User talk:Raul654

Greetings

You have done a good job so far in Wikipedia (a.k.a. 'Pedia or WP). I can see that you're a serious Wikipedian interested in improving our project. If you stay for a while, you'll discovered that collectively, we're a cooperative and friendly community. We are all here to learn, and hopefully can give something back. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Just keep in mind that while relevant discussions and constructive criticisms and are welcome, unproductive and/or destructive insults are not (see Wikiquette).

Who knows? Perhaps you'll soon become a Wikipediholic and make it into the list of Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians! :-) --Lypheklub 20:42, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)
p.s. Simply type four tildes (~~~~), then you can sign you name and date like I just did with mine. And please always do so after your post in Talk/discussion pages and Village Pump.

Pundit

Hello Raul. You edited the page to remove the (pundit) and that will send it to a disambiguation page now (as it did before). If you return the (pundit) to the article, it will link directly to the correct reference for Bill O'Rielly. pk 20:21, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sony V Betamax

Raul, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for adding the link to the Sony (Betamax case) to Fair use; I've gone ahead and placed in it the appropriate section of the fair use factors analysis. Just to let you know you don't have to put underscores inside links. Also when putting cases in articles the convention is to make them italics on the outside of the link. Here is the example: ''[[Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios]]'' . Alex756 07:22, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RYE and Rye

Hi Raul. Welcome to Wikipedia. I deleted RYE as you requested. I moved the content there to Talk:Rye so that is can be merged into the main article at Rye as necessary. Fortunately both articles said much the same thing so there really isn't much to merge. Hope that's all ok with you. Pete 14:17, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Use minor edit less often

Just a kind request...please only use 'minor edit' for changes in spelling and formatting. Adding complete sentences are *not* minor edits :) Kingturtle 08:04, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Redirects

re: Nero emperor. Redirects are the non-sysop's deletion. Cheers, Cyan 05:16, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pics policies

Raul, I've taken the liberty of adding some information on an image description page about the claimed fair use (implied) photo that you recently posted. It is a good idea to add a bit of analysis regarding fair use, thus people know it is fair use and know why you (or someone else like me) consider it fair use. That will help prevent any controversy (hopefully) and will make sure that someone does not inadvertantly think that it might be fair use in a downstream license situation that might not be so. Alex756 05:59, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up

Alan Turing

Hello, I had a question regarding the Alan Turing photo you uploaded. It's at Image_talk:Alan_Turing.jpg. Cheers, AxelBoldt 21:23, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Whoops

In the future please merge. Simply deleting valid info is not an accepted practice around here (the exact day was deleted in the Nixon article). --mav

It's alright. :) I should have paid better attention in the first place. --mav

thanks!

that article is very easy to understand. thanks for putting in the effort. and thanks for letting me know. Kingturtle 11:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Computer science v computer engineering

Regarding CS vs. CE in interrupt -- I'm on a bit of an endeavor to turn some of the less-likely uses of "computer science" into uses of more specific or accurate terms. (For instance, "computer virus" has to do with computing, but isn't a CS term.) Interrupt is an edge case; the page describes interrupts mostly from the standpoint of the processor and hardware rather than the OS. It can go either way, but there aren't enough links to computer engineering anyhow, and too many to computer science, so your field gets one more. :) --FOo 04:57, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

mental connection

well, there is obviously a connection between what i want to know and what you want to express! keep up the good work! Kingturtle 07:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re requested articles - the user is an IP range that is a known vandal - also look at the number of things s/he removes from the listing. -- Pakaran 13:52, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Google Likes (delete)

Raul wrote:

On the Wikipedia:List of articles frequently visited through Google, you deleted Fuzheado's VFD notice saying votes for deletion comment is obviously obsolete. Can you explain this? It is currently listed on the VFD page, making it (IMHO) quite pertinent. --Raul654 07:00, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I looked at the dates on the Google page and saw they went way back, and couldn't fathom that the page would be up for deletion. I assumed wrong. Sorry. Notice should be restored.

Sterlingda 07:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You're an admin

You're now an administrator. -- Tim Starling 08:19, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

It was demanded on Wikipedia talk:Administrators that I wait at least one week before sysopping. Other than that, there is no official policy. -- Tim Starling 08:37, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Admin policies

Please could you read the Deletion policy and Deletion guidelines for administrators before you delete anything else. Pages need to be listed on VfD for at least five days before they are deleted, unless they meet the criteria for speedy deletion. NFL Fantasy Football - Week 17 - Playoffs/Finals Week certainly does not meet these criteria. Thanks. Angela . 06:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, try Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, and in particular the pages I linked above, along with Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Bans and blocks. In summary, don't delete anything other than obvious junk unless it's been on VfD 5 days, don't edit a protected page, don't protect a page you've edited, don't ban without warning and you'll be fine. :) Good luck with the adminship. Angela . 06:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Finally

Thanks for the recent anatomy articles. I am going thru the requested articles page and clearing up the new ones. --Merovingian 07:40, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I woulda gotten around to some of them; I have a nice big health book, LOL! --Merovingian 09:47, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Brilliant Prose

I'd rather have the discussion occur at Talk:Main page (we can always archive) than in your user subpage since it's a general discussion and not user specific (for better record keeping). Let's first figure out where to put it... I say right above the aniversaries to begin with, and we'll move it elsewhere when people complain about scrolling. --Jia ng 21:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Foundation's Friends

Hey, sweet. That book actually sounds interesting, think I might grab a copy. I didn't read any of the unofficial novels as I don't like someone else adding stuff to someone else's world, but short stories just set in it sounds like a very interesting idea. How was it anyway? Worth taking a look?

Rudolf Heß vs. Rudolf Hess

Hi, with regard to the question which of the two pages given above should be a redirect to the other one - it may be true that "Hess" is the traditional english spelling, but the correct spelling of the (german) name is "Heß", so don't you think that Rudolf Hess should redirect to Rudolf Heß instead of vice versa? Just a thought. :) -- Schnee 01:37, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Village Pump

Thanks for your kind words at the Village Pump. Ensiform

Groin

The groin article you requested has now been created --Raul654 06:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, 5 articles pointed to it and even a stub helps bridge the gap. Davodd 11:19, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

User:Mark

Hi :) I was thinking about adminship just last night, would you believe. "What would I do if somebody nominated me?" And I came to the conclusion that I am content editing Wikipedia as I am. Maybe one day I will request adminship, but I would like to spend more time proving myself to my fellow Wikipedians before that occurs - I have only made around 750 edits in the last 2 years. I do not feel that I have gained the full confidence of the other administrators. Maybe one day I'll be comfortable being an administrator, but for the present I am happy as I am. :-) - Mark 01:58, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yep, sure will. By the way, I was planning to message you a few days ago when I saw on your user page that your name is Mark (but for some reason never got around to it). Do you mind me having the user name User:Mark? I can change it back to User:Mark_Ryan if you'd like me to. I didn't realise there were so many Marks on Wikipedia. - Mark 05:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:protected page

I've reverted your last edit to Wikipedia:protected page. You removed text that was added only a few hours ago and items which are obviously still under dispute such as death camp. You also did not even link to an archive of these. There needs to be a record kept of items removed, hence the links to the version prior to the removal at the bottom of the page. Please only remove things which are not likely to need protecting again soon so people can see that the page was recently protected. I can't see any reason you removed the discussion related to the Administrators page you protected. Angela . 11:34, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

The comments Martin and Brion made about protecting the page are still relevant. That's why I put them there as it would appear as I think tthese should have been taken these into consideration when you protected the page. I explained this on the page, so it would look a bit odd to have my explanation of this without the comments themselves actually being there. Angela . 12:34, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I want to apologise if I came across as rather rude earlier today. I didn't mean to sound so accusatory when it was my own fault for not explaining what I meant on Wikipedia:Protected page. I've reworded the comments at Wikipedia:Protected page that I added relating to the previous conversation on Wikipedia talk:Administrators so they now make more sense. Previously I just pasted in comments from the talk page that were about previous times the page had been protected (it was this text I was referring to that I said was only a few hours old). I can see why you thought they were irrelevant now. The reason I thought the Death camp protection shouldn't be removed from the page is because the issue is still very much ongoing on the talk page. The way the page is archived is just by adding a link to the page history before you remove items. You'll find links to these near the bottom of the page. I hope that's clearer. Sorry for just reverting before without making any attempt to explain this properly. Angela . 22:02, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Raul. Thanks for the personal hello. I did have a question, actually --- after votes for deletion, who does the actual tallying of votes and deleting or keeping of articles? Just wondering. LadyPuffball 17:20, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: The requested articles page

Although I appreciate your effort, please do not create any requested article subpages. Those pages never get looked at, and the articles requested on them never get written. As a whole, it's better to have them all on one page, even if that page is very big. I've moved all the request articles back into the requested articles page, except Mathematics, Sports, and music (each of which is gigantic).
- Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when creating the subpages. The reason why I created them is because of the warning message given by the software that the page was too big and needed to be cut off. Anyways, I agree with the revert, thanks for doing it for me, hehe. :) --Maio 21:10, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Main page

Now let's just see what happens. To my eye, it looks like it belongs. Thanks for tidying up. My connection keeps timing out on me because the server is so slow. Bmills 15:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Family Guy

Hello Raul654, In case you missed it I placed a response to your query on the Family Guy Talk Page about Stewie's accent. Misterrick, 17:20, 15 January 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Raul654, Just another response and some factual information that I posted in the Family Guy Talk Page. Misterrick, 04:46, 17 January 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of Wikipedia:Brilliant prose

What do you think of Wikipedia:Editor's choice? Please opine at Wikipedia talk:Brilliant prose#"Brilliant prose" is a very bad name. --mav 04:58, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fair use on Operation Downfall

Raul, please check:

Have you tried sending an e-mail to the publishers? Does the map has a copyright notice? (something like, illustration by...) or did the author expressed in the book who made the maps?

Also, you should add an image reference in the article; check out HALO HAHO for an example.

--Maio 11:27, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say, I guess you are referring to stating the source of the image in the caption? Well, even tho the image may be public domain, I still like to give the proper credit to the person that took the photo. The reason is because if someone goes to check the picture, he immediately knows that it is public domain. For example, most of the pictures that I took for HALO/HAHO and U.S. military operations, I had to ask first if the pictures were public domain because NONE of them had the appropiate caption. The one from Mike Black stated that it was his photograph, but I had to ask if it was a USMC photo or not. Furthermore, right now I'm waiting for a response in regard to some photographs of Operation Just Cause that I'm 110% sure that are public domain, but still I'm waiting for the photographer's answer since no one posted a caption below them stating who is the owner of them.

In regards to the map picture, what I did was to locate the enlarged picture inside the small image's description page. If you clicked the picture, it would take you to the description page with the enlarged picture. Furthermore, the image's alternate text had a notice that said "click for enlarged version". From my POV, writing a caption that says "click for enlarged picture" is like creating a link that says >click here< — that is why I don't use them. I'm not saying you shouldn't not, I'm just saying that I don't like that style.

Switching back to the fair use... you should read Wikipedia:Copyrights again. There is a guideline stating, and I copy/paste:

Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself.

I really don't care if the picture in question is a copyright violation or not, but IMHO you shouldn't use it until you get a response from the publisher — that is *my opinion*, an advice, I'm not telling you what to do.

Peace out,
--Maio 17:09, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

IF you are interested, Cornell law library has the definition of fair use. In this case, subsection 3 is the most relavant part - "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". In this case, the "the copyrighted work as a whole" is the book, not the picture. I am using 1 image out of 600+ in the book, which isn't terrible substant.

Yup, I read U.S. Code Collection "Fair Use" section, and that's my concern in regards to the map picture. I understand that subsection 3 is the most relevant part of the code to claim fair use, but you can't ignore the other points, such as sub-section 1 which states:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

That is my main concern. I wish it could be as easy as we all want to claim fair use on content, but the problem is Wikipedia's GFDL which states that all the content presented in Wikipedia can be used for either commercially or noncommercially purposes. There's the problem: the image in question is copyrighted and adding it to Wikipedia creates the chance to use it in a commercial work. I pretty much agree with Andrewa's comment on Village pump: copying 1 of the 600 maps doesn't necessarily means that it can be used under fair use; but that's just my opinion.

Raul, I have the same goals that you and other Wikipedians have, that is, making the project much more better; but if I can point out some concerns about the content presented on the project I will. After all, they are concerns, I just want you to listen to them to help you validate your reasoning behind the fair use claim.

I'm sorry for being such a PITA, but I'm just expressing my POVs. Peace out,
--Maio 02:30, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

BP nomination

Sorry, I nominted it on the other page. Hopefully I did it right this time. BL 13:34, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Main Page (2)

Hey - if you want something listed on the Main Page, then please make sure you follow the guidelines for that at Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page. The most important guidelines are to make sure the article you are listing has been updated to reflect why it is being listed, and for that item to be linked from its category. Otherwise readers will very often not have a clue as to why it is being listed. Thanks! :) --mav 19:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy, Res Judicata, & Collateral Estoppel

Re: your comments on my talk page about changing the double jeopardy article:

The three concepts have nothing to do with whether a judge or a jury made the decision--the effect is binding regardless as long as the judgment is final (the different degree of deference a judge or jury decision may receive under appeal is not relevant here). True, juries are typically the factfinders, but not always. Civil trials can be had under judge or jury (not all states guarantee the right, and the right in federal court only applies to cases at law, not in equity), and in the US, even a criminal defendant can always waive his right to a jury trial and be tried by a judge instead, and double jeopardy will apply the same.

Res judicata (L. "a thing adjudicated") includes both claim preclusion and collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion. Issue preclusion applies to whatever factual issues were necessarily resolved with the final judgment of a claim. You can have res judicata without collateral estoppel--when a judgment for the defendant could have been based on the failure to prove any or all of multiple elements, so that it is uncertain what issues were actually decided--but not the reverse. --Postdlf 30 Jan 2004, 3:22 am (EST)

Nice work on Ernest King. A fair and balanced take on a very controversial man. Tannin

Raul, did Jimbo send out the press release about the 200,000th article? If not, I think you should remove the link you added to the main page. If memory serves (can't find the article right now) Jimbo asked folks not to publicise the 200,000th article (esp slashdot etc.) until his release went out (so that there would be someone "in" to answer press queries, and so the foreign wikipedias would have set up someone to field non english questions that Jimbo couldn't). If Jimbo _has_ sent out his release (it's not like I'm in the loop on that) then please ignore this message with my apologies. Thanks. (oh, and I'll go look on meta right now) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I may be mistaken. There is a pending release for all the wikipedias reaching 500,000 meta:Wikimedia's first press release, so maybe I'm just crying wolf ;( -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:28, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are correct - he was waiting for the half-millionth article. About the slashdotting, there was some debate. I was asked not to until the server problems were resolved, which now appears to be true. But the point is moot, the submission was rejected in 3 minutes flat. My guess is that there is already a story on the way. →Raul654 02:33, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. I wouldn't worry about slashdotting of the wikipedia, but if the press get hold of it Jimbo may personally get slashdotted (by dumb journos asking the same question over and over). I wouldn't wish that on anyone :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:40, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Sarcasm) I'm in favor of anything that gives wiki more contributors for me to lord over with my godly admin powers.(/Sarcasm) Seriously though, milestones like this not only help build the userbase, but they give a tangible sense of accomplishment. →Raul654 02:43, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

/.

Hi Raul. I'm just wondering whether you submitted the Wikipedia:Celebrating 200,000 URL in your slashdot story submission. Because it could use some work (before the story gets posted) if that is the case. - snoyes 02:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh well, maybe for the 500k total mark. - snoyes 02:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Elf re: my comments on his talk page

Thanks for your nice comments about my Foundation edits. It's always nice to be appreciated. I appreciate the fact that I didn't have to try to research and write that article! :-) Elf 23:17, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the Requested Articles; I was just trying to remove some articles I had written, and have no idea what happened. No malice intended! Warofdreams 13:57, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RfC/mav

Thank you for protecting that page. But be warned; if you cross paths with 168... you may get a RfC page too. --mav

Dirty?

Out of interest, you've noted a couple of times that supporting things you think are right leaves you feeling dirty. No need. You have a clean conscience. The Fellowship of the Troll 04:27, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

McFly Network

Why did you list McFly Network as only partly compliant with the GFDL? Which part of the GFDL is not being complied with? Anthony DiPierro 01:28, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find anywhere in the GFDL that it requires you to link back to the original. In any case, I do link to Wikipedia in the History section. Anthony DiPierro 01:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A tip

[http://download.wikimedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#Wikipedians http://download.wikimedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#Wikipedians] is just the same as simply http://download.wikimedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#Wikipedians . But in article-pages, you should use the former, can give it a descriptive title anyway. --Menchi 09:27, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

barnstar

Well, thankyou! I don't know what I did to deserve it (other than the brilliant but evil robot story). I've put it on my talk page (on an attractive little plaque). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

book covers

Hi Raul, I like the idea you've had of scanning in book covers. You might want to be more specific in the captions you choose though, many of these books have been published again and again. For example Harry Potter, here are the covers of the two main editions of the first book available in the UK (which might take precedent on the article if you think about it, JK being British): children's adults'. Cheers, fabiform | talk 07:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, how about publisher, date. That wouldn't take up too much room in the caption, and wouldn't be hard for you to discover (I mean the date of the edition, not of copyright). Other people might have better suggestions though. :) fabiform | talk 07:50, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If I were you I'd move the request to the bottom of the page. More people will see it. I'm not convinced mine's the best idea unless you add something like "cover of _________, Publisher, yyyy edition" because otherwise it might sound like that was when it was first published. Not sure really! fabiform | talk 10:44, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could you please delete San Antonio class amphibious assault ship? It was a test by a new anonymous user. Sennheiser! 13:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi there

You said that Wikipedia is 3 GB, but how big is just plain text in it? Maybe when compressed with rar or zip it would make some sense to distribute it as Wikipedia Light Standalone Offline EXE? I once compressed whole terst from 2 CD encyklopaedia and I got 5 MB or so... User:Talthen

Image captions with links?

Hi,

is there a way to restore the link to Hieronymus Bosch in the image caption of shell game? Thanks, AxelBoldt 18:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Operation Downfall

Oh my, Operation Downfall is a great article. It is detailed, and I love you are sensitive about the effect of the use of atomic bomb. I usually have to reword to eliminate American-centric view but this time wording is completely NPOV. Oh, also the map you posted is really nice. Can't believe this is on the Internete and for free. Great work. -- Taku 19:23, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Where did you find Image:Cat in pint.jpg? It is so weird. It reminds me of CopyCat sitting in a beaker. So cute... --Menchi 02:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(sorry to butt into a private conversation, but...) Hmm, reminds me rather more of Bonsai Kitty -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:31, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No objections here to other people adding to the convo, but I really, really hope that site you posted is a joke. →Raul654 02:34, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

LOL! Anyway, I wonder how exactly did you rationalize the copyrightness of this photo? I assume that is partly why it was under votes for deletion. --Menchi

Honestly, I didn't. First, it's not in Wikipedia itself, it's in the user pages. But even beside that, the picture is now floating around the internet. I've seen it several times. So I'm not worried about it. →Raul654 03:00, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Kitties & Adminship

Yeah! Kitty in a glass! And the comment after it on Village Pump is priceless. As for adminship, I presume it leads to, you know, responsibility? Is there a page where I can read what it entails? I don't want to be drunk with power without knowing what power I have. I'm not sure either way, but thanks for making the suggestion. All the better for me to bop Jiang over the head. ;) jengod 04:33, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

"This should be no big deal," as Jimbo has said. What the heck--if you think it's a good idea, I'm up for it. jengod 05:18, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Messed up characters

(from the pump, fabiform | talk 08:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC))

As someone can see by checking out my user page (or my sig at the end of this post), a lot of Wiki characters are not working. What is going on? →Raul654 01:24, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

They all look fine to me. Are you on a different machine than usual? -- Jmabel 02:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No different than I've used for the last 2 months. It just started about 2-3 days ago, give or take. →Raul654 02:20, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

It must be a font issue, for whatever reason your browser is now using a different font to display the page, one which does not contain these characters. They work fine for me here as well, so it is not a problem on the wikipedia side. andy 09:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, I took a screenshot of the relavant portion of my user page. It is here.

Just to reiterate what has already been said, this is not a Wikipedia issue - here's an unrelated HTML page to prove it [1]. As andy says, for whatever reason, your web-browser is now using a font which doesn't contain those symbols - you'll have to work out what's changed and do something about it (either you've hit a setting that's made it do the wrong thing, or you need to install a whole new font). - IMSoP 13:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The characters are fine here (Linux, Firefox 0.8, Bitstream Vera Sans font). -- Gabriel Wicke 14:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, the error seems to have fixed itself about 2 hours ago. (The only "special" thing I did was reboot) →Raul654 21:18, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Your font-rendering sub-system probably burped—maybe you hit something with a whole load of different fonts—and it didn't realise it had cached bogus versions of those characters. I hesitate to ask whether you use Windows because it's not necessarily confined to that particular OS :-) HTH HAND --Phil 12:22, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Captions for fair use book covers?

(in case you didn't see the reply on the pump, fabiform | talk, archiving)

As a side note to the earlier discussion of book covers and fair use (see Talk:Fair use): I'd like some input on how to caption the covers. Just for expediency's sake, I would caption them with the title of the book. (See Lord of the Flies or Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone or examples). Fabiform suggested publisher, date. I'd like to know if anyone else has suggestions. →Raul654 08:06, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Adding publisher & date would be nice, at least on the image page if not in the article. -- Jmabel 18:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it. I won't have access to the books again for a few weeks (I moved back to my dorm room last week), but I'll post them next time I can. →Raul654 07:30, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Self picture

Are you sure that's a picture of you. Everyone had been telling me that you have horns and three heads. :)

mydogategodshat

I won't deny it - you heard correctly. That's just my most photogenic one :) →Raul654 02:54, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Good call. mydogategodshat

sorry

Thank you for your support. I have apolgoized to angela on her talk page. I am extremely sorry for all the trouble I have caused you. Once again, thank you for supporting me. Alexandros 04:35, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. When I requested adminship, you were the first person to support me, and I haven't forgotten. Anyway, just piece of friendly advice - do what Eloquence says. If you make good contriutions, stay out of edit wars, and (in general) keep yourself above suspicion, you'll become an admin yet. →Raul654 04:42, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

:D-戴&#30505sv 07:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

Plautus

Raul, just wanted to congratulate you on the difficult work of talking to Plautus satire. Why he is still around, I cannot fathom. Your restraint and care were excellent. I would have let loose a few Kentucky cuss-words, I think. :) Anyhow, I wanted to let you know that your fine work in trying to reason with someone eminently unreasonable is noticed and appreciated. Keep it up. And thanks for being one of the few who maintain the Reference Desk -- it's a lonely thankless job sending messages to AOLers who block our attempts to help them, but heck, someone has to do it. I hope foxyroxy doesn't curse our name for never emailing her. ;-) Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 17:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in stirring up shit but I figured you'd be interesting in knowing that Plautus has decided to remove your comments from here and here and again here. He's already been blocked twice in the past few days, in addition to his revert wars causing four pages to be locked, I fear it will get worse until he either drives people away due to his rude comments or someone just bans him. -SheikYerBooty 18:56, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I dropped Plautus a message on his talk page. I told him that if he agrees to stop his bad behavior, I'm willing to wipe the slate clean. If he continues to disrupt life here, I'll ban him myself. →Raul654 19:42, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, well.... I don't think he got the message. -SheikYerBooty 20:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Applause*. Evercat 22:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. He was really starting to get under my skin. →Raul654 22:20, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto. Consider this concensus. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Check my fanmail for a taste of what you can expect. silsor 22:23, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Holy moses! →Raul654 22:27, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Addendum - I'm really impressed that after all that verbal abuse, you unblocked him. There's no way I would have. →Raul654 22:38, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately I told him originally that I would unblock him after 24h, so I had to keep my word. If you get bored of being responsible for this one I'll gladly take over the block. silsor 23:09, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

What's there to take over? I'll gladly field all his harrasment emails and send them to the circular file where they belong. Other than that, I don't intend to response unless I get a MAJOR mea culpa from him. →Raul654 23:25, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

That's fine then. Some people may not have the stomach for it, or not wish to deal with consequences on the Wikipedia side. Thanks for the block. silsor 23:28, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wow. That's.... wow. -SheikYerBooty 22:41, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know if you're aware, but the entirely justified ban of Plautus is being discussed (nay, slandered) over on the wikiEN mailing list - apparently by those who take pride in their not having actually read Plautus' contributions and little emails. I really don't know what degree of abuse we're expected to tolerate, but plainly that decision isn't for us mortals. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the process with PS, it's very appreciated. -SheikYerBooty 05:28, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I swear if it's he last thing I do in my life, I will get that troll banned from Wikipedia. →Raul654 05:30, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to take one of the talk pages and start documenting the damage that was done, ditto for an article page. -SheikYerBooty 05:45, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Please do. I want the case airtight when it comes up before the arbitration committee. →Raul654 05:46, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'll take the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster pages and start there. -SheikYerBooty 06:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Blame Canada

Raul, have you gone nuts??? Why on earth would you redirect 51st state to Canada??? Jwrosenzweig 18:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Same goes for Not a real country -- tell me this was a colossally bad day and you know this was a really bad judgment call. Jwrosenzweig 18:07, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It was joke. I was just seeing if anyone was watching. I was going to revert in a couple hours. →Raul654 18:14, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

PS: I've now reverted them.

In that case I am marking them as msg:dtest for fast deletion since it was a test on your part. - Texture 18:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please do - I never meant for anyone to take it as serious vandalism, just me being playful. →Raul654 18:20, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just a suggestion--next time find a joke that won't potentially offend a nation. Sounds like you need some time away from the computer, Raul. :) Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Haha! Actually, I was listening to Blame Canada from the South park movie when I got the idea. Wonder if the two are related? But you're right - I have EM homework due tomorrow I should be doing. →Raul654 18:35, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

This might be a premature move... there's actually several quite valid things that you could list under this article. There's a recent but not-very-good British action movie of that name, and you could write a discussion of proposals for a real 51st state (e.g. "Jefferson state" in northern California), or even of suggestions that other countries should become a 51st state (Britain and Canada are two obvious examples). -- ChrisO 21:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More likely Puetro Rico or Guam. - Texture 21:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stub article created. →Raul654 21:36, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)~

Duly de-stubbed (stubbed out?). Lots more info there about the semi-serious aspects of this question. -- ChrisO 22:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it's worthy of the main page :) →Raul654 22:15, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)~

Raul, come on, you know I don't think you a vandal! :) Honestly, when I saw what was going on, it clashed so much with my image of you, I thought someone had hacked onto your account to make bad edits and discredit you. I wanted to leave a note on your talk page so you'd see it when you next logged on. Though I admit actually making the article was a good idea! I've contributed in a small way. Keep up the good work around here. :) Jwrosenzweig 17:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Raul654's Personal Vendetta

Raul654, I have withdrawn my request for changes to the black hole page and deleted a now-defunct thread in the black hole talk page as per the wikiquette guidelines. I will ask you one time not to reversion any of my subsequent deletions of defunct threads that I started in talk pages. If you perform even a single reversion as I just described I will have no choice but to consider you hostile and I will take measures to ensure you are no longer able to vandalize my edits. I assume you have nothing but good intentions by reversioning the now-defunct threads I initiated and have now deleted, but you are clearly misguided. I am giving you this opportunity to set the record straight and allow wikipedia maintenance to take place as it should. The black hole talk page was huge and bloated and I was being blamed and banned for it. Now that I have attempted to clean up the mess there I am again attacked by you. Please stop this, Raul654. This is the last attempt I will make to be reasonable with you. If you insist on pursuing this personal vendetta, I will seek to have your sysop status removed from you so that you will no longer be able to capriciously abuse your authority. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. - Plautus satire 05:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Don't delete them - archive them to a subpage. And if you do archive them, I expect you do abide by what you have said, and not go back to editing the black hole page. →Raul654 05:51, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I take it back. Do not archive it. There is active conversation on there. Just post saying you do not intend to change the artice, and stop editing it. →Raul654 05:53, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've said all I have to say on the issue, Raul654. I started threads (sections) on the black hole talk page and I have now summarized two of the now-defunct threads (sections) and have not objected (much) to the renaming of threads (sections) I created. And I have formally withdrawn two other requests to edit the black hole entry. Why won't you drop this issue? I am willing to drop it, and to clean up the mess as per wikipedia guidelines. Let it be. Whisper those words of wisdom...let it be. - Plautus satire 06:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion concerning Plautus

You asked for my comment... instead I think I should offer a suggestion.

I actually agree with Plautus' comment above. Let it be. Just ignore him for a while. Go somewhere else on Wikipedia and do something else. At this point, you've decided he's incorrigible, and he's decided you're out to get him.

I'm not sure drumming up support for a ban is the right course of action quite yet. He's been very rude at times, but a lot of it was after the bans. If we assume good faith, then he started out as just a user with very unfortunate newbie habits (refactoring talk pages) and some unusual and controversial beliefs. Under that assumption, he only became mad when he felt persecuted, and his behavior at that point is explained by his being one of those people who are stupid and obnoxious when angry.

Anyway, regardless of all this, there's no reason that you have to be the one to deal with him. If he causes more problems, he will most certainly run foul of other admins, and they can take care of it. At that point, the case for banning would be quite solid. If he improves instead, well, that's great. Either way, if you're ignoring him, he can't claim that you're on a vendetta. Isomorphic 06:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very, very sage advice. Ok - I will. I am removing the pages in question from my watchlist, and I intend to ignore him from now on. I think I have suffeciently alerted others to his presence. Others can take over where I have been involved in this case. →Raul654 06:31, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Isomorphic, as much as it shames me, I feel I must admit at this point that you are 100% right. I did act very stupidly, obnoxiously and not to mention childishly in the face of what I perceived as unfair banning. I can only at this point offer my apologies, because as much as those emails shame me, I did author them. At that point they were my only outlet and recourse I was aware of. Now that I am more familiar with wikipedia (having avoided being banned for more than a single day) I can see the serious mistakes I made, and can assure you that only derision and insults of individuals (carried out off wikipedia) were intended with malice, and it was a transient, hot malice that is now entirely gone. I mean no harm to wikipedia or any of its users or contributors and I am confident I can demonstrate that if I am allowed to. - Plautus satire 06:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy to join the list of people included in the mediation request regarding Plautus. I put my name in the hat on the mediation page but didn't want to clutter it up more with "me too" messages. --SheikYerBooty 16:23, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

You mean the mediation I requested to deal with the harassment from Curps et al. - Plautus satire 17:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm a wee bit confused at the latest Plautus shenanigans regarding mediation. I mean, he did 'demand' mediation and agree to a mediator, are we still going forward as a group? I could give a flying fig if four-on-one isn't fair, he asked for all of us. so it's fitting that he gets exactly what he wanted. I read the Wikipedia:Mediation page and understand that our group is represented by a single rep, you, I assume. Are we allowed to plot and conspire in secret or is there a playground we should use here on Wiki? --SheikYerBooty 03:10, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine going ahead in a 1v1, or representing the group. →Raul654 05:25, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

It looks like you'll have your chance, he's back. And in a fine mood, too. --SheikYerBooty 18:01, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. As I see it, either (a) he agrees to leave Wikipedia all-together and we drop the mediation (in which case, his account should be banned just to make sure he doesn't come back later), or (b) this goes through mediation and he agrees to follow the rules just like everyone else. I don't care if he is going to confine himself to the talk pages - a troll is a troll, no matter where he hides. →Raul654 18:08, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think he finally understands the machinery that is gearing up to have him removed. He's sticking to talk pages for now, but I agree with you, even that isn't good enough. I noticed that his comments regarding silsor's romantic inclinations towards a certain parental unit and your facial hair have remained in place. Is that a case of providing him with even more rope? How much DOES he need? What's left, burn down the NOC and piss on the ashes? --SheikYerBooty 07:36, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

He definetely does, but he's not going to go quietly. I'm just glad he was so petulant about going into mediation. He made it so difficult to set up that I/we didn't even have to go through with it (all the less stres for myself). My real fear now is that Jimbo declines to send it to the arbitration committee. I don't think it's going to happen though- he'd have to be insane not to. And as for the comments on my facial hair - I really couldn't care less. I've gotten *way* worse from my cousins :) →Raul654 07:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I have a few things I'd like to add to the Plautus timeline, but the page is locked. --SheikYerBooty 03:46, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, hehe. Unprotected now. →Raul654 03:50, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Iridology

Hopefully we can deal with things on the talk page. Have a good one, Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. →Raul654 20:49, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can I ask you two how often you engage in this page protection endeavor together? Just an estimate of the frequency would be fine. Thanks in advance. - Plautus satire 20:58, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully we can deal with things on the talk page
Obviously, this is wishful thinking. The issues are not solved there, not in the archived page thereof, not on high-granularity-low-acidity specific answers to unsubstantiated allegations here, not in the Village Pump, not with ongoing smearing campaign against me, not with letters to our benevolent dictator and NEVER without good will. Whether or not the page is protected without edit wars is not IMNSHO opinion an issue - but your prerogative, my concern and none of anyone else's business. Addressing the real ISSUES is :-)
And just for curiosity, →Raul654 how long did that little cat stay in the nest ? Sincerely, irismeister 23:41, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

Raul654, just a small note to thank you for your kind explanations on my talk pate. Knowing the wikiholic you are, I really appreciate your time and good will. For the iridology page I'll wait for the next cycle - it bursts in flames with a mean period of 4.24 weeks over the last five months :-) For the cat - the bloody Wikipedian who did that outta have whiskers in cat food for dinner and milk from THAT glass. Brings me memories of how hard I tried, with my cousin, to ram our own tomcat down the sink, some 40 years ago. For yourself - you are a reliable, nice, good wikiholic and you deserve a free iris image analysis once the page is unlocked. Thank you dearly again :-) Sincerely yours - irismeister 13:45, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

Why, yes, I am that masked man

Yup, I'm on the Maryland QB team. I've been playing off-and-on since '99. We've almost certainly played each other at some point - I think I played Baby Hen in the '00-'01 school year, and SNEWT that same year. That would've been your freshman year I think. Plus I've been to at least a couple tournaments each year since then. In fact I'm pretty sure I played against Roger and the Delaware team at NAQT regionals (on the MD B team) but I'm not sure if you were there.

I'll probably be at ACF nationals, and maybe at QOTC.

Incidentally, we aren't the only quiz bowlers on here. There's also Adam Bishop, who played up in Canada, and probably others. Isomorphic 05:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've been watching developments and thought before you mentioned it that I should change my view on the matter. Now done. Jamesday 03:58, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, Raul, I've posted at RfC...I haven't seen much of PS today, so I didn't feel I should comment, but your repeated request made me think, hey, maybe I do have a perspective to share. I'm sure you won't particularly like what I have to say as I'm more pro-PS than you right now, but I did express serious concern that I think was a fair representation of my thoughts. Good luck in mediation, and may the whole thing end soon! :-) Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 04:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution

OK, I finished reading what you pointed to me. Steps one through four are made impossible by Jwrosenzweig's weird censorship of his own talk page. As I see now, not only the iridology page was protected without edit wars, but the steps of giving the benefit of the doubt, etc, were bypassed one after the other in a split second. I really can't understand why the page was blocked. My question is again where could I redirect what I just cut as per your request. In desperation I will not attempt to put my orphan 2 cents here :-)
Any word about that pint ? :-) Happy editing - irismeister 17:09, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Irismeister, so glad that you have not yet had your wikipedia experience turn sour. Keep up the good work, but I do have one comment. I think the link you have been trying to insert into the iridology entry belongs in the "pro" section of the links, unless that site presents the case against iridology as a valid science. I see no reason not to include the link, and while I do not feel the site in question is "unbalanced," I do not think a "balanced" section title is appropriate in the context of the "pro" and "con" sections. Perhaps another thing you might consider is citing precedent for eliminating confrontational "pro" or "con" section and replace them with merely a "related" section for all the different sources. - Plautus satire 17:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I might decide to drop that reference altogether (in an attempt to reach consensus, given the last THIRTY-SEVEN times it was cut :-) If I won't, you are right, I'll put it under pro and let everybody judge. Thank you - it's refreshing to have positive contributions, and yes, Raul, I will move this buddy talk wherever you point me to :-) Happy editing - irismeister 17:47, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on Jwrosenzweig's actions. However, I would suggest that you do not jump directly over steps 0-4 quite yet. In particular, you have not yet solicited community opinions (as per step 2), nor has a poll been taken (step 3). Such things do not (should not) take place on his talk page, but rather a community page. →Raul654 17:18, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

suggest that you do not jump directly over steps - physical impossiblity - not only he removed my contributions to his talk page in their entirety, he inserted into my page a warning not to talk to him again, or else... (please read my talk page again :-)
you have not yet solicited community opinions He didn't. As he was the one who asked you to lock the iridology page after saying some very weird and off-topic things there, perhaps the burden of proof remains for him to bring in front of the community...
but rather a community page Understood !
I am not going to comment on Jwrosenzweig's actions. Good. Should I follow your example ? :-) Happy editing - irismeister 17:47, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Raul654, Irismeister said steps were skipped already, not that he intends to skip steps. Hope this clears up your confusion. One bit of advice, perhaps slow down when you are reading, your comprehension may improve. Hope this advice helps you as much as it's helped me and I hope you can relax soon. - Plautus satire 17:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, he actually said Steps one through four are made impossible... (Notice, nothing about them *already* being skipped, which is why he used the *imperfect* tense). That is why I made a point of saying that, because they have not yet been tried, Irismeiester want want to try them before writing them off. And as I said a while ago on your talk page Plautus, before you seek to give advice to others, please put your own house in order first. →Raul654 20:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, made impossible because they were skipped. Then you admonished him to not skip steps when the skipping of steps by others was his precise complaint. Raul654, I suggest you think twice and edit once in the future. As it stands you seem to be thinking not at all and editing like there is no tomorrow. - Plautus satire 21:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's see. SKIP: [v] bypass;. In this case, the only way to bypass steps 0 through 4 would be to move onto step 5. But in this case, step 5 (mediation) has not happened. Therefore, it stands to logic that they were not "skipped". In fact, when he said "made impossible", he meant "not capable of happening." When I said that this might not necessarily be true and that he should try it, he "strongly agreed" with my comment. So rather than putting words in his mouth (as you just did), why don't you just do what you normally do when people prove you wrong - move onto another topic and make inflammatory comments there. Don't hold your breathe though - the poll on your RFC page shows that everyone (except Irismeister) who has dealt with you wants you banned. Gee, maybe everyone's wrong and you're right again, huh? Just keep telling yourself that. →Raul654 21:29, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Though Irismeister is self-admittedly English-challenged, he did state his case quite clearly to you: " I see now, not only the iridology page was protected without edit wars, but the steps of giving the benefit of the doubt, etc, were bypassed one after the other in a split second. " Do you deny that the iridology page was protected by you before other attempts were made to settle disputes? I've examined the history of that page and I find your position untenable. I feel you have in this case again made a hasty error in judgement. For that reason and many others I am considering a petition to have your sysop status removed, though I hope you will voluntarily step down temporarily until you can learn to behave properly. - Plautus satire 21:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As I said, below - since this pagesetting might be conducive to misunderstanding:

I strongly agree with Raul's contention. Also I redirected stuff cut to conflicts as per your request, and will redirect this conversation too. I apologize for this intrusion as well. Happy editing - irismeister 20:17, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
I maintain that Plautus did excellent jobs in Iridology and Iridology talk page.
Although I disagree with locking pages for unclear reasons, I will not support such petition against Raul. Sincerely, happy editing and Wikilove - irismeister 21:53, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

I certainly don't want Raul654's sysop authority removed, but if he persists in unreasonable use of his authority, he calls his right to wield it into question. I am only considering a petition at this point, if he starts comporting himself more maturely I will not have to take such proactive measures against him. - Plautus satire 22:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If anything I am always too MUCH relaxed to the point of overstretching my old bones ;-) Happy editing - irismeister 17:47, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make it obvious enough, but my advice about slowing down and relaxing was for Raul654, not you Irismeister. Although you should relax too, it's impossible to be too relaxed! But the reason I told him to slow down is because I think he misunderstood what you said. I feel he misunderstood because he was trying to read faster than his reading skills allow for accurate comprehension. You said steps had been skipped and that prompted him to warn you not to skip steps. That's closing the barn door after the horse is out! :D - Plautus satire 18:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: I understand English is not your native language, Irismeister, if you wish personal correspondence I will always be more than happy to give more lengthy responses where we are not bothering poor Raul654's already-huge talk page. I'd hate for him to get even more testy than he already is. You may email me if you ever feel the need -> plautus at shaw dot ca - Plautus satire

Thank you for understanding. Sadly, not only I use English only as a professional language (not maternal), but my professional email address is blocked now by some recent worm as they say. I will soon open another account though. Happy editing - irismeister 18:51, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC).

168

Hi, you voted on the issue of whether 168... should be desysoped. Following this, he was temporarily desysopped. Please participate in the new vote as to whether that temporary desysopping should now be reversed until the committees can deal with it properly. Thank you. Angela . 00:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Raul, i removed this ***I didn't know Helen Lovejoy read Wikipedia! Glad to meet you. Anyway, you can consider it all part of their "liberal" arts education. →Raul654 16:57, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC) from featured articles candidates. I like both the Simpsons and your sense of humour, but you either make an opinion, or leave it. I think you shouldnt make fun at other peoples comments. Anyway thinking about children here is important, otherwise we'll have the Main Page of Wikipedia blocked by the parental guidance blocks some people use and we dont want that, or do we? Cheers, Muriel 15:02, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Meet the Feebles

Is it Madame Bovile or Madame Bovine in Meet the Feebles? I think I can guess but I haven't seen the video (looks hilarious) and I don't want to put guesses into the article. Or is it even correct as stands? Looks like a typo to me. Andrewa 16:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. I just went over there and fixed it, as well as a few other typos. →Raul654 17:46, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Glen Quagmire - fair use

Re: Image:Glen quagmire.jpg Please note that in on the image page (I think there's a {{msg:fairuse}}) and it'll all be solved. --zandperl 19:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. →Raul654 19:52, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, I just found it on the web somewhere. It's a pretty uninformative photo anyway. Adam 03:12, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What are you doing?

What are you doing? silsor 03:46, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you are talking about reverting Plautus on the RFC, it's because he is (yet again) try to move others' comments around. He's been warned about this, and I'm making sure it stops. →Raul654 03:47, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, couldn't tell what was going on. silsor 03:48, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

I am entirely aware of these developments... indeed, see Wikipedia:Block log... :-) Evercat 01:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Blushes

Wow, there Mark. Thanks, but I guess I was just kidding on The Anome’s talk page, really. I meant that I am 15 (the youngest possible WP sysop ever??) and have only been here <4 months. Thanks again, Ryan and/or Mero 04:07, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)