User talk:Raul654

For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping Template: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

• Archive 1: August - November 2003
• Archive 2: December - March 2004
• Archive 3: April - July 2004
• Archive 4: August - November 2004
• Archive 5: December - March 2005
• Archive 6: April - July 2005
• Archive 7: August - November 2005
• Archive 8: December - March 2006
• Archive 9: April - July 2006
• Archive 10: August - November 2006

• Archive 11: December - February 2007
• Archive 12: March - May 2007
• Archive 13: June - August 2007
• Archive 14: September - December 2007
• Archive 15: January - March 2008
• Archive 16: April - June 2008
• Archive 17: July - September 2008
• Archive 18: October - December 2008
• Archive 19: January - March 2009

User:USEDfan

Hi, Raul. Sorry to bother you, but I was hoping you could help me out with something. I don't really know much about checkuser so I was wondering if I could run something by you. We have a had a bad problem with the user above, as you can see by his confirmed and suspected sock puppets. He was originally banned several months ago but keeps coming back. He is getting better about concealing his identity. I am nearly certain User:Gladiator Knight 16 is his latest sock puppet. He always creates single purpose accounts to edit/disrupt The Used and their related sub-pages. There are several similarities between this user and User:USEDfan e.g. three word username, sourcing content with the same unreliable website, editing the exact same section as his last blocked sock puppet, putting update/grammar, etc. in the edit summary. I can provide a little more evidence if more is needed. The article has been semi-protected more than once to prevent him from socking, and as you can see his latest sock made a series of meaningless edits just to get autoconfirmed. This account was also created only a few days after his last sock was blocked. I have a hunch he has a couple sleepers in his sock drawer (as he usually does). He also uses sock puppet's to edit articles related to the Ratchet & Clank (series). I completely understand if you don't have time to deal with this. I can file an SPI report if you would rather me do that. They are always such a long and drawn out process though, and I'd like to have this taken care of before he starts being really disruptive again. Thanks and have a good night. By the way his last sock was User:Gold digger gold. Landon1980 (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm not trying to rush you on this or anything. I just wanted to tell you if you would rather me add this account to one of USEDfan's SPI reports I can. Just let me know if you don't have the time. Cheers. Landon1980 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've drained the swamp for you. Raul654 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you sure did haha. I really appreciate that. Landon1980 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger

There has been a dispute about the recent FARC votes to keep Chrono Trigger at the WikiProject Video Games talk page, specifically some questions about the reliability about some issues about one of the sources much of the site relies upon.じんない 06:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Agnew Clinic

On January 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Agnew Clinic, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

hot bulb

would you please take a look at the hot bulb engine article and discussion.
Wdl1961 (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely sorry to hear

About CC. Thanks for keeping us informed.

R.I.P.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Swimming Hole

Done. I enjoyed reading it. Tony (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

YHM

You have mail. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've passed along your thoughts to the appropriate people. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you get (at least some) results. I'll leave the rest in more informed hands. Please contact me if any more info is needed, though I doubt I know anything special at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Please see me on IRC, as soon as is possible (might be urgent, might not be, I don't know). If you don't see me, please drop me an email through emailuser. Cheers, — neuro^(talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of in IRC. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Guide for Professionals testimonial

I am having issues wording this so that it is concise and relevant to the reader. I am wary of being accused of self promotion by fellow editors as well. I will get a draft going in userspace first so you and others can comment before it appears on the live project. Mfield (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Block of 72.62.0.0/16

You currently have a block of "72.62.0.0/16" to expire in mid-July due to suspected sockpuppetry by User:Scibaby. While I completely understand your motivations, to block an entire class-B network over a single user is far too broad. You've essentially blocked every anon Sprint PCS customer on the west coast of the United States over a single user, including me from editting anonymously.

I strongly urge you to tighten the block to something more reasonable. Blocking a swath of 65,000 IP addresses over a single puppetmaster is detrimental to the greater community.

Thank you for your time. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In looking over your archive, I've noticed that the issue of your overbroad blocks have been brought to your attention numerous times by many different editors. I'm going to urge you to take heed to this feedback you are getting. How many potential editors are you turning away by blocking tens of thousands of IP addresses just to avoid a single user? The nuke-em-all-so-I-don't-have-to-deal-with-Scibaby approach is not proper in my opinion. Please don't say that they can use the registration service. As someone who worked the Help Desk for a long time, I can tell you that new users should not have to jump through hoops to be a part of the community. The vast majority simply won't bother and won't contribute at all which -- again -- is detrimental to Wikipedia. In other words, I'm saying that overbroad blocks do just as much harm to Wikipedia as a puppetmaster, if not more. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No one disagrees that collateral damage is a bad thing. On the other hand, I am balancing the concerns of the dozens of other editors who use his ranges to edit wikipedia (a far cry from "tens of thousands"), versus the actual cost in wasted time and frustration to the regular editors who have to deal with the damage he does. The current solution, anon-only blocking his ranges and preventing account creation, is certainly a reasonable way to do that. If you have a better compromise, I'm all ears. But simply saying that we should let him continue vandalizing is not an acceptable solution. And, for that matter, I caught him tonight using another sprint PCS IP (70.0.185.83) to vandalize. So he hasn't gone away, and in fact unblocking that range would simply give him more resources with which to attack Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For every person you have dealt with, how many HAVEN'T contacted you and simply went away? I believe it would be safe to say that only a very tiny fraction would bother to actually contact you. The fact that so many actually have contacted you indictates perhaps a few orders of magnitude more that didn't bother. How many constructive, good edits were prevented by blocking tens of thousands of IPs? Vandalism can be reverted. A prevented good edit is lost forever.

By your logic, you should just ban at the class-A level (/8) and be done with the situation. Afterall, there are only about 250 class A networks. Just a handful of blocks and you've rid yourself of Scibaby forever. Obviously this would be absurd, but frankly so is /16. You've blocked a LOT of innocent users and haven't, by your own admission, managed to block Scibaby! The scorched earth campaign you are on isn't working, but it IS costing. While I don't have a better alternative at this very moment, pursuing a failing strategy at the cost of good edits and editors should stop. If you ABSOLUTELY have to do a range block, please restrict your blocks to the /24 or /32 level. You'll probably be just as (non)effective at stopping Scibaby, but at least you'll reduce the collateral damage to something managable. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of them as scorched earth blocks is patently false. As you yourself have already noted, you are editing from a blocked range. So obviously it *wasn't* a scorched earth approach, or you would not be editing. Anyone on one of Scibaby's ranges can request an account. If they choose not to avail themselves of that option, that cannot be helped.

As for the efficacy, just because something is less than 100% effective does not mean it is ineffective. Scibaby has had to curtail his vandalism, and the number of accounts he registers. The amount of damage has been substantially, noticeably reduced. Without getting into specifics, the range blocks have played a large role in that. (I don't get into specifics because every time I have discussed them, he has immediately changed his behavior, making me strongly suspect he reads what I write about him). Whereas your suggestion, blocking individual IPs and /24s, is competely effective. I spent about 3-6 months limiting myself to those blocks, and it was a complete waste of time and totally ineffective. (And may have further encouraged him).

In short, the range blocks work. Anyone on those ranges who wants to edit will have to go through the extra step of getting an account through ACC, but that's an acceptable tradeoff versus letting Scibaby vandalize using hundreds/thousands of accounts. Raul654 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I patently disagree with everything you just said as it simply does not reflect reality. They don't work. New users won't go to ACC, and will just go away. Anyone with any experience in user-centered design knows that users will not jump through hoops, especially after seeing a message that tells them that they are essentially unwelcome (and yes, that's how the blocked message is interpretted by many). There isn't even a very visible link to ACC anywhere in the blocked notice. It is actually hidden from view unless the user goes out of his or her way to find it! No one is going to bother with that unless they are very familiar with Wikipedia already. Why would any new user actually go through the hassle that you are foisting upon him? Why should they bother?

By your reasoning, we should just block all anons because any anon could just go to ACC. However, that line of thinking has been rejected by the community again, and again, and again. Wikipedia would not be what it is without the anon editors that you are blocking wholesale just to rid yourself of a single vandal. I believe you are failing to look at the big picture and forgetting what Wikipedia is all about in your blind obsession with this one vandal. However, I can also see that my attempts to show you that blocking hundreds of thousands of IPs (now that I know that you've blocked several /16's at 65,000 a pop over this Scibaby person) is more harmful to Wikipedia than a single vandal is falling upon completely deaf ears. In my opinion, frankly, what you are doing is much, much worse than any vandal. You are deliberately alienating many potential new editors who could bring untold value to this encyclopedia... and for what? To rid yourself of a single immature kid? Bad tradeoff.

Since I can see that attempting change your mind is absolutely futile, I will not persue this any further. However, I will close with this: If Scibaby wanted to do long-term damage to Wikipedia, through you he has definately succeeded. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FA placement

Raul, Ursula Franklin could go in Chemistry, Physics, Philosophy or Culture and society. The nominator says her main contributions are philosophical, but suggests Culture and society; I'm unsure how you prefer to categorize articles like this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Culture and society or philosophy and psychology. Raul654 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for IAR FAC nom

Note: For transparency this message was also left on the talk page of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)

In the interest of time, I am asking for special permission to file the FAC for USS Connecticut (BB-18) immediately on IAR grounds. I believe this will be the best method of allowing the article to reach FA status because it will provide editors at FAC the usual three to four week window to review the article, and unlike other articles there are three people who intend to through there all into the article to address all applicable points of objection during the FAC. Since I am aware of the ever increasing standards at FAC, I wanted to get your permission before giving anyone involved in this effort the green light to file. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Raul654 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible to move Feb 13 TFA to Feb16?

Hi Raul. I saw your Feb schedule setting Cranmer for the 13th. I would like to monitor the article when it goes live and unfortunately I will be on vacation during that week (no internet access). Is it possible to switch the date to the following week, say the 16th? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelHistBuff (talk • contribs)

I've made the switch. Raul654 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Raul. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet TFA for Valentine's day

On behalf of the Shakespeare WikiProject, I was wondering if this could replace the currently-scheduled TFA for Feb 14, Valentine's day. The connection is more than obvious, and much more appropriate than the graphic novel that is currently scheduled, in my opinion. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that at least two editors at TFA/R supported 300 because it was a contrast to the sickly sweetness of Valentine's Day. The holdiay will, I believe, also recur in 2010. On (checks calendar) February 14, what a coincidence;-) --Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I should have been better at requesting this at TFA/R, but I was a bit slow and Raul was pretty fast at scheduling this time around. I've asked the Shakespeare project to comment here, but maybe we should move it to the TFA/R talk page? Wrad (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing at [1] Wrad (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Travel

Raul, I have plans to travel between Feb 5 and (possibly) 16 Feb 14. I am not sure what internet access I will have: perhaps none. I can pr/ar on the 4th before I go, and perhaps on Tuesday, Feb 10, but I know I won't be able to promote on Saturday, Feb 7 or Saturday Feb 14. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be visiting my fiance from Feb 10 - Feb 15. I can archive it before I leave, and again after I return. Raul654 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll let Gimme know we'll be on a strange schedule. Have a nice trip! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

File:City hall and clothespin.JPG

You're invited to the
Seventh Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3:00 PM

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor fix needed for TFA blurb

Hey Raul, a change needs to be made to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2009. Year Zero is the fifth Nine Inch Nails studio album, not the sixth. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Archie Jackson TFA

Hi Raul. Just a request regarding the featured article for 5 February 2009, Archie Jackson. While certainly not complaining that the article will be on the Main Page so soon, I had a plan in my own mind to try and have this article on the Main Page on 5 September 2009, the 100th anniversary of his birth as per Talk:Archie Jackson#Main page goal. I felt this would be an appropriate form of recognition for him.

While I am aware this is short notice, if there is any chance of a reschedule and an early request for this later date I would very appreciative. If time does not allow this, then never mind. Given the urgency and the lateness of my request, I trust you do not mind be making my request directly rather than through the TFA system. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've unscheduled it. Raul654 (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep my eye on the Main Page requests page and take my chances for 5 September! Thanks for going to the trouble. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians

There is a discussion on deleting Deceased Wikipedians. Since you've been involved in the page before, I hope you will consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (2nd nomination). Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Egypt's trapped third army

Hello Raul654.

I was wondering why you removed the sourced information I added in the article especially as I had provided reliable references. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Visit from an old friend

User:Strang_Butz? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead editor

Raul, do you think it is worth suggesting some version of this as a proposal here? Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought TFA

I left a message regarding the image at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 12, 2009. Cheers!--ragesoss (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Messy FAC apologies

Hi Raul, I just wanted to stop in and make a comment. I'd like to apologize for messy and lengthy amount of comments on the USMA FAC page. I came to realize that the article wasn't 100% ready and polished when the FAC started, especially with WP:IUP. However, quite a bit of good work was done based upon the many comments, and the support for promotion is currently 8 to 1, with the 1 being an image dispute, which I think that I fixed a few moments ago by replacing the disputed image. See more lengthy explanation at Sandy's page here. Again, I'm sorry that review was so untidy and un-civil, and at times the responders were confrontational with the reviewers. I think we've worked through all the issues now. This was my first trip to FAC, so I've learned a tremendous amount. Thanks.  Ahodges7   ^talk 18:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:66.215.90.60

A user is caught in a rangeblock you applied to stop Scibaby. I don't know whether or not it is him or some other user, but I said I would ask you if you were willing to narrow the range or reduce the duration. I have no opinion either way. Protonk (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The 66.215 range is one of scibaby's favorite ranges. He was using it as recently as the end of January (user:Trent370). The range block should not be altered in anyway. The anon should be directed to the account creation request page. I'll leave him a note on his talk page telling him to go there. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Didn't know anything about it so I figured I would ask. Have a good day. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Input?

It might be nice for you to chime in here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#USS_Connecticut_.28BB-18.29 since at the bottom you have come-up through mention of an IRC conversation. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for oppose striking (WP:FAC/New York State Route 382)

Per the results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GroundhogTheater, could I have the three opposes related to those on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 382 stricken as votestacking? If you could look into this, thanks.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi Raul. I note your closure of the FAR for the Intelligent design article in December 2008. You closed it as keep in spite of there being valid challenges about the use of copyrighted images as decoration there. The matter has resurfaced on the article's talk page and been discussed at AN/I subsequently. I am therefore suggesting that the matter be revisited in a further FAR. Another editor has opined that having featured articles which abuse nonfree media in this way brings the FA/FAR process into disrepute, and I am inclined to agree with that. What is your opinion on the matter? --John (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 made an extremely reasonable judgment call to put the page on the main page on 12 October 2007 containing the images at issue. They're not copyvios, but rather are well within the Wikipedia:EDP. Intelligent design is not an article on something like Yellowstone_National_Park or the Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth or any of numerous other FAs on topics of the kind where relevant free-licensed images are in great abundance. We started in mid-2007 approaching the Intelligent design article from the viewpoint of the increasingly widely accepted position that the use of images in WP articles is a desirable aspect of good article writing w.r.t. GAs and FAs, not only because they make the article look good but also because well chosen images relating to important aspects of the topic facilitate the educational value of articles--more so when there's a thoughtful, relevant image caption. It was a very substantial challenge to provide appropriate images that enhance the educational value of the Intelligent design article to readers. It's not an article on a physical thing or on an event that involves physical things that lend themselves to photographs, charts and diagrams and such that can readily be free-licensed. Take a look at Wikipedia:FA#Philosophy_and_psychology and Wikipedia:FA#Law and note how extremely few FAs there are. The intelligent design article had the challenges of both all rolled into one, being as it is a legal strategy attempting to substitute philosophy for science in high-school biology classes. In short, it's a unique controversial topic that doesn't readily lend itself to relevant and informative free-licensed images that convey useful visual information but instead the most relevant informative visual information was to be found in the NFC we used in the article (for example, the creative iconography in public presentations of various aspects of the intelligent design controversy) supplemented by well considered image captions. My recollection of the conversation leading up to featuring the article on 12 October 2007 on the main page is that Raul understood the inherent and rather unique difficulties involved with this topic, and I trust he also understood at the most recent FAR that the use of WP's Exemption Policy (the EDP, aka the NFCC) for several images remained reasonable in this article at that stage in time.
..... Also note that where feasible, free-licensed images have gradually replaced three of the NFC book covers, starting with the Stephen Dembski image which replaced a relatively nondescript NFC book cover image. Within the past couple weeks two additional such images have been removed (admittedly under pressure from anti-NFC advocates combined with strict interpreters of the guideline WP:NFC). The image of Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial was removed without too much adieu. A few days ago, another (The Darwin's Black Box image) has been replaced with a free-licensed photo of its author, with a loss of information value that was significant but not major., but that nonetheless goes in the direction of "free-licensed to the best reasonably feasible extent". Someday soon we'll find a free-licensed photo of Phillip E. Johnson too, and the fact that we're on the verge of obtaining one was part of the reasoning for letting the book-cover image be removed without contentious argument. Which leaves the cover image of Of Pandas and People and the Time Magazine cover image of August 15, 2005. So I must vigorously disagree with "another user's" notion that this somehow brings the whole FA process into some kind of disrepute. These decisions about the extent of judicious and minimal use of NFC, even in FAs, need to be taken to some extent on a case-by-case basis. None of the images ever violated the NFCC, and the guidelines in WP:NFC need to be regarded as the guidelines they are, not as black letter law. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, John, I was able to find a history of the Time cover image file and will post it at Talk:Intelligent design in awhile today. Then it's back to "real-life" work for me, except for very brief breaks until the weekend, at which time I should be able to provide more of the history of this interesting and vigorous conflict of ideology about what precisely is the right thing to do with NFC files of this kind. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was one of two editors who pointed out on the most recent Intelligent Design FAR that there is no consensus that the non-free images meet NFCC, and that they are replaceable by free images. No other editors on the FAR responded to these statements there, which relate directly to criteria 3. So I was somewhat surprised that the FAR was closed as keep, but not enough to ask you about it until now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your contributions to six current Military History Featured Articles, your flexibility in managing the "Today's featured article" list to accommodate relevant main-page appearances, and your generosity in providing many images for our visual library. For the coordinators, EyeSerenetalk 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)