User talk:Raul654

For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping MediaWiki:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

File:PurpleHeart.gif

For wounds suffered in the battles of Wikipedia, I hereby award you this Purple Heart. May you continue to be a valued contributor to Wikipedia for many years to come. Neutrality 05:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Talk-page archive

Have Star Trek be the Featured topic for October 8th

October 8th is when the new season of Star Trek begins, so make Star Trek be the featured topic that day. Gamingboy

It was already featured on May 22 of this year. We don't repeat articles. →Raul654 17:49, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Tank man

There is little point in insisting on a link to Wang Weilin, as nobody knows who he is, and no other pages but Tank man link to him. We can't have a bio on him because nobody knows who he is. :) Should the page be created, it would be nothing but a permanent substub with only one useful outgoing link – to Tank man. Surely you don't want to encourage the existence of such a page? — Smyth 20:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to prove everyone wrong, I've gone and written it. It contains 7 internal links, 2 external links, and 3 sentences - quite a bit more than a substub. And there's more room to grow. →Raul654 20:20, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Right, so we now have two articles under two pseudonyms of the same person. The new article contains one new piece of information, which should be incorporated back into the original article. The rest is straight duplication.

This is what redirects are for. – Smyth 20:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tank man should contain information about the suspects (who Tank man could be), and the impact (being on Time Magazine's top 100 most influental people). The Wang Weilin article should be a striaght biography - it could talk about what university he went to, the fact that he was the son of two factory workers, etc - none of which belongs at tank man. →Raul654 21:01, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

If any actual, real, substantiated information was known about Wang Weilin personally, or if he was a notable person in some other way, then I'd agree. But we only have the vaguest hearsay about who "Wang" was, assuming he actually existed, so there is no useful purpose in having a separate article for him. – Smyth 21:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uh, no one is disputing the claim that he existed, or that he was a student, etc etc. The claim that he is tank man might be wrong, but he definitely existed. →Raul654 21:28, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of people called Wang Weilin existed, and lots of those were students, and probably one of those students were in the Square on that day. But we don't add a page for every person who exists, we add a page for the Tank Man because he did something worth writing a Wikipedia article about.

I suppose my point really is that there is no prospect that any new information will ever be added to the Wang page which would not equally belong on the Tank man page, because there is nothing else known about him except the barest rumors. In such a situation, having two pages seems unjustified. – Smyth 21:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To reiterate what I said above - The Wang Weilin article ... could talk about what university he went to, the fact that he was the son of two factory workers, etc - none of which belongs at tank man. Tank man is about the tank man persona. We can't say for sure that it's Weilin, tank man shouldn't go into depth about his life -- that would be awkward. On the other hand, Wang Weilin is about Weilin himself. There is definitely information that belongs in the latter and not in the former. And with the barest of google searches, I turned up several facts that were usable. If someone wanted to, they could find a lot more info than that. (all they would have to do is email the professor who reported that he had died after 14 days). →Raul654 21:56, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've reconsidered my position. I suppose it could go either way - in general, yes, it's a horrible idea to have two articles about the same thing, but this case is odd, since we don't know that they're the same thing. I'm fine with it as is, but if you want to merge the two, I don't think I'll have any further objections. →Raul654 23:35, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

I just found out today that there was a formal arbitration case against me. It is improper to do this without me being part of it. RK

Be aware that Simonides was himself nearly banned for his non-stop damage of several Wikipedia articles? He launched into abusive polemics against nearly everyone on the Philosophy and Anti-Semitism articles. We must note that many people are upset with the way that Simonides's kept hurling ad homenim attacks at so many people, so many times. Since I was one of the many people who did not allow him to unilaterally rewrite all of our articles to match his own peculiar POV, he tried to ban me. Just check out the archives of these pages, especially the anti-Semitism page, You will find that I have not been harassing him, or anyone. The reverse is true, and he is just trying to ban me to get his POV in. RK

As for Zero, we rarely have any conflict. He does have anger towards me, and I suspect that he is a sockpuppet for another user. I requested that in the one area we have a significant difference, we mediate (the Israel Shahak article.) As for all the other articles that we could have had disagreements on (relating to the Arab-Israeli wars), I removed nearly all of those articles from my Watchlist. That's right, instead of arguing with Zero and others, for many months now I have totally let them have their own way on over a dozen articles. Compare this to the behaviour of other Wikipedians with arbitration cases; I don't know of a single user like myself who has been so generous in just totally removing themselves from a large number of contentious articles. RK

It seems odd to me that so few are willing to actively participate in mediation, but wish to push charges against me. And have they dropped any articles from their watchlist? Nope. I can't see how I am the bad guy here. RK 20:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Irish theatre

Hi: I have expanded the lead section somewhat. Will this do or do you think it needs more? Would it be better to see if Abbey Theatre makes it to FA and main page it this centenary year? Filiocht 08:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Much better now. Look to see it on the main page sometime this week. And don't worry about Abbey Theatre - there's still plenty of time left in the year to feature it on the main page. →Raul654 08:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Right so. I'm happy to see Irish theatre make it as I started that page under my previous username. Filiocht 08:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ohhh, so you're what became of Bmills! I was kinda saddened to see he hadn't contributed in a while, but now I know why :) -- you might want to make User:Bmills a redirect to User:Filiocht. →Raul654 08:49, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Have done. Filiocht 10:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan

What is happening with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan? It's been nearly a month. Mintguy (T) 17:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Willy on wheels!' return

Yes, your userpage was moved again. It has been moved back. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:30, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Enigma machine on the Main Page

Hey, I noticed that Enigma machine is up for the main page on the 22nd. On the 23rd, I'm going to a lecture demonstrating an actual surviving Enigma, and I was planning to take a bunch of photos to replace the somewhat nasty black-and-white NSA pictures in the article — it might make sense to delay it for a couple of days. — Matt 23:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll delay it a few days. →Raul654 01:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Uploadtext

Guanaco's right about it being policy. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations says "If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL" with the assumption that you are "in a position to grant this license". And it's said this since AxelBoldt rewrote the policy in June 2002 [1].

I think this needs to be changed somewhat, as many of the Creative Commons licenses are not only acceptable for images in a legal sense (under the GFDL's aggregation clause), but from a moral "free encyclopedia" standpoint as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section

Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mixed-breed dog

Thanks for the heads up! What fun! I'll be prepared... Elf | Talk

1 million articles notice colors

#darkgray and #lightgrey (with the hashes) appear as black in IE/Mac, making the text unreadable. If those are intended to be commented out, /* ... */ should be used instead. Goplat 01:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

B-Day

Thanks. Hyacinth 05:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tintin

I see you've removed Tintin from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and archived it, may I ask why?

"If there are no objections/referals after approximately a week, the article may be promoted to featured article status. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived."

What objections still were there were being worked on. {Heliophile} 07:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I counted 2 supports (Xiaopo and Fern) and 1 objection (Ta bu shi da yu). 2/1/0 definitely isn't consensus. →Raul654 12:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Poetry of the United States

I saw your note on the talk page of this article and have expanded the lead section. Do you feel it still needs more work? If you leave any further suggestions on the talk page, I will try to address them. Filiocht 10:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's looking much better. →Raul654 12:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

While I'm on a roll, are you aware of any other FAs in need of a better lead section? If you leave a list on my talk page, I'll try to get to some of them at least. Filiocht 12:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the birthday wishes. RickK 20:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

"Licensed under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright/license"

Yes, I mean the GFDL. At one point the upload instructions seemed to suggest that as the preferred wording.

I hereby assert that every image uploaded by User:Dpbsmith that indicates a) that the image was taken by me, and which contains an assertion of copyright by Daniel P. B. Smith, is released under the GDFL. The assertion of copyright means that the image is, in fact, mine to release. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Raul, you're right "Fair use for non-commercial usage" doesn't make sense. It was probably one of my first attempts to explain a copyright status. The copyright holder simply agreed for it to be used on a non-commercial basis. Regards PHG 06:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll tag them as non-commerical for the time being, but that means that unless you contact the copyright holder, they'll be deleted eventually (probably). →Raul654 06:55, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Raul. The copyright holder just agreed to release Image:MenanderCoin.jpg in the Public Domain. Regards.PHG 13:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Banshee

Hi Raul! Thanks for your interest in the Banshee airplane article I originated. The copyright for that photo is owned by Michael Baldock, who gave me full permission to use it in a non-commercial way. He saw the page and he loved it.

I have copies of his e-mails giving me permission, so dont worry, its all taken care of.

Thank you and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio La Cosa Martin"

DNA labels.jpg

Hi Raul,

I noticed your comment on WP:FPC that the .png encoding of Image:DNA labels.jpg was 4x larger than the .jpg. I thought this was surprising as I've always been told that .png is better for compressing areas of flat colour (presumably through run length encoding). So tried compressing the image myself. And yup, it came out 4x larger using .png in 24bit mode. But there are also 8bit, indexed colour, .png's which did save a little space and would probably do even better and give a sharper result if it worked on the original rather than the slightly smudged .jpg. I don't know whether all graphics packages support 8bit png encoding though and it might not be worth the effort. -- Solipsist 12:10, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Media:Image:Megophrys_lateralis.jpg

I didn't upload it or cite, User:OldakQuill did. All I did was cut the file size by two-thirds. :) - Hephaestos|§ 15:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Ectopic pregnancy.jpg

Hi Raul, does this image mean we can now use ADAM images on Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 20:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put it into the article because it wasn't in use. I just checked, and the site contains this "Copyright 2002 A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited." So, the pic needs to be deleted :( →Raul654 20:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

If you check the page history, Diberri removed it himself after noting the same thing. I've listed the image on WP:CP so this won't repeat. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've already listed it on IFD ;) →Raul654 20:46, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Whatever. I figure there's less chance of it slipping past CP :) -- Cyrius|✎ 21:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latham photo

Please see my note about photo copyrights at the top of my Talk page. Adam 06:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have placed it at Wikipedia which means I am happy for anyone to use it anyway they like. If you think it is important, tag it any way you want. Adam 06:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't know I had to wait a few months. Sorry about that. --Gamingboy 18:48, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

You don't *have* to wait a few months, but it's bad form not to. →Raul654 18:49, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

In the matter of Snowspinner v. orthogonal

Raul, while I of course believe you to be a man of the foremost character, I wonder if it would not be best for Wikipedia to avoid even the appearance eof impropriety in matters before Arbitration, and so respectfully suggest you consider recusing yourself from the case Snowspinner v. orthogonal.

So as not to unduly surprise you, I should note that I have outlined on the arbitration page particulars of the case that would tend to suggest this to be the most delicate course of action. -- orthogonal 17:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Frankly, I expected that you would in fact recuse yourself as a matter of course, and so had desired not to bring up these facts at all. Given your love for Wikipedia, however, I think we all understand that it was excess of duty and not neglect of duty that no doubt impelled you to attend to this matter without first attending to your own reputation, and I will be the first to argue that no fault attaches to you. -- orthogonal 17:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Thanks for recusing yourself. In this situation, I think it was definitely the right choice. --Michael Snow 21:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Am I Jason?

Or were you referring to someone else in your comment about Kenneth Alan? ;-) I assumed you meant me, and found it amusing -- of course, as Jdforrester and I have the same first name, there's no good way to reference me. Since he goes by James F., perhaps I should adopt Jason as a moniker, to avoid making people spell my username. :-)

Oh, and so you know, I think recusal was wise also, and I'm glad you did, although I agree with orthogonal that I didn't have any actual concerns that you would show bias. I don't think I'd have any problems either, but I figured it was best to step aside rather than risk bad appearances. It has the added benefit, of course, of reducing the number of cases you and I need to attend to by one. :-) Have a good evening, and keep up the good work; Jwrosenzweig 23:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad ;) -- Yes, I meant you, "Jason" ;) →Raul654 00:05, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Relisting featured articles on FACs

I've noted your comment on talk:FACs, but would welcome comments on my comment why there is not a note at the top of the FACs page saying to check the FA page (or the talk page of the page you want to nominate) before adding it to FACs.

As a new wikipedian, if I wanted to nominate something, I'd read the instructions at the top of the FACs page and follow them. I doubt that I'm the only one. Also, I doubt that my suggestion is controversial, despite its being ignored to date. May I ask your thoughts? Jongarrettuk 00:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Simply put - I try to avoid unnecessary page instructions wherever possible (see instruction creep). If someone accidentally nominates an already-featured article, then others can just go ahead and delete the nom when they notice. →Raul654 00:54, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Still here (sort of)

Hey,

I am still here, just a lot less active. I finished school in early Sept, and have just started a new job. I hope to continue to be active, but not nearly to the level of before.

Burgundavia 05:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Feature article nominations

I am curious why you deleated strategic management from the feature article page when it has no objections against it. mydogategodshat 16:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1 support and no objections is not "consensus" (the nominator doesn't count). On second thought though, because it had no objections, I should probably have given it a little extra consideration and left it there a bit longer (just in case someone would have supported). I'll relist it on the FAC, but if no one else supports, it's getting removed again. →Raul654 02:35, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Um, it was 2 support when I added it to Featured articles. I read the article, and I support it. The FAC page says nothing about requiring more than 1 support anyway. Jrincayc 14:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The FAC is not a first-past-the-poll vote -- operates based on consensus. Con·sen·sus (k…n-sµn“s…s) n. 1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole or by majority will. - one supporting vote does not a consensus make. →Raul654 17:25, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Where does it say consensus? As I read WP:FAC, a consensus is merely required if there are objections. To quote If there are no objections/referals after approximately a week, the article may be promoted to featured article status. There were no objections, and a week had passed, and I agreed that it was worthy of FA, therefore, I promoted it to featured article status. Jrincayc 23:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Featured articles on the main page

Er, oops. I wasn't attempting to circumvent your authority or anything, I guess I failed to read to the end of Wikipedia:Today's featured article, and just looked at the numbered guidelines. Seems I missed the policy change and I don't tend to assume any area of Wikipedia is "off-limits". I apologize for the oversight. Sarge Baldy 03:44, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

No problem - I figured it was a simple misunderstanding. Anyway, if you have any requests, just drop me a line. But as I said WRT Mount St. Helens - it was up there <3 weeks ago. →Raul654 03:51, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Daily article mail

Hi Raul. I'm going to be away tomorrow (Saturday) morning, and possibly Sunday, so I won't be able to do the featured article mail. Could you be an angel and maybe handle sending it instead? Thanks a lot  :-) — Kate Turner | Talk 07:23, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Sure - will this be like last time, where you write them up and queue them, and I OK them at the correct time? Also, since the queue doesn't go till sunday, I'll have to add another article to the queue - I'll do that later today (it's 3:30 AM local time and I'm heading to bed). →Raul654 07:28, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

If I have time today (which I think I should) then I can write them up and send them (as long as there are enough, of course). If not, er, I won't. :-) — Kate Turner | Talk 07:32, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Kennth Alan

Hi. May I suggest that you change the time placed on Kenneth Alan's page to either 00:01 or 23:59, so it is clearer on which day the ban expiires. Thank you. Mintguy (T) 21:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remove that porn picture

Please that picture is clearly from a porn site this is supposed to be an encyclopedia!!!--198 23:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:Insulin.jpg

Hi Raul, Image:Insulin.jpg does not look much like insulin, which is only 51 amino acids long. Is this the insulin-responsive glucose channel, perhaps? JFW | T@lk 23:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)