred etc for the whole day which would clearly have Wikipedia look fucking stupid (as it South Park would put it). So the emergency reserve of benign FAs is useful but there needs to have a careful consensual way of instigating it. Only 55,000 people bothered to click on it anyway, (which was less than the featured list the day before, Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award), so perhaps (no, inevitably it is) a storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be important to stipulate that concerns regarding subject matter (excepting those related to unfortunate timing, in which case only rescheduling is required) explicitly do not justify pulling an article. —David Levy 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If I do go forward with the backups idea, I will define when a change is permissible affirmatively and with no exceptions. Something along the lines of "You may change it only under the following circumstances..."). Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI Raul, I should be back in business this weekend. Sorry for the extended absence. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, glad to have you back on board. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have noticed you made edits on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg and/or File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg/Archive 5, so I am contacting you to take part in a newly-formed discussion at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg as for whether we should update the map directly when a new legislation or court-order hits the books or if we should wait until said action takes effect. Historically, we have been updating the map when the new legislation is signed (or veto overrode or won at the ballot box, etc.), and thus it can be inferred that the consensus is to update as soon as one of those occurs. A discussion has emerged in regards to whether we should begin updating from the effective date instead of from the date of signing/etc. If you have an opinion over this matter please post it at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#When_to_update_map.3F_Effective_date_or_signing.2Fruling_date

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Raul. Were you going to get back to me on the splitting off of the Ground Zero controversy from the Park51 article? So far, no one has objected, although one new user asked me, "Can you explain?" on my talk page. Do you have any comments, or any reason I shouldn't continue with my idea of moving the controversy page to Ground Zero mosque controversy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've left you hanging on that one. I don't agree with the proposed split on the grounds that I don't see much difference between the two. I said I'd try to round up some other comments on it once the RFC got closed, which just happened a few hours ago. I'm about to head off to bed, but I promise I'll look at the article tomorrow and get some more eyeballs on it. Raul654 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw from this edit that you promoted Turning Point (2008) to Featured Article status. I thank you for doing this, it really made the 4 reviews worth it.--WillC 09:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I was pleasantly surprised to see you had chosen Hadji Ali for the Main Page so quickly. I am not complaining and don't want it to lose its place in line for no purpose. I just wanted to broach the possibility that it might make a good April Fool's Day feature, as suggested at the FAC by Mark Arsten. Since you would make that decision as well, or so I imagine, I thought I'd let you know about that idea so you could choose whether to hold it back if you think so too.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I choose the April Fools article based on what I think is the funniest and/or most outlandishly unbelievable blurb. I can't really say how funny Ali would be without seeing such a blurb, but I think it's definitely got potential. So yes, I think it might be worth holding it back. Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to see where past blurbs were posted for April Fools Day to gauge where they might be this year, but failed. I checked March 29, 2011 at WP:TFA/R and the various archives of Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article/Archive YEAR. Anyway, I took a stab at writing a blurb.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadji Ali (c. 1888–92 –1937) was an Egyptian vaudeville performance artist famous for throwing up in front of audiences throughout Europe and the United States. Ali would swallow and then spew nuts, water, handkerchiefs, smoke and even live mice with a panel from the audience invited on stage to verify he was the vomiter extraordinaire he claimed to be. His best known stunt, and the highlight of his act, was first regurgitating kerosene onto a metal model castle or house and then extinguishing the flames produced with imbibed water, expelled by him from up to six feet away from the blaze. Although never gaining wide fame, Ali's gustatory gushing garnered him a gratifying gathering of groupies on the vaudeville circuit in the United States. Ali purged for heads of state, including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Judy Garland and David Blaine each gushed about Ali, whose bilious act was captured in the short films Strange as It Seems (1930) and Politiquerias (1931), the Spanish language version of Laurel and Hardy's Chickens Come Home. Ali's ability to hurl on cue led to rumors that the Rockefeller Institute had offered a large sum of money to obtain his stomach post-mortem. After he died in England his body was offered to Johns Hopkins for study, though the offer was declined. (more...)

Dear Raul654,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Kardashian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kardashian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Haven't talked with you in awhile I know, but I have something I wanted to ask your thoughts on.

Before I go on (so that my intent is not miscontrued by any) I suppose I should note some positive things from the past, like how I supported you for director when the position was first created, or this for another example : )

Let me share my perception of something with you, and I'd like you to help clarify some things (and possibly show me where I may be mistaken, and maybe help look towards what can be done for the future).

From what I can see, the "featured article" concept has a noble aspiration. Getting pages to a point where a certain consensus feels that they are very encyclopedic. Something to show off and say: "Look we really do have some great things on Wikipedia!".

But it is not without its problems. First and foremost is that this is a wiki, which means constant editing. The FA process seems to be creating a situation where editors possessively ("featured articles that I created/worked heavily on.") constantly revert well meaning editors simply because they add anything without a reference. This to me is very un-wiki.

And when asked - "I'm protecting my featured article so that it doesn't get delisted at FA".

This is very very bad in my opinion.

The FA process itself has become a sort of awards system. Another "I win at the wiki" thing. And while it's great to try to motivate using the fallibility of human nature, again it really looks like to me that it's fostering situations which are very un-wiki here.

Problems like WP:OWN first and foremost. Biting well-meaning newbies who only want to be helpful. The process itself creating a walled garden of sorts. And finally, on a wiki the pages are never "done" yet the FA process suggests that once reviewed the page is "done" (there have been those even supporting protection of the page at that point - I think I have myself on previous occasions).

And the insidiousness of it is that these FA contributors/protectors can fairly be well meaning and sincere themselves, thinking that this is how one should act in such situations.

I know that these concerns are nothing new. And I know that this can be a sensitive topic for those who sincerely work so hard and diligently, but I seriously think that the problems have been happening repeatedly, and it would be nice if we could rise up out of this vicious circle.

I have intentionally not added diff examples. For one thing, the diffs would go back as long as the FA process has existed. For another, calling out just a few examples isn't fair to those people, especially since (as I mentioned) I'd like to believe that the failing was human nature, and mostly abetted by the environment that we created through these processes (plural). And finally because I have no doubt whatsoever that you're aware of this problem, and don't need any examples to discuss them : )

So having attempted to broach the subject with you, what do you think? How can we move forward and get past this? I sincerely don't think we want a replay of the Esperanza situation (another very well meaning process - that I liked a lot - that was apparently problematic in how it was organised/conducted, creating unwiki situations). - jc37 17:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

<peanut gallery> The better an article is—the more comprehensive, more logically organized, more thoroughly and reliably sourced and more polished its text—the harder it becomes to make an edit that should remain. That's not ownership, that's maintaining quality standards. I am not saying that there aren't times when edits to FAs aren't reverted for pure ownership reasons but that happens across all articles. This is of course anecdotal, but I have edited quite a few FAs both while logged in and more often as an IP, even while on the main page, and I've only been reverted a few times. Those few reverts were for reasons I would characterize as legitimate bases (even if a few I disagreed with). Also of course, I was not writing in broken English and (I hope and was attempting) with a high level of polish, nor was I removing or breaking citations or adding unsourced content and so on, which brings us right back to my first point. Is it really ownership? Or is it the result of the legitimate scrutiny that should accompany edits to a very high quality article? You purposefully said you were not providing diffs, and I am not your target audience, but given my experience, I would need to see a true pattern shown across many articles (not just reverts but pretty clearly bad faith reverts) to be convinced of the ownership issue. As to biting, are you talking about the revert itself being the biting act, or some accompanying harsh edit summary, because it's axiomatically impossible to revert someone without reverting them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the peanuts... Everything at Wikipedia can be, and has been, misused. Are you sure you are seeing a genunine problem, or a one-off case where there is a misguided editor? If any established editors noticed someone protecting "their" article and inappropriately showing ownership issues, the problem would very quickly be resolved (I have seen cases where passers-by have taken a quite extreme position of opposing the one or two editors who built an article simply because the passers-by interpreted some comment as an OWN violation). One article I am familiar with is Shakespeare authorship question which has been subjected to a lot of POV pushing (resulting in an Arbcom case). The article was promoted to FA, and some edits have been reverted with "this is an FA" being part of the reasoning behind the reverts. Those reverts have all been well founded, and there was no ownership issue behind them. If someone has new information but no reference, they can try adding it. If reverted, they need to discuss the matter and ask whether anyone can find suitable references, and whether NPOV is satisfied—that's because it's a good article that people care about, and is not because it carries an FA badge. The FA badge is a handy way to point out to people that the article is at a high quality level, and new material needs to be worked through to preserve that quality, and OR or SYNTH are definitely not appropriate in a quality article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(Haven't commented on any of the above. Would like to wait until you express your thoughts.) - jc37 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there JC. Sorry about not responding sooner. Just to respond generally to your above observation - yes, the FA process is an 'awards' system, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Recognizing the good work done by people is a simple (free!) way of saying "thank you" to our editors for the good work they do. I don't find anything inherently bad about this.

Second, I agree that it can give rise to ownership issues, but the behavior you describe could just as easily be described as invested editors defending a well-written article from people whose edits are probably not improving it. Raul654 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment, that it would seem to create an adversarial environment, it's contrary to the wiki-way. One person adds info, another adds sources, and off we go. Right now, if its unsourced, it can't be added. So AGF goes out the window.

So a well-meant awards system to help motivate people, is causing strife where none needed to be. And those involved are naturally protective of it (human nature). Sounding more and more like some of the varied issues with Esperanza before it ended.

An excellent illustration is the first sentence of a well-meaning editor above: "The better an article is—the more comprehensive, more logically organized, more thoroughly and reliably sourced and more polished its text—the harder it becomes to make an edit that should remain." The inherent problem with this is: Should remain? According to who? There is no one on Wikipedia with the omniscience to know everything about every single topic. And I would strongly assert that there is a good likelihood that EVERY article on Wikipedia is nowhere near "finished". It was just deemed "good enough". We're all editors here.

I say this with no slight intended to the person who said it. It is, as I mentioned above a well meant mistaken opinion seemingly shared by others involved in the process.

Let me offer this thought: Why do we show what we feel is the very best of Wikipedia on the main page? Wouldn't it be more in line with being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to show flawed pages to help entice more ppl to help out? "This page has numerous issues, we'd like to ask you to help out!"

After all, if the goal is "improvement" (whoever decides what that is), then articles which supposedly cannot be easily improved would not apparently be the best representative?

I say this all to point out (remind) that what appears on the main page is merely a stylistic choice. And so is much of the formatting rules etc that go into much of Wikipedia MoS (Manual of style).

Awards are nice, and can be a helpful motivating factor. But in the light of the various issues with other processes in the past, and dealing with the various biases that Wikipedia fights with constantly has to consider (See Wikipedia:Systemic bias), it would seem problematic to suggest any group of editors can call any article so "perfect" so to suggest that little to nothing can be added.

So as I said, I bring this up with you, wanting to know what your thoughts are. I sincerely am looking for a way forward that helps reinforce the wiki way, rather than creating an environment where well meaning editors are reverting others' well meaning edits as "vandalism" merely because that reverting editor couldn't be bothered to check for a source, and dictatorially decided the edits were not "improving the encyclopedia", and/or seeming to be without value. (The kerfuffle over Mizzoli's comes immediately to mind.)

An environment where it's easier to revert edits because your work at getting it to FA is "done" than to actually continue to try to improve the article. After all, if changed too much, you might risk the article losing FA "status" and making one of your awards not seem as valued.

Right now it could be argued that the FA process is stifling encyclopedic improvement.

Do you see a way that this can be fixed? - jc37 04:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Here's another link that may be helpful as well: Strategy:March 2011 Update.) - jc37 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you're not interested in continuing this discussion, please let me know and I'll move to a different venue. I merely was hoping for discussion with you about this first. - jc37 18:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi JC. Sorry about that - I was traveling for most of the last week so I wasn't very responsive to anything on-wiki.

it would seem to create an adversarial environment, it's contrary to the wiki-way - I think where the problem lies is how reviewers approach the reviewing process. I don't mean to single any particular individual out, but my guess is that people are far more likely to voice criticism of an article than to support it, and don't feel comfortable supporting unless they find something wrong first that gets fixed.

I'd also like to try to refocus the critiques on more content and substantive matters and less on presentation or stylistic matters. But I'm not exactly sure how to go about doing this. Maybe some kind of process to reach out to people knowledgeable in the article's subject area? Raul654 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

	reviewing eyes
	Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's over, 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with Easter eggs, in peace (Bach cantata 67), "commented" by General relativity, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "overwhelming" about the fact that almost all scientists reject creation science. I wasn't taken aback at all when I learned that. The word "overwhelming" sounds to me like there is so much rejection of creation science that the average person couldn't handle it and would have a heart attack. This is a weird word that I feel should be replaced with something less... weird... Cadiomals (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

o·ver·whelm·ing [oh-ver-hwel-ming, -wel-] adjective 1. that overwhelms; overpowering: The temptation to despair may become overwhelming. 2. so great as to render resistance or opposition useless: an overwhelming majority. [2]

Your statement above indicates you believe it is being used on the creationism article in the first sense described above. It is not. The creationism article uses the second meaning of the word, as in an opposition-less majority. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vauban-fortress.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Raul. I'm having a little issue at the FAC for Highway 401: The coords issue has sprung back up. Unfortunately I've let my emotions get the better of me, and instead of just thanking the opposers for their comments, I have fueled the fire. I'd like to just leave it at their opposition and stuff a gag in my mouth, and so I was considering archiving the replies that are directly related to that coordinates debate to the talk page to hopefully minimize disruption (leaving the original comments on the main page of course). I wanted to get your input first, as it is quite a heated debate and I am right in the centre of it. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Raul, I would like to apologize for my harsh response to your comment at the administrators' noticeboard. I strongly disagree with your statements there, but I should have phrased that disagreement more diplomatically. I have refactored my comment. I hope you will accept my apology. 28bytes (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apology, 28. My comment there was a bit intemperate too and I'd like to apologize to you as well. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it very much, and of course accept yours as well. Hopefully we will meet again under happier circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Who should come? You should. Really.
	She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sarah (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I complained about a DYK about gay pornography hitting the main page on a Saturday morning US and Saturday afternoon British time and it being linked on the main page seemingly at a peak time with no concerns whatsoever. My sister laughed at it and now thinks of wikipedia as a joke encyclopedia for a] permitting such content as an example of its progress and b] for being so careless and carefree about putting it on at a moment in the week be both thought ill-suited. I tried to argue the point that a lot of people are offended by the very subject of pornography appearing on the main page but it unfortunately turned into a discussion suggesting I am somehow homophobic, even though I have stated I accept such articles on wikipedia, I generally accept LGBT related articles on the main page, except pornography and I generally think all pornography is ill advised as being showcased as our best work. i was quite take aback to see nobody concerned about it and a mass response which indicates to me everybody is happy to see pornography-related articles on the main page and I had no right to find it distasteful. I was informed that you refuse to put the article on Jenna Jameson as the TFA because you are evidently aware it would get masses of complaints and people condemning wikipedia, responses I would agree are likely and was why I showed a concern about that DYK, which it became apparent few really care about DYK. But the general consensus during the discussion at Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012 appears to be that they all support, some strongly support the coverage of pornography on the main page, even TFA and few of them will admit that a lot of people frown against such content. I don't expect you to take sides, but I was wondering if you could make the current status on pornography as TFA apparent and what the real concern is and clarify exactly whether this is true. I have suggested that if there be such apparently unaminous support for it there should be enough people to deal with complaints should it appear and they should voice their support on grounds that forbidding pornography to appear as TFA is against our censorship and free content neutrality policies. Its just I see some double standards here and a refusal for anybody to really acknowledge why I aired some concerns.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy, this discussion again. ;)

Long story short: everyone has a different opinion on where to draw the line between what is and is not acceptable on the main page. I listen to what others have to say, but at the end of the day I use my own judgement and call it like I see it. I've previously said that I was OK putting history of erotic depictions on the main page; Jenna, who is known primarily for her appearances in hardcore porn, I think is out-of-bounds. Admit this is subjective, but there you have it. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry to bother you with this discussion again, but I wasn't aware it is a frequent topic for you. Clearly it is a subject than does not have the universal support evident in the talk page discussion and I will not be the last person to complain about it. The impression I got though is that all of the "community" who responded imply that there simply should not be a line to draw because it is somehow detrimental to our "free content" and "neutrality". I just wonder why its OK for a hardcore pornographic article to feature as a DYK and not as TFA and would seemingly indicate the lack of seriousness in it when it is all on the main page and should also be handled at least with some sense and responsibility. All the best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it is a subject than does not have the universal support evident in the talk page discussion and I will not be the last person to complain about it.

No one claimed that there was "universal support". As noted in the discussion, TFA blurbs about Pokémon-related topics draw numerous complaints, as do those about many other subjects (particularly those from popular culture).

And yes, people complain when they perceive TFA as sexually explicit (as in the case of Gropecunt Lane, an article of which you expressed approval).

I just wonder why its OK for a hardcore pornographic article to feature as a DYK and not as TFA and would seemingly indicate the lack of seriousness in it when it is all on the main page and should also be handled at least with some sense and responsibility.

As I've noted repeatedly, Raul has stated that his decision stems not from a determination that the content in question is inherently inappropriate, but from a concern that he'll be inundated with complaints to that effect.

And I find that position understandable. Raul already deals with enough and doesn't need the aggravation. But this has absolutely no bearing on the main page's other sections, none of which are his responsibility or burden.

In other words, other editors determine the content and handle any fallout. It's absurd to claim that their arrival at a decision different from Raul's (and different from the one that you advocate) is indicative of a "lack of seriousness" on their parts. —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Raul:

As noted above, I find your position understandable. But I'd like you to consider an angle that I don't recall the community discussing in the past.

It's been pointed out that earlier in the month, this blurb, about an infamous murder, appeared. And despite the detailed summary, no one complained at Talk:Main Page.

I agree that a Jenna Jameson TFA likely would draw complaints (which arise whenever subjects from popular culture appear), but do you honestly want to validate this dynamic? Whatever one thinks of Ms. Jameson (and I'm certainly no fan of hers), do we want to send the message that a blurb about a pornographic film actress is more objectionable/upsetting/disturbing than one about someone who "dismembered the body, boiled the flesh off the bones, and threw most of it into the River Thames, allegedly offering the fat to neighbours as dripping and lard"? Even if we look at this from a "protect the children" perspective, would a blurb about Jenna Jameson really expose them to something worse than that? —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

i was quite take aback to see nobody concerned about it and a mass response which indicates to me everybody is happy to see pornography-related articles on the main page and I had no right to find it distasteful.

Please stop misrepresenting the discussion's nature.

As has been stated repeatedly, you have every right to find anything distasteful. We simply don't ban content from the main page on this basis.

Many people find the theory of evolution, miscegenation and photography of women (as a few random examples) distasteful, but we don't censor the main page to appease them. This is what we've been telling you.

But the general consensus during the discussion at Talk:Main Page/"Gay pornography" discussion March 2012 appears to be that they all support, some strongly support the coverage of pornography on the main page, even TFA and few of them will admit that a lot of people frown against such content.

Nonsense. I'm baffled as to how you interpret "we don't censor material because it offends people" to mean "this content doesn't offend people". —David Levy 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

David - Society has different standards for how it treats violence and sexual content. Sexual content is treated far more puritanically than violence. In fact, that was one of the major premises of This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Now I'm not defending this, but I'm pointing out that that is the way it is, and it's unrealistic to approach the subject otherwise. Given that premise, I don't find it surprising in the least that no one complained about a violent FA appearing on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be viewing this from an American perspective. I'm American too, but my understanding is that some other countries are very different in this respect. For example, UK broadcast television contains nudity not permitted in the US, but its rules regarding violence are more restrictive.

Of course, I don't doubt that Jenna Jameson would generate far more complaints than Murder of Julia Martha Thomas did. Heck, articles about movies and video games do. People complain about entertainment-related TFA blurbs, especially when they perceive them as "non-family-friendly".

If the exact description of Julia Martha Thomas's murder were used in a blurb about a horror film, I can almost guarantee that Talk:Main Page would be flooded with complaints about exposing children to it. It's a nonsensical distinction that shouldn't be validated. —David Levy 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that having Ring-tailed lemur as the TFA has been one of my hopes and dreams for several years. I am very flattered that it was both selected and unanimously supported. However, I have reservations because I know for a fact that the article has issues. It was my first FA, and a lot has changed in terms of FA standards since that time. Last year I tried to re-re-write it, but only got about half way done. There are still large portions that need serious work. In fact, I have feared for more than a year that someone would come along as slap it into FAR before I could get around to cleaning it up. Since writing the article several years ago, I have obtained the book Ringtailed Lemur Biology (ISBN 0-387-32669-3) and many other useful books that I haven't even had time to fully tap. I'm not asking you to remove it, but I do feel it needs further consideration. Normally I would take this as a challenge to clean up the article, but I'm so overwhelmed right now that I simply don't have the time to do what needs to be done. Maybe this summer or this fall... If you do keep it for TFA, I will have some suggested changes for the lead. – Maky ^« talk » 03:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice you've scheduled Madonna in the TFA queue. You might want to consider pulling it; it's currently at FAR after the discovery that it was full of fabricated sources. (Laser Brain should have the full details.) After the Grace Sherwood fiasco, I doubt Wikipedia needs a repetition, especially on such a high profile topic. 188.28.132.1 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, hopefully we can get that out of the queue. We're in the middle of the FAR and there are many problems. BLP nightmare. --Laser brain (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jimbo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jack Merridew [3]...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It took me a few moments to figure out why you sent me that link. I see now that Alarbus is listed there. I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Raul654 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

good riddance...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

With few surprises; some folks seem to have a knack for being on the wrong side of disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotta wonder - who knew what; and when...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You're not allowed to ask ... you'll get a lecture from a "senior editor". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel the need to mention that I'm impressed by your diligence in maintaining this page. I'm sure I can't be the only person who appreciates your efforts. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you, Pdfpdf. I appreciate that. Raul654 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I run the DYK section of the Portal:Germany, almost by myself (although I generally invite new contributors to participate), and I understand that you are responsible for TFA. How do you decide on the sequence? Do you reflect what a community of contributors/readers) wants? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly deep or mysterious about it. I go through, open up the articles, read the intro, and pick ones that look interesting to me for which blurbs can be written without too much difficulty. (Some articles are more difficult to summarize than others) I try to keep them varied by subject and nationality.

TFA tends to get a fair number of requests, so I created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests as a central clearinghouse for them (along with a set of scoring rules to adjudicate overlapping requests). Raul654 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I was involved in one FA, Brianboulton and Tim riley cooked the main course, Messiah (Handel), I prepared the side dishes on structure and music, including He was despised, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It crossed my mind that Messiah would be good on Good Friday, premiered in a Lenten concert. "Did you know ... that in Handel's Messiah, Part II contains the famous Hallelujah Chorus and the oratorio's longest movement, the air for alto He was despised? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was good to see Messiah yesterday "on this day", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is good to see Kathleen Ferrier as TFA today on her centenary. The "blurb" came late, or I would have asked a few questions. Why so much on her cancer and rather little about her voice and singing? Why her two opera roles while she was known for singing Bach St Matthew Passion, Brahms Alto Rhapsody and Vier ernste Gesänge, Elgar Dream of Gerontius, and Handel He was despised? Compare: "The works presented here capture a voice ... “...so full and beautiful, the intonation always perfect, the phrasing so elastic...”. Ferrier’s interpretations were also celebrated for their poignancy, notably in her reading of Brahms’s Vier ernste Gesänge, recorded just three years before the singer’s untimely death." [Naxos], --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Compare also A centenary tribute to an iconic singer, Kathleen Ferrier --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that 11,577 readers clicked Great Dismal Swamp maroons in March, and that the article, on inspirational people under oppressive conditions, became a Good Article within five hours? Decide that the community gets more such articles, be bold, assume good faith, unblock the author! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, I understand that you have some measure of affection for Rlevse/PumpkinSky, but you have to understand that PS chose to withdraw his unblock request back in February. Until he makes a new one, no administrator is going to unblock him. Second, there's a large deal of mistrust among parts of the community related to his actions. He left the project and abandoned the Rlevse account after an article for which he was a substantial contributor was found to have copyright violations while it was on the Main Page. Several other articles had to be cleaned up after that "scandal" broke.

Later, the PumpkinSky account comes along and aids in fanning flames during an already difficult discussion over FAC/FAR/TFA and its leadership. The fact that this came from a former member of the Arbitration Committee (as Rlevse), that there was renewed issues with the level of paraphrasing or plagiarism in PS's article contributions, and questions related to the appropriate use of alternate accounts only further complicates matters.

I'm all for giving people a second chance, but they have to earn it. In this case, PS needs to atone for errors and ask to be unblocked. Until he makes a new request to be unblocked, the block will stay. If in his request he promises to work on resolving any remaining unattended issues with his content contributions, there will be community mistrust. Simply put, it's not Raul's place here to just unblock the account. (Sorry for the long-winded reply on your talk page, Raul.) Imzadi 1979 → 09:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Who is the community? The admins? The contributors? The readers? I don't have "affection" for Rlevse, I didn't know him, became aware of him only in the discussions on his leaving. I have great affection for PumpkinSky with whom I worked for half a year, who did good work (see articles) and had only minor copyright problems (s. CCI). If I was an admin, I would do what Steve did with Malleaus Fatuorum, unblock sacrificing my admin rights. You are probably aware that the admin who blocked PumpkinSky said "there are a thousand other admins to overturn the block if it's unwarranted." 999 of those would be afraid to do so, right? That's why I came here. Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(Cross posted: Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Remove_Tiananmen_Square_self_immolation_page)

I edit and watch in the Falun Gong space of articles. I strongly suggest that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page be removed from the main page. It is currently subject to intensive, controversial editing and to some degree edit warring. The tenor of the page has changed dramatically in the last 48-72 hours, with upwards of 60 edits that quickly changed important parts of the article. I am about to submit a note for its Featured Article status to be reconsidered, with a view to rescinding that status, because of this. The page is not stable and currently suffers neutrality issues.

Background to this note:

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; editor user:Ohconfucius was the lead editor at the time. He put tremendous effort into seeing the page reach FA status. The page was revisited in 2011 by a group of editors who discussed major changes quite exhaustively (lead by several editors who are more sympathetic to Falun Gong). At that time, editor user:SilkTork wrote that "I think there is some editing to do to get this article fair and balanced, and with the appropriate amount of information. However, I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done."--a lot of the changes that occurred were discussed extensively. Consensus was reached. That was early 2011.

Ohconfucius re-appeared a couple of days ago and made a flurry of changes, apparently in an attempt to return the page, in whole or part, to how it was in 2009, when he edited it. He ignored the interim discussion. The changes made in 2011 identified and resolved misrepresentation, omissions, original syntheses, and failure to cogently present the views of Falun Gong or third parties in a manner commensurate with their notability, etc. Ohconfucius preceded to edit, apparently bringing the page back to how it was in 2009, without discussion or any attempt to form consensus. An example: the 2009 version did not say that the use of torture on Falun Gong practitioners increased in the wake of the immolation; that was added to the page in the 2011 version; Ohconfucius deleted that piece of information when he started editing the page again. Ohconfucius has made around 60+ edits, judging by the history. Most of those edits, many of them controversial, were not discussed. He was asked on his talk page and on the immolation talk page, and for the most part failed to do so while continuing to make make changes that changed the tenor of the article. His peers have expressed exasperation at this behavior.

This is obviously a sensitive topic. The incident led to people being tortured and killed. It thus deserves to be treated with circumspection and caution. That caution has not been forthcoming, and I think it would be valuable if an administrator would intercede and monitor the discussion, because attempts for other editors to discuss it with Ohconfucius have not been effective. There is a behavioral problem when an editor makes that many changes unilaterally while ignoring the discussions, particularly when it's a featured article under ArbCom sanctions. He has been politely and repeatedly asked not to make substantial changes, including those that misrepresent sources--which he's done more than once--or change the balance of the page without discussing, but has not done so. It is difficult to know what to do, except find some time to breathe.

Thus, I am strongly urging that the page be removed from the front page as a featured article. I am also entering a request for the page's feature status to be reconsidered. And I am initiating a mediation request so that an uninvolved editor can step in between Ohconfucius, the page, and other editors, to make sure that proper process is being followed on this important and contentious topic.

Further notes: I have made a decision not to edit the page amidst the current strong dispute. Ohconfucius has an open opposition and animus toward Falun Gong. I have said to Ohconfucius that it is my opinion that he is too close and invested in the topic, and should stick to the voluntary self-ban he initiated some time ago. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul654, I am honored that Chrysiridia rhipheus was chosen as TFA for april 7th. I would like to improve the picture associated with the blurb (i.e. remove the shadow and clean the background), but it is currently protected. What do you suggest? Regards, Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The blurb is automatically protected once it's within 24 hours of hitting the main page. If you want, clean up the picture and post it somewhere (like imagebucket). Drop me a link here and I'll upload it. Raul654 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here it is, in Picasa. Sorry for the delay, I was away for most of the day. Thank you. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've uploaded it and the new version is now on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Raul, I noticed you created this yesterday. I currently have a request in with WP:CANADA as well as at the pending requests page at WP:TFA to run Highway 401 on July 1, the 60th anniversary of its numbering. If that's not possible, can it be withheld entirely for now so that I can run it in a couple years when another big anniversary props up? Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you possibly update us on what you plan to do with the Titanic TFA, in particular which day you plan to run it on? I think there was general agreement on WP:TFAR that it should be featured on April 15th, the centenary day, and to be honest I think most people would find it hard to understand running it on any other day. Prioryman (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 15, 2012. --Rschen7754 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Prioryman (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

---

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

I wanted to look up what the local college has instead of the Dewey Decimal System. At least, that's what I call it. That link actually redirects to Dewey Decimal Classification. It was from there that I finally located Library of Congress Classification. That's where I wanted to be. Wouldn't that be a better redirect, because I couldn't tell that the Library of Congress has more than one location? I don't see it as a system.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted the redirect. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to do it myself if there was a good reason for the other.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in the outcome of the Titanic TFA from Sunday. Eleven Titanic-related articles were linked from the Featured Article box that day; they got the following numbers of page views:

• RMS Titanic - 430,012
• Sinking of the RMS Titanic - 177,040
• Titanic (1997 film) - 132,054
• Passengers of the RMS Titanic - 38,273
• RMS Carpathia - 33,952
• Wreck of the RMS Titanic - 30,051
• Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic - 13,270
• List of films about the RMS Titanic - 10,226
• Crew of the RMS Titanic - 9,541
• RMS Titanic in popular culture - 8,418
• Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster - 4,095
• Total page views for articles linked from FA box - 886,932

Thanks for your help in making this such a big success! Prioryman (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, although I can't help but wonder how much of that was 'natural' attention brought about by the centenary and how much was a result of putting it on the main page. Given how high Titanic compares to the Sinking article, I suspect the vast majority was 'natural' attention. Raul654 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. I was about to request JSTOR access at the page for that, but decided to poke around a bit, first, to see whether one of my local public libraries provides a free gateway to the archive. I couldn't find anything at all about it on any of the websites for public library I have access to, but then found this list on the JSTOR site itself. I checked that list for the name of my public library, and found that I do indeed have access to JSTOR already, at no cost.

I went back to my library site again, and eventually found an obscure notice of that on a library subpage, along with instructions for accessing it there. If we're only getting access, via the current program, in increments of 1,000 users at a time, then it makes sense to conserve those for users who don't have access through a library, yes?

With that motivation I've boldly edited the intro text to the JSTOR access requests page in this edit. Feel free to revert or modify it if my action puts a spanner in the works for some reason I'm unaware of, e.g. relations with JSTOR. I've posted this same message to Steven Walling's talk, as well. Thanks very much for your work on this. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please join us for a Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner on Saturday, May 5. This will be a great opportunity to meet other Wikimedians from the DC area, discuss upcoming Wikimedia DC activities and events, and have fun over dinner and drinks. All ages are welcome! Kirill [talk] 04:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your JSTOR initiative. Good luck! Dsp13 (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am involved with a research project for Michigan State University and am wondering if you would be able to answer a few questions regarding tool sets on Wikipedia. What were the tools you mainly used prior to becoming an admin, and after becoming an admin? Here is a link to the project if you are interested Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Wiki-Project Management (Jonathan Obar) , and if you have any questions please let me know. Thanks! Ltezl (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please close the FA nomination for School of Advanced Military Studies. Based on the recommendation of a few editors, I'll request a peer review and then renominate in the future. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I initially directed this query to your delegate Dabomb87, but am told he has been inactive for 5 weeks, so perhaps you can help. I am wondering why notifications for impending TFAs to main editors are now given so late. An hour prior to the main page's appearance (12.01 BST when I am most likely in bed, or at any rate not online) doesn't provide any time for possible preparatory work. In the case of today's, the likelihood of selection was always high so I took all the necessary steps some time ago, but this won't always be the case, and short notice seems to be the standard procedure now, for all TFAs. We used to get several days' notice; why has the practice changed? Brianboulton (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the notifications are going out late. It's that for the last two or three weeks, I've been scheduling them close to the deadline. I'll make an effort to build up a larger queue today. Raul654 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look As you can see, I've done this three times before and I really want it to pass now. In previous attempts, it didn't because of lack of interest--do you know how I can get anyone else involved to say yay or nay? Please respond on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of South Side, Chicago know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 5, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 5, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The South Side is a major part of the City of Chicago. Regions of the city, referred to as sides, are divided by the Chicago River and its branches. The South Side of Chicago was originally defined as all of the city south of the main branch of the Chicago River, but it now excludes the Loop. The South Side has a varied ethnic composition, and it has great disparity in income and other demographic measures. The South Side covers 60% of the city's land area, with a higher ratio of single-family homes and larger sections zoned for industry than the rest of the city. Neighborhoods such as Armour Square, Back of the Yards, Bridgeport, and Pullman tend to be composed of more blue collar residents, while Hyde Park, the Jackson Park Highlands District, Kenwood, and Beverly tend to have middle, upper-middle class, and affluent residents. The South Side boasts a broad array of cultural and social offerings, such as professional sports teams, landmark buildings, nationally renowned museums, elite educational institutions, world class medical institutions, and major parts of the city's elaborate parks system. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have scheduled South Side, Chicago for the main page on May 5. Personally, I would prefer that this run on the main page on a day that is meaningful to the South Side like the annual Bud Billiken Parade. Is it possible to delay this until August 11. In addition, this is barely a week after WP:CHICAGO had Rogers Hornsby.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm based in London, but am happy to advise & work remotely, by Skype etc. Or there is the Wikipedia:GLAM/US, with User:Smallbones the local rep. Or some combination. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, let me follow up on a few things and I'll get back to you. If you haven't heard back from me in a few days, give me a poke. Raul654 (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to work with PMA, but couldn't work for them (not qualified among other things). Leave contact info or e-mail me. Thanx. Smallbones (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Email sent. Raul654 (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it - will send something to WW tonight or tomorrow - or should I clear it with you first? Smallbones (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My plan was that I would send him an email introducing you and Johnbod and CC the both of you. Raul654 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Smallbones (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I do need your email address to do it. Raul654 (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Raul, I want to suggest something you might like to bear in mind for the future with regard to the SME discussion. I thought I'd post here rather than at WT:FAC or the education noticeboard since this isn't really a contribution to those discussions, just something I thought you might like to consider.

Currently the education program is a bit controversial -- I don't know if you've been following it at all, but hundreds of university classes have been run on WP with very variable results. There's a good deal of effort going into the EP, both from the community and the WMF, and I don't know what the EP's future will be like, though I've applied to be part of a group that will help define it. In any case, I've argued for some time that academe is the resource that we need to focus on, more than the students. It seems to me that a successful EP will bring into Wikipedia engaged academics who understand how the encyclopedia works. This is a ready-made pool of SMEs -- even more useful in many ways than a completely external SME because they will generally have some understanding or NOR and NPOV, and that will be a great help. This seems to me a good reason to work on improving the EP; and from your point of view it's a reason to keep an eye on the EP and understand what it may be able to do for you in the future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll love this—the random places one is led on Wikipedia. I'm here to ask you for OTRS help on a falsified image ticket, but look at the path that took me there!

Gimmetrow was plagued for years by Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) over citation issues. Gimme was always right but Merridew was after him like ... well ... like a plague of locusts with socks.

In every ANI and other discussion of Merridew's antics, Merridew's trusty sidekick RexxS shows up to defend his friend (those were his words in one ANI-- probably the one after Merridew and his socks went after Truthkeeper88 and several FA writers).

So, yesterday, the Merry Band showed up en masse (almost) to take up a citation war in an article Gimmetrow has maintained for six years. Yep ... none other than the unlikely foursome of Diannaa, Wehwalt, RexxS, and Rlevse suddenly took an interest in Sean Combs' citation style, and make their first ever appearances on an article Gimme has watched for years.[4]

So, after having my say about said cabalism, I wandered off to see what had become of the rest of the missing FAC wreckers, where ...

I noticed an image on TCO's userpage that for sure didn’t look like a Fair Use image to me.[5] Do you think that was the 1911 book cover?

So, after I posted a query to Elcobbola,[6] I was reminded that he (Wikipedia's finest image reviewer) is missing in action, which could lead to a full-on rant about that horrid Education Program and the damage it's causing everywhere, with the blessing of the WMF, but I digress. Oh, this whole post is a digression. But I digresss ...

So, I click on the image info myself to see if I can figure someone else to ask, and lo and behold, ...

I find the image is linked in my talk archives, where ...

I find that TCO admitted he falsified the OTRS, exactly as I suspected (the book is old but the jacket cover isn’t!) And, he lied in claiming it was his photograph, when he took it from a website.[7]

So, from one small interaction with Merridew's supporters, look where I end up ... here to ask you, since Elcobbola is gone, if you know how to deal with OTRS or get someone to remove that copyvio'd image. The little turd not only lied about it being his image, he lied about the date, and then he bragged about it on my talk, where (everyone now knows), I hardly ever read a word the child wrote.

They're such a nice group of editors, and it's so good of them to stick together. Isn't Wikipedia great, where everyone can find a kindred spirit. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's more: [8] He falsified it twice, fights to keep it twice even after admitting what he'd done, amazon.com seems to indicate it's a 1943 image ... games. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(Watching) Sorry, I don't get it: following the link to Sean Combs I find a discussion about date format in citations, no more. What do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the German spy story you started, DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to get it deleted; [9] not me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please join us for the second Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event will focus on Smithsonian history including the history of the Institution's museums, archives, research centers and the people behind them. This will be a great opportunity to learn about the Archives, work within them & with staff, and learn more about the world's largest museum complex. We hope you'll join us on Friday, May 25. Please sign up here! Sarah (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Note: You received this message because you were listed here. If you no longer wish to receive messages of this nature, please remove yourself from that list.

On the TFA requests, someone made a suggestion for 1997 Qayen earthquake for May 10th. However, no one went ahead and actually nominated it. It would seem to be a more important candidate than another video game article. It would have 5-6 points, focus on a non-Western event, and Geology is under represented subject. Would it be possible to change it? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change, and sorry for being a bit of a pest about that. One last thing. The "(more...)" is currently a red link. It links to Qayen earthquake when the article is called 1997 Qayen earthquake. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2012--Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made Qayen earthquake redirect to 1997 Qayen earthquake which seems to solve it.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see Bencherlite fixed it first, but that does lead me to another question -- why is this article titled 1997 Quayen Earthquake instead of Quayen Earthquake? If the year is superfluous, it probably shouldn't be there. Raul654 (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know whether there's a written-down convention, as sadly MOS:EARTHQUAKE is a redlink, but a quick flick through Category:Earthquakes by country's subcategories (e.g. Category:Earthquakes in New Zealand, Category:Earthquakes in Indonesia, Category:Earthquakes in Quebec, Category:Earthquakes in California) and a peek at Wikipedia:Good articles/Geography and places#Earthquakes shows that the year is generally included regardless of a possible need to disambiguate. Bencherlite^Talk 23:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Err... sorry. I was the one that added it to the list, but I gave up trying to make a prompt for it after several attempts. It's a skill I'd like to develop, prompt writing, but at the moment I neither have it nor have any idea how to go about acquiring it. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Transits of Venus are among the rarest of predictable astronomical phenomena. They occur in a pattern that repeats every 243 years, with pairs of transits eight years apart separated by long gaps of 121.5 years and 105.5 years. There will be the second of a pair occurring on the 6 June this year visible in the US and briefly in the UK and although the Transit of Venus article has appeared once before as a TFA in 2005 it would seem a pity not to mark an event that won't happen again in our lifetimes. Although 6 June would be the obvious date for it to appear I see there are some other TFAs proposed for that date. If it was to appear on the 5th June (which has no other proposals yet) it would allow people to make preparations to view the event the following day. What do you think? Richerman (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll consider it. It's still a bit far out so remind me as the date gets a bit closer. Raul654 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Richerman (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the transit will be visible from North America on the evening of June 5th and Europe on the morning of June 6th so June 5th would be the best day. Richerman (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I fully agree and would like to request that this be TFA on 5 June 2012, starting at 0:00 UTC, so that everyone who might run into it will have plenty of time to prepare for it and find a way to view it (online or offline). The more advance notice that people have, the better. For instance where I live (Hawaii) the transit is at 12 Noon on 5 June. This extremely rare event is the most important astronomical event of this entire 21st century, and it will never happen again in our lifetime -- not until December 2117. (I have taken the liberty to edit the title of this thread to the correct start date of the transit.) You might even consider making it the TFA for 4 June instead, to give people that much more notice. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we've been upstaged by the Queen's Golden Jubilee. Richerman (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrm, I wonder if either of those (The queen or the transit) can be rescheduled plus-or-minus a day. Raul654 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The bonus Bank Holiday in the UK to mark the Diamond Jubilee falls on Tuesday 5 June, but there are commemorative events during all four days of that weekend (not a phrase I get to use often!): see here – e.g. the Thames pageant on Sunday 3rd, the beacon lighting on Monday 4th. Bencherlite^Talk 00:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've rejiggered the queue. The queen is now June 2 and the transit of Venus is June 5. And for the benefit of any wiki-historians watching, that should make it the second article that's been refeatured on the main page after Barack Obama in '08. Raul654 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that someone's going to ask for it *again* in December 2117, don't you?! Bencherlite^Talk 21:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think I'll be around to see it on the main page at third time. But if Wikipedia is still around 105 years hence, I suppose then that would qualify as one of those good problems that Marlo was talking about. Raul654 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you'll be here in 2117 - you're really a sentient bot, are't you? As long as someone keeps paying the electricity bills, you'll be here for ever... Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And they'll be asking again 8 years later! Seriously though, thanks very much for your consideration Raul. It would be a shame if Wikipedia missed such a rare event, even if a Royal Diamond Jubilee is even more rare. Richerman (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You stated in a recent discussion, "...frankly, there is very little reason for anyone to edit this page except for myself and my delegates." Do you approve of my addition of a random Featured Article tool? Interchangeable 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrmm. Need to consider that. What I might do is bump it to the side panel, Template:Fapages. Raul654 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As I recall there used to be a "Random Featured Article" button. Is that correct? Interchangeable 18:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever been a button, but there's a tool here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus is correct - random featured article has never been a built-in feature of Mediawiki; it's always been a tool on the toolserver. Raul654 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean I think that template used to have a button that said "Random featured article". Interchangeable 22:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think interchangeable is right. There are various templates and lists around that generate random featured articles. See Portal:Featured content for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I was asked backchannel a while back if I had any conditions under which I would accept a Rlevse/PumpkinSky unblocking. I said the same thing I said publicly, which is that he needed to stay away from FAC, and stay away from DYK, where the copyvio issues continue because there is not sufficient accountability to prevent it. I suggested that Rlevse wasn't a person who should be opining at DYK, as he was part of the problem and didn't seem to recognize the extent of the problems. Not only is he not doing that, but the same Merry Band that went after FAC is going after Gimmetrow. Alarbus/Jack Merridew had a long-standing beef with Gimmetrow. And now I see a group at WT:FA (apparently unable to find WP:TFAR). It's curious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I recognize that Rlevse/Pumpkinsky is trying to make a fresh start, but you're right that, at the very least, he should be mindful of his past actions (to wit, the harassment) and take care to avoid doing anything that could be seen as a resumption of his past misbehavior. That's obviously not happening, at least insofar as his comments at WT:FAC. This situation is clearly not acceptable.

I'm trying to find a middle ground here between ignoring it and coming down on him with a sledgehammer. I've had two drama free months, and I'm rather enjoying it. Raul654 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Raul. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long-time user blocked with no discussion. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 17:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a great time hunting him down, Mark! Mark Pollogrino (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You recently listed Transit of Venus as an upcoming TFA, but it was posted on May 7, 2005. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware - I commented on it on this page a few sections up. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Had left a note on User talk:Dabomb87 before. Why should this article will given the rare privilege of being a TFA twice when it can easily accommodated on "On this day..."? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it makes wikipedia relevant to what's happening and it can't be accomodated in "on this day" because it's never happened before on that date. And honestly, does it really matter to you that much that one FA for a very rare event get's on the front page twice? I don't think the five pillars of wikipedia will come crashing down because of it. Richerman (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Richerman. "On this day" doesn't do "Today", it does "This day in previous years". You might have meant to say "in the news", which might give it a line in between recent deaths, elections and the sports news, so I think that an exceptional TFA repeat is warranted by an exceptional event that we know (no crystal ball required) won't happen again in our lifetime. This is one of those situations where Raul can ignore his own self-imposed rules at no harm to Wikipedia and with the benefit of marking a major event. Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Another point is that this is the first TOV since Wikipedia became established as the pre-eminent source of information (the last TOV was in June 2004, and the next is in 2117). The transit is much more than an oddity—it was the first mechanism used to estimate the size of the solar system, and it is highly suitable that it be featured on June 5. Johnuniq (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it can go in TFA where Towel Day is mentioned today or Christmas on yearly basis, the section where we talk about "today". I remember that there was a long discussion about Obama being featured twice somewhere and after that the community decided in favour of an exception. When we break the rules, it opens a Pandora's box. So when Queen Elizabeth becomes 100 for instance, will she be featured again? Will we make an exception for Halley's Comet every 75 years? There are many articles which are featured for years and are not on TFA. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean "On this day", not TFA, and that line is for holidays, national days of observation, religious festivals and the like - not "such and such one-off or extremely infrequent event is happening today". (I'd rather it didn't have things like "Towel Day" but that's not a discussion for here.) I think that talking about this decision opening "Pandora's box" is ridiculous hyperbole: in the 3.5 years since Obama was featured for a second time, no other article has been, which shows that Raul is easily able to restrict duplication to exceptional circumstances (which he, and I, and others, think this event is). As you said earlier, it's a "rare" privilege, and rightly so. It is a good example of WP:IAR, in fact. I'm sure that Raul, his heirs and successors will be able to decide whether to re-feature Elizabeth II in 2026 or Halley's Comet in 2061; we don't have to decide that just yet, but I hope my grandchildren get to see Halley's Comet on the main page and aren't fobbed off with some poor excuse like "it appeared on the main page fifty years ago". Bencherlite^Talk 16:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, On This Day is not a good fit for Transit of Venus because (a) they are not recurring events like holidays (b) nor does it they fall on a particular date like anniversaries. It could reasonably go on the In The News section, but one sentence there gives it far less exposure than does TFA.

I remember that there was a long discussion about Obama being featured twice somewhere and after that the community decided in favour of an exception. - No, actually that was my call. The community discussion came afterward and was supportive, but the community doesn't make these decisions. I do.

So when Queen Elizabeth becomes 100 for instance, will she be featured again? Will we make an exception for Halley's Comet every 75 years? - If I'm still making those calls 14 and 49 years hence, I'd say maybe to the first and almost definitely to the second. Raul654 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

100% support for Raul's action here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I had asked Dabomb87 to unschedule the article. My schedule has been quite full lately, and there's the request to have Ontario Highway 401 as the TFA on July 1 for both Canada Day and the highway's 60th anniversary. My trip to Milwaukee from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan got aborted today at Fond du Lac, WI, over a transmission that only knows neutral. Imzadi 1979 → 01:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it. Raul654 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• User talk:Amalthea/Archive 6#Jack Merridew / user:Uncontroversial Obscurity

Leave my old user pages be; you're edit warring with others who know better. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny, when I asked Amalthea about user:Uncontroversial Obscurity (in the very same discussion you just cited) she said it was that account which was being used in compliance which the arbitration committee resolution, which limits you to one account. Yet here you show up, using a different account. So which is it? Were you violating the arbitration committee limit with that account, or with this one?

What's funnier still is how none of this was mentioned when this very subject was discussed on ANI two weeks ago. Your current account was created two days later. The timing for that is quite a coincidence. Something fishy is going on here.

I await your explanation with baited breath. Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Created in December, actually. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Taht like WP:BAIT, or with bated breath? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the arbitration committee about this and I expect my next stop will be arbitration enforcement. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a week behind; tehy knowz. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless they passed a new resolution changing the terms of your previous sanctions, the one account limit still applies and you are violating it, regardless of whether you notified them or not. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

moar tahn a week, actually. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Raul, the last motion directed Barong to edit solely from that account. Arbcom has not changed that remedy on-wiki, so it remains. In light of the sequence of other accounts, do you think AE would work? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That wording of that remedy looks ironclad to me. He's obviously editing and obviously not doing it from the Barong account. Their own demonstrated willingness to turn a blind eye to his misbehavior not withstanding, I don't see any way for the committee to twist their way out of that one like they did the other one. Go for it. Raul654 (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless you want to do it. May take me a while. It's interesting that after being limited to 1 account on June 2, 2011, the user socked with at least 10 accounts. The "Obscurity" account was OK'ed by arbcom on 18 July, but it stopped editing on 25 July. This was followed by more socking with at least 8 accounts. Some of those socks were blocked 28 to 30 March 2012. Then the "Obscurity" account was used from 7 to 9 April 2012, "scuttled" shortly after this post. Interesting. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikki's 'helpful' post had nothing to do with it ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Diff of User:Uncontroversial Obscurity
• Previous revision of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
• Diff of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
  that doesn't prevent him from changing account on a weekly basis if he likes

Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you're relying on an interpretation from your on-wiki friend with whom you were having a conversation about me days ago. And funnier still how she never recused herself. Raul654 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not as funny as you're looking ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep digging. Raul654 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

u2 ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so we're 100% clear. Merridew - under any account - is banned from any pages in my userspaces. If a message is really necessary, Merridew knows plenty of contacts who can drop me a message. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That a balk? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

When a request has been added to the queue, should I take it off the request page, or leave it? Oakley77 (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please take it off. Raul654 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't he on June 10, which is his birthday? The article currently there is nonspecific, so it would be an easy switch. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed his birthday was close. (I don't normally go out of my way to look for anniversaries like that) I've made the switch. Raul654 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool! I also just noticed by chance. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Non-parallel net force.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've been reviewing your posts about a certain Mr PS and wonder if you've seen this? http://other.skepticproject.com/forum/292/a-portrait-of-plautus-satire/ (this can't seem to be accessed from within here)

Check out Liz'es post in particular. (I've belatedly noticed that this goes on for 10 pages, and contains such witticisms from PS as ""Why don't you show up at my house, I'll put you under my garden". It really is quite a read.) Arno (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've actually seen it before :) (I was bored a while ago and wanted to see what he's up to these days) There are some laugh-out-loud descriptions of him there too, like after he claimed to be a medical doctor: "I think Plautus Satire is the Dr. Nick Riviera of Crazy Town. Without the degree of course," and he's "the male version of Orly Taitz with less credentials. "

And I'm actually mentioned by name on page 5 of that discussion. They link to an interview I gave to the guardian back in '06 where I described Plautus as "the most disruptive user in the history of Wikipedia." Plautus makes a dig at me on page 7 where he says that Furthermore, I was called the "most disruptive user", by one wikipedia admin who was being panned in an article about wikipedia. If you read the entire article, it basically paints a picture of this guy as a loser who lost his wife because he spends like fifty hours a week editing wikipedia.. The irony, of course, is that my girlfriend was sitting beside me at Wikimania when I gave that interview, which is clearly mentioned in the article. (And, I should say, we got married last year) His reading comprehension skills are as sharp as ever. Raul654 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I found the Skeptic Project article the other day, when like you, I got curious about what he's doing these days and did a Google search. The answer is after several years, he's pretty much the same. He still had that same knack in 2010 that he did in 2004 - and no doubt still does - to set off lots of controversy and anger. He managed to chalk up 10 pages over 48 hours on the Skeptic Project blog. 'Liz' had something to say about Plautus'es background, and I wanted to highlight that to you.

I hadn't realised that was you in that interview. To be honest, the Guardian is not exactly one of my favorite media outlets, and I hadn't learnt about that interview at all until now. Congrats on your marriage! Arno (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working on a small game built around animal quizzes and I wanted to let you know I've used some of your pictures.

I found your pictures here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cephalophus_sylvicultor_sylvicultor2.jpg I attributed this picture as described on that website: Raul654 with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654 and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pteropus_vampyrus1.jpg I attributed this picture as described on that website: Raul654 with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654 and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

I hope you're happy with it, please let me know if this is not the case. You can find the game here: http://apps.facebook.com/animalalbum Or through here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/AnimalAlbum/156339584490672

Kind regards, Garfunkel Jansen

P.S. Thanks for taking the pictures and making them available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfunkel Jansen (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

... on your user page. She looks so contented and secure. Pesky (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for JSTOR access#Status update. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PumpkinSky talk 11:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism or system or something by which it's possible to indicate that a FAC was abandoned, or that archiving was requested? The closing here, not promoted, seems to indicate that's it not worthy of promotion, which is now part of the permanent article history. Clearly there's more going on to make me walk away from a 4000 word article about a short story. Anyway, just wondering. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My full response here. In a nutshell, TK, your request for archiving is still there at the bottom of the FAC page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Would that work? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That works fine for me as far as the initial closing note goes -- does the bot recognise "withdrawn" as opposed to "promoted" and "archived"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you close this as failed candidate? Someone requested a withdrawl. --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to renom Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive1. I've addressed all issues weeks ago, and notified reviewers on talk, but they never came back to express clear support or opposition, and nobody else commented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

IANAD, but FWIW, even though I've been giving Piotr a hard time lately, I support relisting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree all comments were addressed, after which the nom just seemed to languish. No reviewer suggested wholesale revamping so as a delegate I have no objection to a re-nom before the standard two-week buffer period is up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The review on that has essentially ground to a halt, and nobody has really raised any objections which have not been resolved. If you could promote this, I would be grateful. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 00:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In the event you might be interested, I found an interesting tidbit of information that links Kazuo Sakamaki, an article you created over eight years ago, with Phillip Willis, a witness to the Kennedy assassination. It's not yet cited in either article, but it appears that Willis led the unit that captured Sakamaki.[10][11][12] Cheers! Location (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Main_Page#No_Olympics.3F, if you haven't already. What do you think... closing ceremony? First day of competition? First day of track and field? --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on doing anything Olympics-related, since ITN usually covers it quite thoroughly. Did you have a specific article in mind? Raul654 (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that -- I did want to run Stamata Revithi on the day of the women's marathon. Raul654 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some articles suggested at Talk:Main Page. I've not checked if they're all current FAs that haven't appeared on Main Page. I also noticed there's a relevant one currently in the bubbling under list on WP:TFAR for Sep 6th. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum

The Smithsonian American Art Museum and Wikimedia DC present the "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon. Drawing from their vast vaults of art, the caretakers of the Smithsonian American Art Museum have meticulously drawn forth canvas jewels to import into Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles. The museum directors and staff are excited about this project, and would love to have experienced Wikimedians help in the effort! Kirill [talk] 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC) When August 10, 2012, 10 AM - 4 PM Where Smithsonian American Art Museum, 7th & F St NW, Washington, DC Signup Details & signup

Your assistance is requested at Barack Obama Talk page1 and 2. There is a consensus that a FAR is needed, but several editors want to delay it until the election is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're an uninvolved outside admin, right? This whole process here seems kind of off - see this.[13] The above IP editor has reverted the removal of the FAR nomination, calling one of the regular editors a vandal. I've urged everyone to just hold on pending some guidance and perhaps a calm voice. If that's not you, please let me know and I'll either try to make peace myself or bounce it to AN/I depending on whether people stop edit warring. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why you think my description of the process seems "off"? I am also an uninvolved outside admin... Dana boomer (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm not familiar with the process and your description seemed familiar. I was just saying that the procedure that was happening on the page seemed odd - first proposed on the talk page by an admin who felt the article was too pro-Obama immediately after failing to gain consensus for a rather obscure (and by American standards, left-leaning) accusation that the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden was illegal, supported by that editor and others mostly on that basis, and then nominated (and edit warred) by an IP account, all the while accompanied by accusations of editor collusion and whitewashing, and with absolutely no specificity as to what parts of the article could be improved. Sour grapes invocation of an inapt procedure that could waste many hours of editors' efforts could and should be summarily reverted. The article's been nominated for quickly aborted FAR several times before in similar circumstances, and accusations of whitewashing, censorship, and article ownership by accounts new to the article (many later confirmed to be sockpuppets), and edit warring that arose from them, were primary reasons for article probation in the first place. Perversely, the fear and hostility towards hot-headed newcomers and other suspicious editing patterns has produced the opposite of what they're agitating for in the long term, as it created an impasse that slowed down any real attempt to update an improve the article. So who knows, the edit warring newcomers may be right as a matter of content. The article could indeed have degraded to the point where it needs major maintenance to remain featured. As an editor who's long tried to keep the article stable and talk page copacetic, and been hauled before a rather cluless Arbcom for it, and because I don't really know enough about featured article review to know what that implies, I thought it would be best to leave it to an uninvolved admin to take a second look, and restore order if necessary. I wanted to ask for that without advocating one way or the other, just pointing out that the procedural history was odd. The nomination was later reverted by another of the article regulars, and for now that seems to be sticking. Sorry to be so long, and thanks if you've made it all the way through that paragraph! - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong here: "absolutely no specificity as to what parts of the article could be improved." Before you do anything else, reread the discussion that I had to undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the expanded explanation! The procedural history of the article has been quite odd, and I think this is mainly due to numerous editors initiating FARs without first fully working through or understanding the process. I have no opinion on whether this article is neutral, properly referenced, or well-written - to be honest, I don't think I've ever actually read it in its entirety. My post was simply trying to make sure that the editors calling for a review realized that a vague, poorly explained FAR, without actually trying to work through issues as part of the talk page step, was simply going to be closed. The talk page step is not (at least in this instance, because there are interested editors) merely a formality - it is a chance for interested editors to improve the article without the stresses of a full FAR, and I was not seeing that happen in this case. Also, like I said, FAR is not well-equipped to handle intractable content disputes between groups of editors. At this point, I'm going to stop talking and let Raul have his talk page back :) I do still plan to keep an eye on the Obama talk page (first time I've ever had a politician's page watchlisted, I think...can't wait to unwatchlist it, really) to try to make sure that any procedures relating to FAR (as well as general policies such as edit warring) are being properly followed. I would appreciate other admins doing the same thing :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I saw that you pulled the nomination for CenturyLink Field to be featured on August 8th saying "we've had lots of sports articles lately". I wanted to offer(only this once, I promise) a counter to your position. In the days since June 1 (including TFAs scheduled that have not yet run) 66 articles have been TFAs. Of those, there were three sporting BLPs (1, 2, and 3), one covering a regular sporting event (1), and one covering a baseball team (1). Therefore, only 5 of the 66 (or 7.5%) were sports related and none of them covered any kind of sporting facility. Also, there has been only one (1) generally architectural or edifice related article in that time (possibly the monestary counts as one too). So my counter points are that there haven't been too many sports related articles and even less in the same genre as CenturyLink Field. I apreciate your taking a moment to consider these factors and possibly allowing it to still run.

As I mentioned in my nomination note, there was a strong point total (4), but there was also a special relevance for the date (though I conceded not enough to be worthy of a point). My underlying motivation was to drive awareness for an event being held on that day. If you believe it can't run this time, it will likely be some time before I nomintate it again (not a big deal, I just want to be clear that I'm not going to turn around and tenaciously nominate it again next month).

I obviously yield to and recognize your ultimate authority on the matter as the FA director and I don't want to waste your time belaboring the point beyond this one plea. I just wanted to ask you to reconsider after I provided some additional context. Thank you for your time and attention either way. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I reconsidered my earlier decision and scheduled it as you requested. Raul654 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --SkotyWA^T_C 23:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of South Side, Chicago know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 11, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 11, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The South Side is a major part of the City of Chicago. Regions of the city, referred to as sides, are divided by the Chicago River and its branches. The South Side of Chicago was originally defined as all of the city south of the main branch of the Chicago River, but it now excludes the Loop. The South Side has a varied ethnic composition, and it has great disparity in income and other demographic measures. The South Side covers 60% of the city's land area, with a higher ratio of single-family homes and larger sections zoned for industry than the rest of the city. Neighborhoods such as Armour Square, Back of the Yards, Bridgeport, and Pullman tend to be composed of more blue collar residents, while Hyde Park, the Jackson Park Highlands District, Kenwood, and Beverly tend to have middle, upper-middle class, and affluent residents. The South Side boasts a broad array of cultural and social offerings, such as professional sports teams, landmark buildings, nationally renowned museums, elite educational institutions, world class medical institutions, and major parts of the city's elaborate parks system. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Raul. Something tells me that this is the first time we're talking to each other. It's nice to meet you. I got a message[14] warning me that José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco will be a TFA on next 15 August.

Right now I have a FAC about Pedro I of Brazil, one of the main Brazilian national heroes, the founder of the Empire of Brazil and most importantly of all, the man who declared the Brazilian independence from Portugal. You must be wondering, "So what?". It occurs that on 7 September Brazil will celebrate the 190th anniversary of its Independence. Less than a month from now. Since everything indicates that the article will pass, it would be probably a far better option as a TFA than the one about José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, a statesman in the Empire of Brazil. Since articles with similar subjects aren't welcome as TFAs when appearing too close to each other, I believe my suggestion would be preferable. What do you think of it? --Lecen (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - assuming it passes FAC, just remind me here and I'll schedule it for the 7th. Raul654 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. I appreciate it. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I am writing to you with a mixture of glee and dread. I am, along with Ssilvers, the main editor of the above and it's booked in to appear on the main page in August. I was very happy to see its selection for TFA but I am worried that it's appearence will warrant a lot of unwanted "improvements", as experienced on Georg Solti earlier this month. I feel that there is a witch hunt currently going on involving a few certain editors who are forcing their pro-info boxes views on those articles that do not have them. Holloway, does not have one and, as far as I know, has never had one. I am very worried, what with all of the discussions going on at he moment, that Holloway will also feature the same amount of criticism and forced opinions from these people thus inducing some sort of edit warr. It is also going on at Peter Sellers FAC (where I am co-nom) and on his talkpage here. On 21 June, another article in which I was heavily involved with, Dan Leno recieved the same treatment. Can I have your advice? -- Cassianto^Talk 04:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See WT:FAC#Infoboxes. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dank. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I kindly request that you unprotect it. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect to keep it protected too long. And it's going to be at least eight days before any requests can hit the main page. Raul654 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mark, how are you? I hope you are doing good these days. I need a favor from you... Can you please move Loud (Rihanna album) to Loud (album) cause Loud (Timo Maas album) was moved to Timo Maas article so it's the only Wikipedia album article with the name Loud. Thank you :) — Tomica (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Not done – "It's the only Wikipedia album article with the name Loud", the premise upon which your request for a move is based, assumes that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud (Half Japanese album) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud (Wicked Tinkers album) will result in the articles being deleted, and that's not a certainty this early on in the deletion discussions. If they were to be kept simply as redirects to the bands, there might be an argument that keeping the general disambiguation page "Loud (album)" would still be worthwhile. Bencherlite^Talk 11:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul, when you selected Rus' Khaganate you didn't include an image, and there's a discussion at talk:Main Page#Image for a forthcoming TFA - opinions requested as to whether including one would be a good idea. You might want to look in on it if you get a chance. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps ask someone who is active? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He's not inactive based on that diff, really. What's your point? Doc talk 11:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda, but I had seen Raul's comment before I left the message. Nevertheless, I'm not going to leave out notifying Raul about a TFA image issue just because he hasn't edited for 24 hours or so - it's not as though he's abandoned Wikipedia entirely, is it? And who else do you suggest I notify apart from the TFA author, Raul and the person with whom I'm having the disagreement? (Don't bother answering that, it's a rhetorical question and Raul won't thank us if his email is pinging all the time on a side issue between ourselves about a small issue in the grand scheme of things). In any event, Talk:Main Page is a visible enough location, and plenty of people have this talk page on their watchlist as well. Bencherlite^Talk 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Shadow hegemon cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Featured article process and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Rschen7754 09:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also noting that I am sending an email, as Raul seems to be on a Wikibreak. --Rschen7754 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rschen. I'm keeping an eye on what's going on here. About the arbitration case -- I have no confidence in the arbitration committee. Their appalling response to the clarification request in May shows they are unwilling or unable to deal with Jack. If they're not going to enforce their own sanctions when it's indisputably clear that Jack violated them, how likely is it they'll take action on something that's more subtle and difficult to prove? No thank you. If they want to clean up their own mess, fine, let them. Keep me out of it. I have better things to do with my time than trying to paint pictures for the blind. Raul654 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I hope you don't mind if I copy the diff over to the case, so they aren't wondering why you haven't responded. --Rschen7754 21:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest. Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Raul. How are you? You asked me (see here) to tell you when Pedro I of Brazil becomes a Featured Article. It has just been promoted (see here). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see my previous comment was ambiguous. Can you remind me when September 7 is a bit closer? (During or shortly before labor day weekend would probably be the best time) Or, if there's a nomination slot, use Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Raul654 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is teh reason he's doing it. His behaviour hasn't changed. 64.40.54.52 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC) striking comment. 64.40.54.173 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for your input at WT:TFAR#Arbcom case. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have put Berlin up for peer review. I would like a critical review of the article based on Featured Article criteria. As you are experience in dealing with Featured Article criteria, your comments would be appreciated. You can find the peer review here Kingjeff (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Operation Downfall for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.PumpkinSky talk 15:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill ^[talk] 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi GLAM PMA folks! I wanted to update you about some recent events related to our fantastic Museum. I met Jessica Milby, PMA Collections Information Project Manager, at Wikimania in July. Jessica was looking for ways to improve articles on Wikipedia about the Museum and its artists/collections. We followed up a few weeks later at the Perelman Building in downtown Philadelphia where we discussed ways to increase participation in the GLAM/PMA project.

• The first idea is to do some outreach to the GLAM:PMA project members, including mass messages updating you all about plans and, seeking feedback about new ideas, and hearing your thoughts about what's in the works.
• The next step is a drive to improve the main Philadelphia Museum of Art article. The article is currently 'B-Class', but Jessica was confident that with the abundance of high quality sources about the Museum that it could be improved even further. Jessica recommended this extensive source from the Museum's website.
• Another idea that came out of the meeting was a project within the Museum to assess which PMA-related topics are missing articles on Wikipedia.
• One of Jessica's ideas is to have the knowledgeable curators of the Museum provide recommended reading lists for PMA-related articles. That should be a great first step to guiding editors towards the information they need to expand and improve that content.
• Also raised for discussion were some ideas about how to engage the broader community. There is interest in setting up a tour/edit-a-thon, but this remains in the preliminary stage. Would you be interested in participating in such an event?
• We have new stats! These 24 articles are all under the PMA project. I compiled the last 90-day page views and then annualized the results. PMA-related articles get almost 800,000 view per year!

It's exciting to have a partner in Jessica Milby and there should be a lot of good work coming out the collaboration within the next 3-6 months. Please stop by the GLAM/PMA project page and leave your thoughts. What ideas do you have? How can we move forward on the above projects? I Hope you're all well. Cheers! Ocaasi 19:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Do we need points any more? which might interest you. Hope all's well. Bencherlite^Talk 09:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:TFA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Thumperward, after inappropriately moving {{ArticleHistory}} despite prior discussions, has now started a WP:RM to move ArticleHistory to Article history. I have supported the FA process for some 6 years with a number of scripts that would be adversely affected by this change. I am not in a position to edit these scripts. If this WP:RM goes through, further script support for the FA process may end. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not one script would be affected by this change. I've already done the required work to ensure that any page move here would result in seamless redirection which would ensure that any and all existing code would continue to function normally. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi I don't think we've ever interacted but I have a request. I'm well aware that you're on wiki-break, but the TFA process is badly in need of leadership in my view. I'd like to ask that you either consider returning from wiki-break, consider adding another delegate to help Dabomb - apparently also quite busy at the moment - or consider other options in terms of providing leadership there. The institutional memory of longer term editors is helpful to have in terms of selecting TFAs and that seems to have been lost. Anyway, thought I'd drop this here to let you know. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the relevant parts of this discussion to WT:FAR. Raul, enjoy your wikibreak. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is being discussed elsewhere, but I noticed that on Nov. 4, 2008 you put both Barack Obama and John McCain on the main page. Are you considering doing something similar this year for Nov. 6? Maybe not Mitt/Obama but something along those lines. I noticed that both Mitt's dad and Obama's inaugural are FAs but haven't been listed, for example. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And then I realized you're on break, so I'll post this elsewhere. Hot Stop (Edits) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul, hope all is well and that you'll be back soon. Meanwhile, this is to let you know that a discussion at T:MP has resulted in two changes: (1) the TFA section is now headed "From today's featured article" and (2) the "more..." link at the end has been changed to "Read the full article". I neither participated in nor closed the discussion; I'm just notifying you of the result. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 20:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good news. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Letting you know that you're being discussed at WT:FAC. --Rschen7754 10:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

actually not you as a person, but the position of a FA director - is it needed or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to be a new TFA delegate, as you suggested at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests! I have commented on nomination's at that page before (not many yet though), I do comment often at FAC as well, have a reasonable WP:CONSENSUS understanding and such, in my opinion. But I am not an administrator (as most are, it seems to be at FAC and TFA), hope I am okay. The choice is yours. Cheers, TBrandley 02:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul, note for you here in case you missed it. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You should also be aware of WP:QAI. --Rschen7754 19:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for scheduling! On WP:QAI/TFA you find suggestions that were removed for various reasons, feel free to use them without a formal request when you think their time has come, but don't forget to change the formatting from free style to TFA style ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Raul, per my discussion with Bencherlite on my talk, I thought User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts might be due for an update, and could discuss exceptions, re-runs, etc. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You were mentioned: [15] [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And, you were mentioned here: [17] In one of the ANI discussions involving Maunus, Truthkeeper88, and Alarbus, RexxS mentioned that Alarbus was his friend. TK88 would know where the diff is, and RexxS never fails to show up in defense of his friend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy. I had already notified Raul of my concern below (#Please retract). If it's any help to the smear you are attempting to make, I will freely state that Jack/Alarbus has indeed been a wiki-friend of mine for a considerable time, as we have had a shared interest in many of the technical aspects of Wikipedia - although we maintain differing views about the use of alternate accounts. Nevertheless, I am a Wikipedian in at least as good standing as you are, and I am entitled to share my reservations about Raul's comments with him. If you are his friend, you would do best to advise him to step back from actions that may be seen as breaching our communal standards, rather than encouraging him to ignore genuine concerns. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think that saying you are a friend of Meridew is a smear (and you previously acknowledged being a "friend", not a "Wikifriend", which in my mind at least are very different things); I'm generally proud to acknowledge my friendships. YMMV. I also don't share your notion that we must treat arb candidates with kid gloves when questioning them about past decisions -- especially not arb candidates who routinely attempt to denigrate persons with, for example, autism. [18] That is an attempt to denigrate an editor by treating genetic neurological conditions as if they are somehow insulting, and that is a smear of the kind that should shame anyone if made IRL, and would get regular editors blocked on Wikipedia. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My mileage doesn't vary, and I'm very happy to acknowledge my real-life friendship with many of the Wikimedians whom I have met. Jack unfortunately does not fall into that category, so "wiki-friend" is most apt. Nevertheless, it is clear to all that you believe that associating me with Jack should somehow diminish the concerns I've expressed. That is a typical 'ad hominen' strategy and you insult the intelligence of everyone reading this by pursuing it. You know that Raul is out of line, so why are you unable to do the right thing and help him out? --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RexxS you not only defended Jack as Alarbus, but actively and aggressively joined in on targeted those alarbus was campaigning against at the time. I'm not sure this was intentional on your behalf, ot if its just, as you seem to be pleading now, from nietivity. You made a sustained campaign to have me indeffed, I remember, without once addressing me directly, instead your effort was basically unsubstantiated rants on others talk pages, your seeming MO, which is nice and typical but shows a certain lack of integrity and stones. I have diffs of Rexxs making wanton and unsubstantiated allegations against me to appease his friends, in a clique conversation about launching an indeff against me, in a move that was transparently political orchrasted, though he did not have the wit to realise it at the time, whatever he says now. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, as polite as always. Nice edit summary :D Don't you think your comment here displays far more the style of "basically unsubstantiated rants on others talk pages" than mine? If you want to criticise my wit or my integrity, go ahead, but please be kind enough to supply diffs so that we don't all think you're just throwing mud wildly in the hope that some of it sticks. To be blunt, I'd happily match my record of integrity and wit against yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday. For what it's worth, you're wrong about "a sustained campaign to have me indeffed"; it's not my style. You've overstepped the mark on civility and personal attacks on many occasions, but you'll find that I'm on record politely asking Truthkeeper to try to rein in your excesses for your own good. Even now, I'd prefer not to exchange further unpleasantries, but you don't seem to be able to drop the stick and move on, do you? --RexxS (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats a very unique spin RexxS, and I'd admire your balls If i didnt have such a low openion of your MO. Note that I posted here, directly after you, and adresssing you, a curtsy you did not extended to me, so your saying that this is the same is basically a twist on words. Plus, "politely asking Truthkeeper to try to rein in your excesses", come on, there was implied treat; its an insult to both our intelligences to plead otherwise, there were a few admins in that conversation, unless again you are pleading -shuck-s stupidity as defence. Try harder. My impression of you is that your a butterfly, not a content person, not an admin person, more invested in friends, blindly so, easily influenced, and will go and go after whoever is flavour of the month as the person to be got. Your reading of me was so surface at the time, what the fuck else should I think. Plus you are deflecting against my main point about enabling Alarbus and see now to this day, carrying on his misguided attack on his targets.

It seems that I actually did post here directly after you. Do you want to withdraw the slur on my courtesy? Let's be accurate, shall we? Here's my opinion of you, Ceoil, already given a year ago:

• "... An online encyclopedia has many components. Although content may be the most important, that does not give content writers the right to denigrate the work of the other contributors who work just as hard and conscientiously in their own fields. Without those who make sure that all the brilliant content is accessible and usable by as many readers as possible, that content would lose much of its value...
• "The point is that neither Dianna nor Alarbus did anything other than disagree with the opinions of the 'regulars' on a technical issue. The arrogance and foul language of Ceoil is dwarfed only by his ignorance of the issues and by his continuous desire to foster dissent and fan the flames. I've never seen anybody get away with quite so much edit-warring on other peoples' talk pages. I feel quite sorry for Truthkeeper – she has been pushed into a corner by Ceoil's actions which have been calculated throughout to escalate small differences and remove any chance of reconciliation."

Here's your block log in evidence of my assertions:

• 17:10, 29 January 2012 Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attacks or harassment)
• 21:01, 3 December 2011 Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Ceoil (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:33:20 GMT (account creation blocked) (original block was disproportionate)
• 20:44, 3 December 2011 Eagles247 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Ceoil (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:33:20 GMT (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked)
• 20:33, 3 December 2011 Eagles247 (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)
• 08:49, 5 September 2011 Ironholds (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)
• 17:47, 25 April 2011 The Moose (talk | contribs) unblocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (User has apologized and the matter seems closed.)
• 02:46, 25 April 2011 FisherQueen (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)
• 08:14, 5 June 2010 Shimeru (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule)
• 23:44, 25 October 2008 East718 (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 0 seconds (Ceoil's previous four blocks have been overturned as unwarranted by the community and should not be held against him when evaluating his behavior; see tinyurl.com/54ww22 and tinyurl.com/622xw3)
• 23:02, 18 October 2008 Cenarium (talk | contribs) unblocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (comments did not justify a 3 day block, unblock per ANI discussion)
• 18:27, 18 October 2008 MaxSem (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=246129639)
• 17:55, 18 October 2008 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second (Explaining previous block. Misunderstanding based on "rivalry" with JayHenry. User did nothing to warrant previous 72-hour block)
• 16:17, 18 October 2008 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) unblocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (misunderstanding? I have misgivings - "prick", "twat", etc - but per JayHenry)
• 16:14, 18 October 2008 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Disruptive editing)
• 13:41, 23 December 2007 LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) unblocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (per consensus at WP:AN)
• 01:57, 23 December 2007 Jmlk17 (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Attempting to harass other users)
• 01:57, 23 December 2007 Jmlk17 (talk | contribs) unblocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (tweeking block)
• 01:54, 23 December 2007 Jmlk17 (talk | contribs) blocked Ceoil (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Attempting to harass other users: Threatening users.)

I am no butterfly, but I have featured content (article and list), as well as a reputation for improving accessibility on Wikipedia, and I was instrumental in technical developments such as WP:HLIST, beside having run a dozen or so training courses for new editors to Wikipedia. Please tell me you have something to base your slurs on, beside your own fantasies. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop this!! My father died earlier this week and I have absolutely no interest in seeing my name dragged around in an old dispute. Ceoil is, and has been, my wiki friend. That won't stop. Now, can we all get on with our lives and stop the squabbling? Please. Adding: I could say a lot about Jack but won't; not now. Not interested in being pulled into this. But honestly I find this beyond disgusting. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway and excerpt from a conversation RexxS was instrumental in, [19]. Your lovely friend, at the time we were to suppose a new account, though ye know better: "Ban Ceoil would be a start; admonish you [TK] for calling everything I said 'Asshole-language' [a lie, as if TK would talk like that]. You people gang-up like flies on shit. Alarbus (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)". RexxS you may wish to "not to exchange further unpleasantries", but you cant wish that and say "You've overstepped the mark on civility and personal attacks on many occasions" and just want the back story to dissepear all at the same time. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

More recently, my lovely friend exchanged thoughts on referencing with Truthkeeper, you and me (quotes: "I am willing to work with you" (he), "Working together is a lot better than what had been going on. All involved are capable, extremely experienced and productive editors" (she), "Its possible to fundamental disagree with another editor on approach and pints of style, and still live and left live." (you)), and on her invitation they improved articles together, see The Call of the Wild history. I would like to turn to a future, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things here: 1., I should have been notified of this conversation. 2., per WP:TPNO please don't misrepresent conversations. Much more to be said here, but not interested in getting into this at the moment. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Above, RexxS says "You know that Raul is out of line, so why are you unable to do the right thing and help him out?". The situation is quite simple because lots of people are watching every page connected with Arbcom and its election, and if anyone is significantly out of line, many of them will speak up and say so. If editors A and B have appeared on opposite sides of bitter disputes, it is very unhelpful for B to appoint themselves as the person who must speak up to tell everyone that A is out of line (in their opinion). When B makes a fuss about A, the best thing for other editors is to put out the fire—rewarding B by poking A would just guarantee future misbehavior. In other words, we may never know if other editors think Raul was out of line because the situation has been poisoned by ongoing battlefield conduct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I don't think Raul was out of line at all, looks to me like Rexx is beating a dead horse...If Elen objects then let Elen protest...Modernist (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you'd like to silence those who want to stand up for what is right and leave good folks isolated to defend themselves on their own, wouldn't you? Fortunately it looks like I wasn't beating any horses at all. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not silencing anyone - I'm pointing out that you are beating a dead horse and you appear to be sticking your two cents into a conversation between 2 administrators who can very well speak for themselves. As I said - Elen can speak for herself, considering that she is running for office not you...Modernist (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A rather interesting opportunity has presented itself over at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#December 21. It's not often that a TFA about a specific date gets to appear on the mainpage on that specific date. However, some have argued, given the hysteria surrounding that particular event, that it might be better to post it the day before , to ensure maximum visibility and minimum chaos. However, there is the possibility that, by posting the day before, we might end up contributing to the doomsday hype, rather than remedying it. Sandy suggested I ask you about it. Serendi^podous 19:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm 100% in favor of running it. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reply to the question 20th or 21st ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was vague - I'm 100% in favor of running it on the 21st. Raul654 (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That was the original plan. But strong voices argued for the 20th. (I don't care which date.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, strong consensus for the actual date, i.e. the 20th. Of course, if Raul disagrees with consensus and decides on the 21st, that's his call! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If there ever was a time for a doubleheader, this is probably it. I would actually support running the article consecutively on both the 20th and the 21st. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

solved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Per this discussion and this question, do you recall any specific instances in which you rescheduled a featured article's main page appearance on short notice, due to poor timing (e.g. an unintended association with something occurring on a particular date)? Or have such issues only been brought to your attention after it was too late to rectify them? (I distinctly recall the latter, but I was unable to dig up examples of either.) Thanks! —David Levy 19:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment here is tantamount to harassment, in my opinion, as the question is answered. That is compounded by your unfounded accusation that the candidate is lying, which is unacceptable in the circumstances. I'm now asking you politely to retract your comment. I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates #Enough. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The replies seem to be getting nowhere. If that pattern continues, this situation would appear to constitute a dispute that two editors were unable to get resolved. If you agree, then I believe the next step would be a RFC/U. Would you co-certify? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had time to get to this yet (trying to catch up on articles and FAC and do holiday preparations), but we now have contradictory answers from various arbs ... I was thinking of going back to them to ask what's up. Neither Cas liber nor Kirill Lokshin have a habit of lying or shading the truth in my experience, so something is off. I've got the various diffs but just haven't had time to put them together. PS, somewhere in there, Gimme, I saw mention of AGK's role in the matter ... I missed that step. Could you fill me in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

[20] [21] is a start. AGK does recuse from voting on relevant cases. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still gathering the pieces where different arbs have said different things at different times and have us chasing our tails, no confidence entire scenario won't be repeated under their watchful eyes. On a related matter of the contradictions, I've found the piece where Elen of the Roads said PumpkinSky/Rlevse should not be blocked, but I haven't relocated the diff where she later specifically said that Moni3 was right to block (related to either RTV or Clean start). Does anyone know where that is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 17, 2012 --Rschen7754 08:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

closed, as had to, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi; I'm contacting you here as an appeal for that article to not be put on the main page. I'm all for topics potentially offensive and I'm all for topics potentially trivial, but I do not think that a piece of blatant toilet humour with little redeeming cultural significance is something that belongs on the main page as today's featured article. If there's somewhere that there is a discussion going on, could you please point me towards it so I can make my case there. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

To save people hunting through diffs, the 2011 and 2012 nominations are collected at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, together with some other semi-useful links to related discussions. For the avoidance of doubt, as I said at WT:TFAR#Christmas, if Raul disagrees with my decision and wants to unschedule the article, that's fine by me. Bencherlite^Talk 13:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Second the plea. We are not censored, no; but we also do not need to stoop to infantile grade school toilet humor on the first page, surely? Even if you feel this rather questionable topic should be on the front page, is this the best time for it? End of year is when people make charitable donations; I doubt this article will prove to be inspiring to anyone who is considering donating. Please reconsider this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been considered that the date is the anniversary of the first airing. With Christmas in the title, it can't possibly run in summer. I don't believe that the objective of the Main page is to promote charity (otherwise ban battleships), as much as I'm interested in promoting charity, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a far distant secondary consideration, and you can freely ignore the concern about charitable giving. My primary opposition is that I feel the article, given it's infantile and puerile subject, is inappropriate for the main page. Poop is something which fascinates children. I don't see it as a suitable candidate for the front page of an encyclopedia. It is a long way from "not censored" to "poop jokes are great!" One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've commented in the past, I have a much easier time understanding these criticisms when they come from people who don't realize (or don't accept) that Wikipedia isn't censored.

Your complaint, like many that arise whenever "objectionable" material appears on the main page, amounts to "I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but come on, we surely should censor this!".

The biggest flaw in your argument is that we aren't "stoop[ing] to infantile grade school toilet humor". It's reasonable to opine that the TV episode's producers did that, but we're simply providing encyclopedic coverage of their work — via an article that the community has deemed among our best (a testament to the fact that we can handle any notable subject, whether a Nobel Prize winner or a cartoon episode, with the same editorial standards). Likewise, when this article appeared on the main page in March, we weren't "stooping to murder".

I also find it odd that you'd question the timing, given the Christmas theme and fifteenth anniversary (to the day). I'll take you up on your offer to ignore the concern about charitable giving, as suppressing "offensive" content is a perfect way to ensure that donations are lost. (Meanwhile, those who would withhold contributions due to the article's appearance are bound to be offended by something else anyway.)

Note that I opposed running this article on Christmas, as I agree that we shouldn't purposely offend people as a means of flaunting the lack of censorship (which seemed to be an underlying motive). —David Levy 15:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the logic of 'they did the episode, this is the article' akin to hanging a picture someone else painted. You're still responsible for the display. We certainly have articles about far more objectionable material, which I would not object having on the front page, such as Holocaust, etc. Those articles have the virtue of being important. I submit that an episode of SP is not generally important in the scale of human history and knowledge. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That TFA is about being "important" is new to me. The greatest "supply" of Featured articles is about mushrooms and battleships, - users write about what they are interested in, not what you may think is important, - I suggest let's run it this year and get over with, or we have the same discussion next year - as last year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not "about" being important, please do not twist my words. Importance, relevance, should play a role, IMO. And you're dead right; this is clearly not going to go anywhere. Puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Should" is nicely said. Repeating: we have around 60 great FAs about mushrooms, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Importance, relevance, should play a role, IMO.

Then you seek to fundamentally alter the TFA criteria. —David Levy 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood. Do you not advocate that we disqualify subjects deemed insufficiently important (particularly those also deemed objectionable)? —David Levy 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the logic of 'they did the episode, this is the article' akin to hanging a picture someone else painted. You're still responsible for the display.

We aren't broadcasting the episode. We're presenting an encyclopedia article about it, just as we do about all sorts of subjects (including those that some people find unpleasant).

Furthermore, while you're entitled to your opinion that the TV episode is "infantile and puerile", that's irrelevant to our mission. You're arguing that a subject should be barred from appearing on the main page because you (and others) dislike it. That's the antithesis of our "not censored" principle. Our goal is to cover subjects from a neutral viewpoint, without regard for our personal opinions. We aren't deeming the TV episode good. Conversely, you want us to deem it bad.

We certainly have articles about far more objectionable material, which I would not object having on the front page, such as Holocaust, etc. Those articles have the virtue of being important.

A subject need only be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. "Featured" status (which makes an article eligible to appear as TFA) reflects said article's quality, not the subject's "importance". We should be proud of our ability to cover a broad range of topics in an encyclopedic manner. —David Levy 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I "want to deem it 'bad'"??? WTF already, how dare you tell me three times on one page what I think. I am done trying to talk to you; you could not be more wrong about what I think, and your assumptions are unwelcome. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made no such assumptions. I've based my statements upon my understanding of your comments. If I've misunderstood your position, I sincerely apologize and welcome clarification. Likewise, I request that you consider the possibility that you've misinterpreted some of my comments. (Given your reaction to the one quoted above, which wasn't intended as an insult, I suspect that this is so.)

You referred to the TV episode as "infantile and puerile". For this reason, you want its scheduled main page appearance to be canceled. This is what I meant when I wrote that "you want us to deem it bad" — that you want us to base an editorial decision (the article's main page appearance or lack thereof) upon the aforementioned opinion that the subject is "infantile and puerile". No deeper meaning was intended, and I'm genuinely sorry if that was unclear. —David Levy 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

End of year is when people make charitable donations; I doubt this article will prove to be inspiring to anyone who is considering donating. Of all the reasons one could give for censoring the mainpage, that is about the least sensible I've encountered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about censorship; and I resent being insulted in this fashion. I have always had mutually respectful dealings with you up til now, Sandy, but this comment of yours is less than collegiate. And that it was made after I withdrew that minor comment as not a major concern, you seem to be really digging in the Already Closed Subjects in order to insult me to no purpose whatsoever. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find "least sensible" extremely insulting. Perhaps if I said simply "not very sensible" it would be less so? I'm sure you can see where censoring the mainpage in the interest of fundraising would lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you couldn't manage a more civil way of saying you disagreed (to echo your own phrasing at me) with something that I'd already withdrawn. I see your point, indeed. What I don't see is how you insulting me, then offering a clear insulting apology on top of that, on a closed subject is anything helpful in any way at all. I presume you're simply having a very bad day, and will leave it at that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, if it's the "already withdrawn" issue that concerned you, since you are an experienced Wikipedian, I suspect you know how to strike a comment. On the matter of censorship, you seem to be saying that I am supposed to agree that expecting the delegates to suppress articles that the community insists on running TFA is not "censorship". It looks to me like a "gotcha" game being played on the delegates. We seem to disagree on the point of censorship and the community wanting to have its cake and eat it too, but on the fundraising point, striking that comment would help resolve the matter. I admit I'm not understanding just what has you so offended about me saying it's not sensible. Perhaps you haven't kept up with current issues surrounding the ways in which the WMF (mis)uses charitable donations. It's not all about you, so no need to be offended. Why is this page being overtaken by green? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

and I mistakenly thought, being an experienced Wikipedian, you'd have read the entire thread before cherrypicking something to insult. How WMF (mis)uses the money is irrelevant to this subject; if you cannot understand why I'm insulted I'd be happy to carry on the discussion off this page, which I am now leaving; I said hours ago this is a dead topic and only stayed to object to comments about and to me, specifically. The green is David Levy telling me what I think and want, and failing miserably in his mindreading attempts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As many "experienced" editors know, when threads like this one get going, subsequent readers will not have the time nor the inclination to read the whole thing; hence, my comment on the fundraising aspect and suggestion to strike it. KC, all due respect, you have unnecessarily personalized this. My concerns and comments are aimed at issues that have nothing to do with you or this particular TFA: 1) WMF misuse of charitable donations, and 2) what looks like the community demanding a larger role at TFAR, then refusing to exercise that role responsibly, then expecting the delegates to solve the problem, while simultaneously shooting at the delegates. (GOTCHA game there.) All of that is general: none of it is about or aimed at you. I hope that resolves this, and apologize that you felt it was aimed at you and that you felt insulted. The misuse of charitable donations by the WMF is my concern-- to a much greater degree than what is run TFA. David Levy, the green is obnoxious :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have time to read, you should probably not comment on what you have not read; One puppy's opinion. Regarding taking it personally: the remark you quoted and was made by me, none other. I had already withdrawn it (which you apparently didn't read). Please do not use With all due respect when addressing another editor and criticizing their approach, as you are currently informing me I'm taking things too personally; it is unhelpful to mending the situation, as it generally is taken to mean "Go fuck yourself". Unless, of course, that is what you really intended to say to me. It seems to me that your concerns about the WMF use of funds is occupying your thoughts to the point that you feel it necessary to bring it into unrelated conversations. And I agree, the green is obnoxious. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no way of appeasing you, so I give up. "Go fuck yourself" isn't part of my MO, btw. Perhaps your AGF-ometer is broken or you're having a bad day causing you to read things between the lines I'm not writing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me utterly. I assumed you were innocent of what "With all due respect" means to most people, so I asked. I am sorry if I was unclear and it read as though I were accusing you. Please do read the linked page; I meant my post to be helpful to you, so you don't accidentally tell people to go fuck themselves (as you did to me.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will use with all due respect whenever I want, applied just as the phrase is intended (which means, when there is legitimate respect on board), regardless of what some stupid Wiki essay says (most likely written by a few someones with an axe to grind). I believe AGF is policy, while that is an essay. I believe AGF means that when I say WADR, that's what I mean. I believe that assuming I'm telling you to go f yourself fails AGF. And with all due respect still means with all due respect in my Pollyanna world. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, grand ... now Bish is going to be mad at me :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mad? For sure! I see everything, just like Ceiling Cat (hello there, Raul, long time!). Additionally, I'm mad at KillerChihuahua for linking repeatedly to Wikipedia:Apology when she could have linked to WP:NOTSORRY, where I hone another axe. What was that about? Bishonen | talk 22:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC).

Dang, you're right, Bish. NOTSORRY even slams people for the lame response of "It's not all about you" when criticized for attacking someone's comments. Still, I had already cited one of your essays, and APOLOGY slams the person for the lame phrasing of "I'm sorry you're _____". (Side note, you ARE omniscient! woot) KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I made no assumptions at all. I gave some advice, thinking you might want to avoid using a phrase which is commonly understood to mean something else, assuming only that you might not know about how it could be taken. You could have simply said "No, I didn't mean it that way, and I plan to keep using it as it's original meaning" without pointedly using the phrase again, and accusing me of making assumptions I never made which IMO fails AGF considerably more thoroughly than my attempt at helping you to avoid potential insults. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(snarkily) Oh, I'm sure she won't take it personally any more than I took it personally that you said my (already retracted) thoughts were not sensible. Why on earth would she? /snark KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we're done here, and hope some clarity was achieved. Perhaps someone will do the honors of hatting this whole sad exchange. Please feel better soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what, if anything, has been achieved except repeated instances of you misreading me and accusing me of accusing you and failures of agf. Not sure how that has clarified a thing. I hope I get better soon, too, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia and KillerChihuahua: I'm using our talk quotation template. I've found its formatting invaluable in facilitating constructive discourse.

And I assure you, KillerChihuahua, that I don't seek to read your mind or tell you what you think. If I've misrepresented your expressed position, it was unintentional. —David Levy 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about censorship;

You want to suppress material from the main page on the basis that it's objectionable. What do you call that? (To be clear, I'm not being sarcastic.) —David Levy 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, because it does indeed read like sarcasm. To begin with, you are dreadfully wrong about my desires. I don't "want to suppress" a damn thing. Hope this helps clear things up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, I apologize if I've misunderstood your position. You don't want to suppress the scheduled appearance of Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo as TFA? —David Levy 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

<after conflict>The main page is a place for displaying Wikipedia's finest work; it is not a place for demonstrating that which is peurile and childish. Such an article can only serve to debase and demean the project and result in negative publicity. We can all laugh at lavatory humour (nothing wrong with that), but we should all realise that it has a time and a place, and that place is most definitly not the main page. Giano (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The main page is a place for displaying Wikipedia's finest work;

And the community has determined that the article in question is among Wikipedia's finest work. Are you suggesting that it's impossible to write a high-quality encyclopedia article about a piece of fiction that some people find offensive?

it is not a place for demonstrating that which is peurile and childish.

Why do you believe that your (and others') personal opinion of the subject has any bearing?

Such an article can only serve to debase and demean the project and result in negative publicity.

I couldn't disagree more. It demonstrates our ability to provide dispassionate, encyclopedic coverage of a broad range of subjects (including those that some people find "puerile and childish").

We can all laugh at lavatory humour (nothing wrong with that), but we should all realise that it has a time and a place, and that place is most definitly not the main page.

And if we were streaming the TV episode (instead of presenting an encyclopedia article), I'd be the first to object. —David Levy 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The nomination was at WP:TFAR for more than two weeks, and there were previous discussions on talk. Consensus was there to run the article. The community demands an increasingly larger role in mainpage scheduling, but then doesn't accept the responsibility that goes along with that larger role. If folks don't want articles to run TFA, or object to the quality, content, topic, prose, or whatever of articles run, they should be registering their concerns at WP:TFAR. Use the oppose button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with well-written comments in discussion by David Levy (talk · contribs), Bencherlite (talk · contribs), Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs), and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, even the parts where David Levy presumed to tell me what I think and want? I'm surprised, Cirt. One, he was wrong, and two, that's very rude as I'm sure you are aware. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), I don't agree with that part. :) Hope you are doing well, — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I am doing quite well, or would be if people would stop (incorrectly, as it happens) telling me what I think and want. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hear you and I've been in that situation before myself and of course I can understand how that feels troubling. :) I'm glad to hear you're doing well! I just got over a bad cold and thank goodness I'm not sick anymore but the congestion is still clearing itself out, hopefully some nice herbal tea will help! :) — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean IRL? I'm doing horribly, so sorry. I thought you meant on-WP. I have the flu. I'm glad to hear you're doing better from your cold.

I think we've all faced the patronizing, rude tactic of someone telling us what we think, want, feel; with no regard to the fact that only the individual can determine those things and certainly not an outside observer based on a little text; since studies show that up to 93% of communication is nonverbal, and other studies show up to 90% of text being misunderstood (even when 95% of those misunderstanding are positive they understood correctly) it is incumbent on all of us not to presume we understand what another is thinking based on text, without due clarification. As Durova put it, ask. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that, especially the assessment of the limits of text-based communications, unfortunately. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you have the flu, and hope you are better soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've explained above, I haven't "presumed to tell [you] what [you] think and want". I based my statements upon my honest interpretation of yours. I apologize if I misunderstood some of them. Likewise, you appear to have misunderstood some of mine, and I also apologize for failing to make myself clearer. Allow me to state, unreservedly, that nothing I've written is intended to belittle or misrepresent your views or anyone else's. —David Levy 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a cold, but I do have a very painful toe which had been crunched by a horse (so I'll have a kind word from Sandy too, please). Howvever, what I think the point that is being missed here is that the very public main page is not the place for a talking turd - no matter how amusing and clever its utterances may be. Perhaps this debatable point could have been discussed earlier elsewhere, but does that really matter? It's being discussed now, and anything is always better late than never. Giano (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The matter was discussed earlier (and I'll repeat the link from above). This, of course, doesn't mean that no further discussion can occur.

On what do you base the statement that "the very public main page is not the place for a talking turd" (or, to be more accurate, an excerpt from a high-quality encyclopedia article about a notable work of fiction depicting a talking turd)? —David Levy 14:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Giano, in the end, this project has articles on talking turds as well as Shakespeare, Jersey Shore as well as Cosmos, Beavis and Butthead as well as Daria, the crass and stupid right alongside the intelligent and thoughtful. Do I personally care to watch the show with the talking turd? No, I really don't, and so I won't. But if our editors have taken the time to write a high-quality article on what is, like it or not, a notable piece of popular culture, an article worthy of calling "featured", they deserve their recognition just as much as someone who writes a featured article on A Midsummer Night's Dream. The main page is not just for subjects we like, it's to feature our best articles, whatever subject they may be on. That's exactly why we have Wikipedia is not censored. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sore toe? As my father said, "Rub some dirt on it and get back on your horse" (is that kind enough?). Yes, Giano, we should be debating more important matters here, but when I tried to point that out early on in the thread (fundraising is the worst argument, strike that so subsequent readers won't see that argument right up top and fail to read the entire discussion), I was misunderstood, misconstrued, and that conversation went downhill quickly-- a distraction from more important matters. I'm still sorry KC isn't feeling well, I'm not sorry for pointing out that we shouldn't be discussing fundraising in this debate, that was not aimed at KC, and I'm sorry that she felt my comments stung or were aimed at her personally, and also that I inadvertently insulted Bish before checking into the author of that essay (that Bish for sure has been on the receiving end of the misuse of the "all due respect" phrase doesn't mean that everyone uses it that way or that I do).

So, toes, tummies and my failure to express myself more clearly in my very first post here aside, would not a reboot of this conversation be helpful? The delegates are tasked with judging consensus at TFAR, we have a community page for scheduling, the community isn't using that page responsibly, the delegates are frequently shot at no matter what action they take (they can't win for losing), and Raul will be shot at regardless what course of action he chooses. That's why he gets the big bucks. But unless he sees compelling reasons for overruling community consensus, what do we expect? The community has a process, and the community wants the article to run. I am sorry for my part in the sidetracking of this debate, but let's get back at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ultimately, its Raul's decision when or if to run the "Poo" article per The buck stops here. When the community requested more input to TFA, Raul appointed a new delegate to take care of the issues the community brought up. The "votes" on the TFA page are only "suggestions". MathewTownsend (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• FYI, a discussion just started at: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Mr._Hankey. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is lengthy, but after several discussions at WP:TFAR (see Bencherlite's summary at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo), there was consensus to run the article TFA. Consensus can change. Who is in favor and not in favor of running the article on December 17 (the anniversary of its first airing)? If you are opposed to Dec 17, would you be in favor of an alternate date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As expressed above, I'm strongly in favor of running the article on December 17 (keeping in mind that I opposed running it on the 25th). Seraphimblade explained the situation well. TFA showcases featured articles — our highest quality articles, as determined by the community. It isn't an endorsement of the subject matter (whether that happens to be a Nobel Prize winner, a religion, a murder, or a cartoon episode). Wikipedia is intended to cover a broad range of topics, including those that some people find objectionable. Our personal opinions of these subjects are immaterial. Regardless of how we feel about "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo", we should take pride (not shame or embarrassment) in our ability to offer a high-quality encyclopedia article about it. —David Levy 17:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I previously opposed it for December 25 (no need to go out of our way to offend, and the original nomination had a feeling of pointy-ness), opposed anything within one week of Christmas Day for the same reason, and I neither Opposed nor Supported for December 17. I do agree with Raul's position on "resource starvation"; User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts#What will and will not go on the main page. If the community prefers not to run it close to Christmas, I'd hope we could find an alternate acceptable date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

well, the newest blurb for "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" by BencherliteTalk (17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)) doesn't even mention (except in the title) or explain poo, so only those already familiar with "poo" will know what the heck the article's about anyway. All objectionable material in the original blurb has been removed. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

ps - see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 17, 2012 - seems like "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" is about a Jewish guy or something. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just after the last night of Hanukkah, so we're going to run with Christmas poo. (Sigh.) Just so we're prepared to duck when it hits the fan. Jonathunder (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the original nomination seemed pointy, and I opposed running the article on December 25 for the same reason. (WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we should purposely offend people.) But it would be silly to run the article during a different time of year, and the anniversary of the episode's television debut is the most relevant date possible. (And while the sentiment is arbitrary, anniversaries divisible by five are regarded as especially significant.) —David Levy 18:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Did Gropecunt Lane even get this much attention when it was featured. Jesus Christ people. (Yes. I use that phrase entirely on purpose.) --Onorem♠Dil 19:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but while consensus can change, there is no process on Wikipedia where trying to restart a new debate immediately after the last closed is considered good faith. Resolute 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the discussions. I think reasonable people can disagree about some things, and this is one of those cases. So just to throw out a few thoughts:

• First, Bishy, welcome back! Ceiling Cat loves you.
• I'm glad the MFD got closed - it was a grossly inappropriate attempt to circumvent the process.
• I think the risk to the donation drive is extremely overstated. I don't see hoards of people refusing to donate because they saw Mr. Hanky talked about on the front page.
• I agree with the above that we shouldn't go out of our way to do things that offend people, and that featuring it on the 25th would certainly fall into that category.
• With the greatest respect for KillerChihuahua, I'm going to disagree with her assertion that this article is 'poop humor' and shouldn't be on the main page for that reason. I think David got it right - without a doubt, this episode's creators intended it to be poop humor, but that shouldn't disqualify an otherwise well written featured article about the episode from appearing on the main page.
• I don't think that exercising editorial judgement about what we want to spotlight on the main page (or not) can be described as censorship. Deleting it would be censorship, choosing not to give it extra attention is not.
• With all that said, I'm OK with letting it run on the main page on December 17.

I think that covers all the main points in the discussion. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Another viewpoint is of course that TFA may be unfairly selecting South Park FAs on the basis of whether they feature toilet humour or not. We had Cartman gets an anal probe in February, and now it's the Christmas poo. What is wrong with the five other South Park FAs that have never been TFA and don't have an anal theme? Why don't they make it onto the front page? Andreas JN466 21:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Lack of date relevance? Resolute 21:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Anal probing procedure celebrate jubilee on February 7? Anyway, feel free consult Bishzilla on all aspects. Seasoned expert in poop humor field.[22] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC).

Having just skimread this conversation after my initial post, I was surprised to see that Google Scholar had more hits for "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" than it did for "Gropecunt Lane". I wonder how many of those articles are cited in our article? J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no intention of getting dragged back into this discussion, but it may help those defending the article as front page material to understand that it isn't that it wasn't discussed, it is that many feel good editorial judgment was not shown; as it was not discussed publicly most editors were unaware the TFAR editors were approving this article. Yes, anyone can watch and contribute at TFAR, but everyone shouldn't have to. The community trusts the editors at TFAR to use editorial judgment, and many Wikipedians feel that judgment was lacking when approving this article. This is not a New Idea. Many, many times since I have been on Wikipedia, there have been extensive discussions which made a decision or change to a policy or template or other file which affects the rest of the community, and it has been relisted or rediscussed elsewhere, often with different results. While I appreciate that a discussion was held at TFAR, that is not the entire community, and it should not be necessary for everyone on Wikipedia to have to constantly check that to ensure that poor editorial judgment is being applied in such choices. I echo the commenter above, who notes that while several SouthPark episodes are FA, only the two with poop and rectal probe as the subjects have been chosen for the Main Page. I share the feelings of many who feel this is poor judgment, and have no confidence in such decisions. You can take "not censored" too far. We're not censored, but we don't have the live action ejaculation image on the front page, either, and that's not being nanny-pants or narrow minded or censoring, that's good judgment. It seems clear to me that this is going to go nowhere, but I suggest the regulars at TFAR pay attention to this; it is valuable community feedback whether you personally agree with it or not. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• well, Jimbo hatted the comments on his page about the Christmas Poo article, saying While I would not have chosen it, life is too short to argue over it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC) I agree. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree that poor judgement was shown at TFAR, but I agree that it's reasonable for persons of that opinion to raise the issue and question decisions made there (and in other fora). I take issue with remarks along the lines of "Perhaps this debatable point could have been discussed earlier elsewhere" (one of Giano's comments). —David Levy 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• KC, I agree with you about opening broader discussions for broader consensus ala Consensus can change (and I disagree with Resolute's post of 19:52, 6 December 2012). But, on the issue of "TFAR regulars", that isn't going to be fixed by suggesting anything here. To "fix" that problem, you gotta get involved there. I'm trying, and mostly ... not making a lot of progress. The folks mostly active there seem to be mostly interested in lodging "Supports", regardless of article quality and other considerations. The bottom line is still that we have a page for scheduling and it's either not being widely used or not being responsibly used, and the way to deal with that is to roll up your sleeves and get in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've raised an example here of the point I mentioned to KC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Following a couple of suggestions, I've started Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Delegates. Bencherlite^Talk 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raul654, I'm appealing your standing 9/11 topic-ban again. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Thomas_Basboll.--Thomas B (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't make anyone feel cozy about allowing him to resume editing on that topic. I'm a quite flabbergasted that he thinks he's been treated badly...he must have filed 10 AN/I complaints against his antagonists and submitted numerous attempts to get sanctions imposed by Arbcom, none of which succeeded. But even after all that, I still asked him to help the pedia out in other topics and so did others. I can AGF in most situations, but not all..he has now reposted his EX WP template on his userpage.MONGO 12:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill ^[talk] 14:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you might recall this thread: it's recently come to my attention that it's happened again, to the same article, on 22 November 2012. What procedures are there for bots to reverse their own work when a TFA is rescheduled? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That question would be better directed at the people who program and operate the bots. Raul654 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A related discussion (about articles that for various reasons should not appear as TFA) was here, I had suggested the article in question for Halloween, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 04:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the mood for some festive season MMA. Show me that cat of yours and let's have it out in a fair fight! He can choose the weapons/rules: sharp little teeth, thrashing tail, claws, and/or professional wrestling. Please note, though, that my Merry Christmas morningstar hat isn't a weapon as such, it's an item of clothing. darwinbish ^WHACK! 01:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC).

Merry Christmas, Bishy!

He's not a fighter - he's more of a cuddler. (Our other two furballs are sleeping on the bed next to me as I write this.)  :)

Happy new year :) Raul654 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Raul, greetings. I know the rule is generally that no featured article should appear on the main page more than once. But it is Witold Lutosławski's centenary on Jan 25: although that article was on the main page on November 6, 2005, that was over seven years ago, the article is still featured, and I, its primary author, am still around to "look after" it. What do you think - is it worth a nomination? Best wishes, and thanks for all the work you (and your assistants) do as FA director. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I'm against re-featuring articles unless there's a compelling case to be made. I understand that it would be his centenary, but over the 2000+ featured articles, there are many such anniversaries. Can you explain what makes this article exceptional? Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raul, FYI I have scheduled something else that isn't date-related for 25th January, rather than let this discussion hold up the scheduling. That choice is of course without prejudice to your final decision here, so if you do decide to re-run Lutoslawski, you can just move Pinguicula moranensis to the next available date. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 15:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who keep it all running!Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below. I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.

1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed [crat sig] Lmk what you think. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I contact you about the footage File:Naval battle.ogg, you uploaded on commons, it's indicated as relative to the first sino japanese war (August 1894- April 1895), but the film industry were in the very fist beginnings - the brothers Lumiere start to work on their camera and projector in 1892, and the premiére of their fist motion picture was in 1895. I tried to follow the source linked on the commons page, but it links directly the footage, and I'm not able to find and associate description on the site (I don speak japanese, I was only able to see that is an educational site of Okinawa). Can you help me ? --Moroboshi (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry to bring this up, I would have fixed it myself only your userpage is protected. Under Handy Links you have a link, the text of which is "Block an user." It's driving me nuts. :( Kierkkadon (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe. I wonder how that typo went unnoticed by me for so long. Raul654 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nataline Sarkisyan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nataline Sarkisyan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pizzamancer (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raul, Bencherlite suggested I should approach you about this one. I'm planning to nominate a triple TFA for March 25 - see User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb. It's the 70th anniversary (to the day) of Hitler giving the order to construct these sites. The articles have been two years in the writing, specifically to meet this anniversary. I gather the rules require me to ask you for special dispensation for such a nomination - what do you reckon? Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I said he should come here because exceptional requests such as triple-headers have to come to you rather than go through the normal TFAR page. For what it's worth, I think that the idea of running these three linked articles together on this appropriate anniversary is an excellent idea. We can kill three birds with one stone, as it were (and it's not as though we're going to run short of warfare TFAs anytime soon), it avoids having to space three similar articles out, it's good to do something different at TFA occasionally, etc etc. We might need to think whether we need the traditional "Full article..." links at the end of the blurb, and if so how to do that, but if you're happy with the principle, details like that can be worked out between now and then. Bencherlite^Talk 22:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I never thought of the "Full article..." links. Not sure how to resolve that. Maybe better just to leave them out? Prioryman (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the "Full article..." link with a separate line of links, directly above those to the "recently featured" articles:

Full articles: Blockhaus d'Éperlecques – La Coupole – Fortress of Mimoyecques

Here's a mockup.

And for the record, I think that the triple TFA idea is excellent. —David Levy 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the mockup. Thanks for doing that, David. Prioryman (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the blurb, I would change "The Blockhaus d'Éperlecques, La Coupole and the Fortress of Mimoyecques were military complexes ..." to "The military complexes Blockhaus d'Éperlecques, La Coupole and the Fortress of Mimoyecques were ...", to avoid three longish names before readers know what they stand for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer my original version. Your alternative looks a bit forced - it doesn't work that well in English, I think, though I can see where you're coming from (starting with "Die militärischen Komplexen" would work in German). Prioryman (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Learning - and teaching: "Die militärischen Einrichtungen" or "Die Bunkeranlagen", not "Komplexe". No secret that I am German, see the cats on my user ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is comparable to running a featured topic, except that (I think) most of the other "heavy" site articles are at a stub or start level. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're thinking of sites like Sottevast and Siracourt, which were V-1 sites. I specifically focused on the V-2 and V-3 sites because they're close together geographically and closely related, both historically and currently - La Coupole was built as a replacement for Eperlecques, and Mimoyecques is now run by the same museum that operates La Coupole. The other "heavy" sites aren't open to the public as far as I know. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this idea ... if Raul is interested, I'll lay out my reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested, particularly as I've spent two years (which has involved physically travelling to the sites in question) trying to set it up. It would be dismaying to say the least if that was for nothing. Prioryman (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think this is a wonderful idea. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that this has been scheduled (despite Raul ignoring the idea and vanishing from the wiki again). —David Levy 01:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• User:Bencherlite/TFA oddities

Have I missed anything? Someone at TFAR has noticed that after pulling Grace Sherwood off the main page, you said that it wasn't the first time you'd had to do this, but it had been quite a while since you'd done it. Can you remember what/when/why? Bencherlite^Talk 10:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, it happened a handful of times back in the early days ('04 - '07 ish). I cannot remember specifically which articles had to be pulled or which ones replaced them. Raul654 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 7, 2004 Gimmetoo (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm looking into listing Magnum XL-200 for FAC, do you think this source would pass? It contains some good information for the article. I'm not sure how reliable you guys regard it as.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raul654, I'm afraid that it's become very obvious that for all practical intents you've effectively abandoned your role as Featured Article Director. I think it's time we found a solution that doesn't depend on one person who, in your case, has been virtually inactive since the New Year. I've kicked off a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Time to replace Raul654. Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm discussing this with the delegates and I'll have a proper response in a few days. Raul654 (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you've sent me an email directly, it hasn't arrived. I've reenabled Wikipedia email after a few days of it being offline, if you want to contact me that way. Cheers, Bencherlite^Talk 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mark: I sincerely hope that you're alive and well, as more than a month has elapsed since you promised "a proper response in a few days" (your most recent edit to the wiki, itself following a ten-day absence). —David Levy 01:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A "few days" has now become about 6 weeks, so where is this "proper response"? You haven't made any edits whatsoever. PumpkinSky talk 16:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

3 1/2 months now, so just how is "FA directing" getting done? Thanks for proving you and your position aren't needed.PumpkinSky talk 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, now, do try and be nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You have no room to talk there Sandy.PumpkinSky talk 10:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious what you think about this exchange. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Phaeton exosquad.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 8, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 8, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes, collectively known as Light Pacifics or informally as "Spam Cans", are classes of air-smoothed 4-6-2 Pacific steam locomotive designed for the Southern Railway by its Chief Mechanical Engineer Oliver Bulleid. A total of 110 locomotives were constructed between 1945 and 1950, named after West Country resorts or Royal Air Force and other subjects associated with the Battle of Britain. Incorporating new developments in British steam locomotive technology, both classes were amongst the first British designs to utilise welding in the construction process, and to use steel fireboxes, which meant that components could be more easily constructed during the wartime austerity and post-war economy. They were designed to be lighter in weight than their sister locomotives, the Merchant Navy class, to permit use on a wider variety of routes. They were a mixed-traffic design, equally adept at hauling passenger and freight trains. The classes operated until July 1967, when the last steam locomotives on the Southern Region were withdrawn from service. Although most were subsequently scrapped, 20 locomotives found new homes on British heritage railways. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This user is requesting unblock. I have placed the request on hold and opened a discussion at WP:AN. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion at AN, and other reasons, I've taken the liberty of unblocking him as you don't seem to be around much these days. Feel free to overturn me if you feel I've acted out of turn. An optimist on the run!   07:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raul654, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

• Please sign up here
• Announcement on Cato's blog
• Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
• Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 14:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Raul!

Isn't File:Festa-ogni belta madonna.ogg in Italian? If so, do you know where an Italian transcript is? I would like to see if anybody is willing to subtitle the file in its original language and make an English subtitle track Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Raul654. This is a courtesy notice to let you know that I mentioned you and an incident you were involved in last year in my Oppose vote at Jasper Deng's RFA. Here's the diff: Diff of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jasper Deng. -- Dianna (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:TFA has been nominated for merging with [[Template:]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  Ryan Vesey 01:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: ? - well played sir, well played. You'll have to work hard to top that for next year. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Raul hasn't edited since 11 February. Whether he intends to return (and if so, to what extent) is unclear. —David Levy 04:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So what's the best way to reach the TFA selection team? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests / Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests —David Levy 13:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Raul654! I was given the suggestion, on basis of the current GA nomination of Impalement that I could post a request for access to JSTOR. As suggested, done. However, I then saw I had to give a confirmed e-mail address, but I am too dumb to find out on my own who I should give that to, and when and how it is regarded as "confirmed. Could you care to direct me to how I should do this?Arildnordby (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to go to WP:JSTOR and join the queue there. See also WP:REX for requesting copies of material on JSTOR. Bencherlite^Talk 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already joined that queue. But it says I should give a confirmed e-mail address. I don't know how to do that??Arildnordby (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about an email address at the moment. The first 100 slots have been assigned and you are at the bottom of a long queue for any future slots. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for JSTOR access#Current status? Bencherlite^Talk 15:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The way those 100 slots were handled was jacked up. Of course I don't expect Raul to read this since he's been inactive and MIA for so long.PumpkinSky talk 11:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raul654! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.

Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic·t 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill ^[talk] 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

nom Jacktraynor98 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I just thought I'd virtually poke my head in an introduce myself and hope that it won't appear to be brown-nosing, as I recently did nominate an article for FA status, but it isn't my article, so... anyhow, I digress. I just thought I'd let you know that I found Raul's Laws quite entertaining and appreciate the job that you do for the community. Believe it or not, even though I've been here since 2006, I had no idea that you existed until today, but it's good to finally see who the man behind all of the featured content is. Cheers, and happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to make a request at TFA/R for Elephant which has not been at TFA yet, but I do not know the exact procedure of how to do it, and don't want to mess things up. So can I make a request for someone to add this article?

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC) [Please leave a talkback for me]

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 5, 2013. Bencherlite^Talk 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear user:Raul654, I am active in an other wikipedia and I wanted to know what is the procedure you use to determine consensus in FA article discussions. The problem I see there, is that these decisions are made by some certain user having written some FA articles there, and is so much prone to personal biases and unfairness. Many people come and express general opinions and say for example: "This article is terrible! It is not neutral at all" without explaining this opinion or mentioning any examples which do not help to improve the article at all, and the users who close the discussions give much weight to such "votes" and also their own opinions. I believe this has caused lots of problems in that project. I wanted to know if there is any scholarly and professional rubric in here to determine consensus in here. Thanks. --sicaspi (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your colleague GrahamColm archived the FAC nomination for Duino Elegies claiming there was no consensus even though of 6 commenters, I had 2 supports, a third support coming, no objections, and 3 other reviewers whose "partial review" comments were fully addressed but who didn't follow through to say "support" (although indicated the issues were resolved). I've asked him for an explanation on his talk page. Could you please weigh in on this?

Because if this is how FACs are processed, then this instruction from the WP:FAC introduction is essentially meaningless: the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

I ask this as a matter of determining consistency, since I see several FACs being subjected to this inconsistency. Even between my two FACs this past month. My previous FAC nomination this past month, Alcohol laws of New Jersey was a similar scenario: 4 supports, no objections, and fully-addressed comments from 4 reviewers who didn't have further comments/complaints but didn't follow through to explicitly say "support" (although some indicated their issues were resolved). Despite the same exact scenario, one article is promoted (Alcohol laws of New Jersey) but the other (Duino Elegies) is archived?

I'm failing to see consistency here and I'm a little taken aback by it. Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 23:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Raul654, you may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs. All views welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 16:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 18:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

	Philadelphia's Great American Wiknic at Penn Park
	You are invited to the Philadelphia edition of the Great American Wiknic taking place in Penn Park, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there!--User:Ocaasi (talk)|}}

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!

Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

	Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 00:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Raul, I've started an RFC on proposed adjustments to the governance of the featured-article forums. Hope you're coming back to Wikipedia! Tony (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

American Art Museum

Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum You're invited to the Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon, part of a series of edit-a-thons organized by the Smithsonian American Art Museum to add and expand articles about American art and artists on Wikipedia. This event will include a catered lunch and special tours of the Luce Foundation Center for American Art and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. 9:15 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 19, 2013 Smithsonian American Art Museum Meet at G Street Lobby (9th St. & G St. NW, Washington, D.C.) Capacity is limited, so please sign up today! If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from our distribution list. Message delivered by Dominic·t 03:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC).

Luce Foundation Center

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Manhattan wiring.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 04:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 11:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 15:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. --EdwardsBot (talk)

The article Unintentional humor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Effectively a definition of the phrase. Practically impossible to list examples as humor is inherently subjective. Beyond the definition, no meaningful content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 06:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raul. You blocked my one and only account 5 years ago. I tried to un-block but at that time I was not able to see who blocked me, maybe wikipedia had different options but I was not able to find it anyhow. My profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Builder_w
I think that I was suspected because of the shared IP address which was common here in Pakistan. Our ISPs used to allocate one IP to thousands of users via NAT. Please unban my account. It was and it is my only account on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.180.80.213 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As the template at the top of the page states Raul654 has not edited Wikipedia for quite a while. You would be better off contacting a willing administrator. See WP:OFFER for details on how to go about it. Good luck, meshach (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Raul654,
I just added your name to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians as it has been more than 3 months since you last edited. Please feel free to remove your name from the list if you return to being active on Wikipedia. Peace! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 02:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians are invited to the GLAM Café at the Chemical Heritage Foundation to meet, talk, and edit. We provide the space, the coffee, and the snacks: you provide ideas and enthusiasm! On the second Tuesday of each month, starting November 12, 2013.

Please join Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. --Pharos (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Super AIDS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super AIDS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Your upload of File:BahaiLotusTemple.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:

• Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
• Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley. --Pharos (talk)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March: Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward) I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

— Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Fulmer Cup has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable gag award created by a non-notable blogger that has serious BLP issues. Fails WP:N.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fulmer Cup is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulmer Cup until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Rendered Mountain picture, I have placed it on my user page if you do not mind. Derpian (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve McIntyre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve McIntyre (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Thought you might be interested in or know somebody who is interested in the following: Wikipedia:Meetup/University of Delaware/April 2014 Colored Conventions

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you were listed on Wikipedia:Meetup/University_of_Delaware, I'd like to invite you to this upcoming Meetup.

AH UDelLib (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tito☸Dutta 18:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested: Cape Cod Wiknic and Photography Blitz on June 14th in Barnstable County, with complete travel reimbursements available for those who participate Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon on June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand 3rd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, which will feature at least one guest speaker, and possibly many more Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August: Wikimania 2014 in London If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested: Cape Cod Wiknic and Photography Blitz on June 14th in Barnstable County, with complete travel reimbursements available for those who participate Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon on June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand 3rd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, which will feature at least one guest speaker, and possibly many more Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August: Wikimania 2014 in London If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme: Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC (RSVP), focusing on LGBT history and culture. 11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library. We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 6 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP). 1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater. Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting. 11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Sunday August 17 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor). Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thanks for the rendered mountain image that I am now using on my user page! Derpian (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Come one and come all. To a presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history.

• Show the Internet who is the better editor.
• Be the creator of culture that you know you are.
• Spread the knowledge of noteworthy people who no one but you cares about.
• Lead the charge to a better Wikipedia --- eventually.

Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

See you at the Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street, Laurel, MD on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM EST. See http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205494212/ for more information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The WikiSalon is a special meetup usually held during the first and third full weeks of every month, from 7 PM to 9 PM. It's an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss Wikimedia wikis and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own.

If you're coming by Metro, the closest station is Dupont Circle (on the Red Line). If you're driving, a lot of parking opens up downtown after 6:30 PM, so finding a parking space (even a free one) should be easy. Once you've found the building, go to Cove on the second floor. We will be in the conference room.

When: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Where: The Cove, Dupont Circle, 1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, 2nd floor, 20009, DC

For more information, see http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205500822/

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups

• Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!”

  A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM.

• Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon

  Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM

• Saturday, September 20: September Meetup

  Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM

• Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon

  Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM

• Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, As per the Talk page, I just nominated this page for deletion. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Lebed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Redsky89 (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonathan Lebed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Lebed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Redsky89 (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. Thursday December 4 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 6:30pm–8pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!). Saturday February 7 Black Life Matters Editathon (RSVP). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Submission to God. Since you had some involvement with the Submission to God redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Speaker dead cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)