Misplaced Pages

Nice Work

Nice work reverting vandalism on the AIDS page, you let the inappropriate comment stand for all of four minutes. Kudos! BigNate37 08:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Azeris extension

Hey Raul, how's it going? I have a small favor to ask. Can you extend the time for Azeris as an FA candidate? Although the majority of people think it's up to snuff (granted many of them are Azeris so I'm going by non-Azeris here), Tony1's brought up some copyedit issues that are pretty dead-on and I'm just one guy who wrote up most of the article and then copyedited it, but it's been a little time consuming and I'm going to need a little more time. Possibly someone else may help out, in which case this process should end sooner rather than later. We're talking within the week hopefully. Say, if YOU have time, feel free to copyedit as well. Let me know and if you have someone you can suggest who isn't busy and can help out, then let me know. Ciao. Tombseye 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sound of the day

You've be active in a number of sound uploads, so I thought you might be interested in this. The idea is to first build up a "sound community" outside of the featured content system, before we pursue anything like WP:FSC.--Pharos 13:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sort of ignorant of classical music, but as you've uploaded oodles of it, perhaps you could make a selection for the Template:SOTD/Classical which kicks in at UTC midnight (the Capoeira Angola up there now is a placeholder). Thanks.--Pharos 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

image uploading

Re: wiki commons, That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for pointing that out. --Rajah 07:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthew

Hi there. You don't know me but I borrowed your quote from book of Matthew. Thanks. Lingeron 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. Raul654 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming on front page

Thanks for helping to keep an eye on the article while it's on the front page. Do you do this for all front page articles, or is this a special effort? --Stephan Schulz 08:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Experience has taught me that controversial articles need a certain amount of babysitting while on the main page. Raul654 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Raul, I hope you don't mind but I deleted an article which was a FAC. I did this because it was a stub, and so clearly a joke/mistaken nomination. I've left a note on the User page of the person who nominated it explaining to him, and pointing him in the direciton of more information of what FAs are. I'm not sure if what I did was right, as I guess I'm treading on your toes a bit, but with something as obvious as that I thought that the best policy was to be bold and simply archive it before any more people waste their time looking at the article to find it is a stub. --Wisden17 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call the removed article a stub, but yes, it doesn't meet FA requirements. Raul654 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it has two stub templates on the page, and is only about 12 sentences long, but either way certainly not FA. --Wisden17 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Global warming picture

I've reuploaded that problem image as Image:Global Warming Predictions Map 2.jpg, and it has a completely different stored filename (one without "/ad/" in it). Just reuploading the image with the same filename seems to use the same storage location, so that doesn't get around the problem. It's possible that deleting the image completely and re-uploading it with the same filename might work, but I've not tried that yet.

Adblocking does seem to be the problem - I disabled my adblocker and could see the original image, and now I've reenabled it and I can't again, but I can see the replacement image. I've been bold and changed the link on the FA template and the article, at least while it's on the Main Page - apologies if I've trod on anything in the process. I think there's a Bugzilla report related to this problem - if I can find it I'll update it with this workaround. — sjorford++ 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw (Raul sees all). Anyone with a mozdev login should file a bug report (to get[REDACTED] whitelisted). Raul654 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The file paths are based on a hash of the filename, so the location is fixed for a given name. People have complained to our devs for a long time to try and get a caching scheme that avoids "/ad/" but so far to no avail. Approximately 1 out of every 256 images are placed in that branch. Dragons flight 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was some kind of hash. If our devs won't fix it, hopefully theirs will. Raul654 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the problem is triggered by several different adblockers, not just Adblock, so ultimately it's something we need to be aware of at our end, despite Brion's opinion to the contrary :) Apparently image storage is due to change completely in the foreseeable future, so this problem should go away. What I was going to suggest is if there is some way of getting a list of all images in the /ad/ directory, so we can be aware of this problem in advance and perhaps re-upload as many of them as possible with different filenames, but that was before the figure 1/256 was mentioned - that sounds like a helluva lot of images. I guess it's just something to be aware of, on the Main Page particularly. — sjorford++

I've figured out a way to highlight such images using CSS - I've tweaked my adblocking software to allow those images through and then added this line to my monobook.css:

img { border: solid red 25px !important; }

So I'll keep an eye out for future main page images with the same problem. — sjorford++ 11:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Raul654 11:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use woes

Hi, Raul. I'm experiencing fair use woes again. Maybe you could help? If so, please see my note on User_talk:Danny#Fairuse_woes. Best, El_C 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's actually pretty easy. Put a description explaining why you have to use that particular image in that/those particular article(s). See Image:DeWeldon Gagnon.jpg for an example. Raul654 03:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

These are low-res pictures of major Israeli public figures taken from newsources. What to do in such a case; what rational is suitable? El_C 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, for reasons that I'm sure you well know, we prefer copyleft images to fair use ones; fair use ones should only be used if no copyleft ones are available. The first thing to do would be to check Flickr's creative commons searches ("the first one - Attribution License", and the last one - "Attribution-ShareAlike License" - are both acceptable), and maybe piddle around on google images and see if anyone has personal ones they might be willing to let us use. If none of that works out, then you can safely say that no copyleft equivalent is available and fair use is OK. Beyond that, it's for education purposes, and it shouldn't negatively impact the re-sellability of the photo (e.g - low res). Raul654 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! I'll do it right now. Best, El_C 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

En garde, the cat and I fight to the death!

The ceiling cat and I have fought a good fight tonight. For now, I have prevailed against its onslought into the random articles. You too have taken some swipes at the evil cat and its appearences. For that, thanks. It's annoying getting rid of the aol vandal's work each night. Kevin_b_er 08:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together

Hi Raul. This one was posted on June 3rd, but has never been closed. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed from the FAC page and the talk page has been tagged as facfailed. It doesn't get any more closed than that. Raul654 10:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Page

I recall TFA's talk page was the place to submit specific main page requests. Is this still true? The format has apparently changed for this and I know there's been talk about it. Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) is my 2nd FA and I want to request it for 21 Aug, the 94th anniversary of the first Eagle Scout, Arthur Rose Eldred. What is the current process for this? Rlevse 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests Raul654 10:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Linday Lohan

Hey Raul! I was thinking that featuring Lindsay Lohan on July 2nd wil end up sparking up more complaints about TFA that day. The anti-TFA cabal's going to have a field day with the article's placement on her birthday, similar to that of Kadie Strickland, and is going to flood the mainpage with the same dead argument about TFAs that's been beaten for the two past month. Wouldn't it be better to feature her on July 3rd instead, that way she's still featured recently but causes less controversy? -- SmthManly / / 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just about had my fill of people complaining about this kind of stuff. I intend to leave it as I have scheduled it. Raul654 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

History of New Jersey

Hey Raul,

I was wondering if History of New Jersey is going to find its way up to the main page ever. I put the request up back and Feb, and I have yet to see/hear anything new in regards to it finding its way to the main page. May you give me a status update on it.--ZeWrestler 14:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Scheduled for July 4. Raul654 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

De-listing

Regarding de-listing FAs I was wondering whether tough ones have been closed in the manner of FAC itself (a single, well-founded, and actionable objection is enough to remove its status) or whether it's been like other processes (no consensus between the comments in total means the status quo remains and FA status is kept). This springs from Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Hinduism which I don't know what to do with. Marskell 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proliferation of metadata templates

I noticed that many metadata templates have been created and are used in many articles. I know you have nominated some for deletion, could you nominate all other metadata templates (you can find them in Category:Title templates) for deletion? Just one thing: I think the only useful templates are {{featured article}} and {{featured list}} so I would prefer we keep them. Thank you. CG 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated {{Part-of}}, {{Coor title d}}, {{Coor title dm}} and {{Coor title dms}} for deletion. CG 09:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have nominated them myself if I had gotten back earlier last night. Raul654 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Azeris

Hey Raul. I believe all the issues have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks. Tombseye 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

I would appreciate some kind of explanation regarding your promotion of Hurricane Katrina to FA status. FAC instructions clearly state "Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured article status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived." At the time of your promotion there were numerous outstanding unacknowledged and unresolved objections yet you went ahead and promoted it anyway. If the instructions of FAC have changed, you need to update the template and remove the above-mentioned quote. If the instructions haven't changed, you need to explain your actions. I would prefer to have this issue resolved amicably, but am prepared to bring the issue to the arbitration committee if I must. --Jayzel 16:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Silence does not help Misplaced Pages's credibility. --Jayzel 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

First, not all FAC objections are equal. Objective ones (factual inaccuracies, copyright issues, 'etc) are far more problematic than subjective ones; that's assuming they have any merit at all (because not all objections are even correct). So, to be blunt, consensus does not mean unanimous.

Now, as to the specific objections to the hurricane katrina article, the outstanding objections were:

• 63.23.19.22 - ojected "per Wackymacs", who withdrew his objection and supported, rendering this objection was moot.
• zafiroblue05 - objections that the criticism of the government section (which is actually a summery of a much longer article) is too short.
  • The FAC objections specifically say to use summary style; his objection seems to be that it follows that style.
• Worldtraveller - Objected that that the article specific image widths instead of defaulting to user preferences. True and valid, but very minor.
• Avenue - Same as Zafiro.
• Jayzel - Your specific objection was addressed, at least to some extent. Nagin and Blanco are mentioned more than once each, and it links to both their names. Raul654 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Nope, that was one of many reasonable objections I had. FAC instructions clearly state: "If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived." This did not happen. My other unacknowledged and unaddressed objections included: "First, as Louisiana and Mississippi were the hardest hit areas, why is there no discussion about how these state and local governments prepared for the storm?" (Some info about Louisiana was added after the article was promoted to featured status); and "You also haven't acknowledged my concerns re: local and state 'reponse' to the action." {This is still unaddressed). Lastly, most of Avenues objections weren't addressed and fixed until also after the article was named featured. It doesn't matter if people now support the article, the problem was that they didn't at the time the article was promoted. The FAC instructions unquestionably need to be amended. As it is now written it is misleading at best and outright false at worse. --Jayzel 01:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My regards

To-day, I completed 15 months of my wiki-life. Still I feel that I have a long way to go! This is just a very small present from me in honor of your contributions and initiatives. Your Rules are really wonderful. Please accept the small present. Regards! --Bhadani 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you :) Raul654 19:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Illuminatus! Trilogy request for "Todays featured article"

hi, may i ask if there is a reason why the The Illuminatus! Trilogy featured article, which was requested for TFA on 12 march 2006, has still not yet been scheduled to appear on the mainpage? is there a specific reason why it cannot appear, as many later requests have been taken but this one has not? thx. Zzzzz 18:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles featured on the main page are not decided on a first-come-first-serve basis. I try to limit the number of science-fiction related articles on the main page to about one (or at most two) per month (for system bias reasons). I just today scheduled the three laws of robotics (which had been requested since january) for July 5. Raul654 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Misplaced Pages:Featured articles:

You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 23:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Page saved. --Jayzel 00:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosque

It's not ready for the main page just quite yet, as you can see by the edit history. BhaiSaab 07:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, indeed. Now it's not just {{t1|pov or even just {{disputed}}, but rather {{totallydisputed}}. joturner 13:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

These votes...

Are these votes really you? savidan 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure they are: Raul quite understandably doesn't like any of these fancy widgets. Just look at the TFD and DRV for {{good article}} -- ALoan (Talk) 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Aloan took the words right out of my mouth. I feel strongly about keeping metadata out of articles (which makes our database significantly easier to reuse); doubly so for those metadata templates that break the standard article layout. Raul654 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree these fancy little absolutely-positioned things should go. That said, I feel compelled to point out that the coordinate templates aren't, I think, metadata: they show data about the subject of the article, not about the article itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems ironic that you would be one of the biggest opponents of metadata and yet be in charge of the FA process. Anyway, did someone mess with your picture? savidan 00:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice, with the exception of template:featured article (which I fought tooth and nail) and the link-FA template (ditto), there is no featured-article related meta-data in articles; everything is kept to talk and[REDACTED] namespaces where they belong. Raul654 02:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Today's FA is "Yada yada"

Little tidbit from my page: the OED now has "featured additions". Latest FA is "yada yada". :-) Bishonen | talk 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Linky! Raul654 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Albums as "Todays' Featured Article"

Hello. Seeing as you are the featured article director, I was wondering if albums could be choosen to appear on the main page, or do they fall under the catagory of "promotion"? For instance, would such an album as Illmatic be denied, given these circumstances? Chubdub 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with putting an album as the main page featured article. Raul654 06:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I am seriously entertaining the possibility of placing the page State Military characters of Fullmetal Alchemist up on the FA pages, but before I do I want your very qualified opinion on whether this is article is best qualified as an article, or as a list. When this went up on peer review there was enough ambiguity to suggest that it could have been either, and I would rather file my FA request the right way the first time around. Thanks in advance :) TomStar81 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it doesn't have a list form, it strikes me as being suspiciously like a list (of characters). It is lacking a proper introduction, at any rate. Raul654 06:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I know. Thats one of a few things that I have yet to tweak before putting in for an FA request. Thank you for your input, I apreciate it. TomStar81 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Dr. VS Mani

This article was created by me quite a while ago. It was listed as a copyvio, which was left unchallenged because of my failure to look up my watchlist carefully. I supposed that I had reworded and changed various sentences of the article to make it look different while keeping the facts same. A discussion for the matter is taking place here. I would definately appreciate it if you could advice me on the same. And I am aware of Meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. Thanks and regards, --Nearly Headless Nick 09:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please advise

Hi, since you're an upstanding member of the community I thought I'd come to you for advice. I have encountered a new user exhibiting troll-like behaviour called User:Nietecza whose contributions have solely comprised edits linking Poland with Anti-Semitism (see them here). I tried to give them a friendly word of advice and this was the reply I received. I will soon have to cut down on my wiki time, so what do you recommend I should do? It will probably be only a matter of time before other users notice these contributions and also grow concerned. Thanks for your help. All the best, Brisvegas 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been noted that once a discussion degenerates into name-calling, someone will inevitably be called a nazi. Since User:Nietecza actually started with that accusation I'm left to wonder...where can the duscussion go from there? --Doc Tropics 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dumb newbie question

Hi Raul, I love your Laws! I have a dumb question: if someone is accumulating too many wiki-cookies for good deeds, is it possible to convert them to "ribbons" as I've seen done with Barnstars? If so, how? I goofed around with the mark-up for a while but got nowhere. You're a resident expert so I thought I'd ask you. BTW - It's not for me but someone else wondered and now I'm trying to figure it out for her. If you have time to answer you can post it here and I'll be watching. Thanks in advance for your patience with a newbie :) --Doc Tropics 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule one way or the other.

You might want to photoshop them together into a single image and replace all of them with that single image. Raul654 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. Sounds like a good "rainy day project"...oh wait, WP is my rainy day project :) --Doc Tropics 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actuary and FA

Re:this edit - I meant to put it under 'Business, economics, and finance' but I messed up :) Raul654 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you! :) -- Avi 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Webster

A couple of hours ago the Daniel Webster FAC failed. It only recieved two votes, one up and one down. Even failed nominations are helpful in valuable feedback; with this nomination's minimal feedback this entire nomination has thus far been pretty much useless. The one negative vote claimed that the article contained elements of a POV and the examples listed and others indpendently found were immediately toned down (frivolous stuff about respectibility and strong intellect). The point is that I don't see how a future renomination can possibly pass if the article is so substandard as to worthy a failing without actionable feedback and I was hoping that you would be willing to reopen the nomination in an attempt to gain that; two votes either way and a discussion between two people can hardly be called a candidacy. TonyJoe 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Hi Raul, Bangladesh is now the only country-related FA left in the queue. The last country article to be featured was Pakistan which appeared on main page on May 29, 2006. Bangladesh was nominated in mid april, and now in the last quarted of the queue. So, would you please consider having it in the main page sometime in July? Thank you. --Ragib 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for scheduling it for July 14. --Ragib 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark

This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Raul654 18:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Promotional zoophilia

Hello Raul

Any justifications for your reversion? JHartley 06:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Zoophilia Raul654 06:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply Raul. JHartley 06:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gremlins

Hi Raul, would Gremlins 2 be a suitable article to propose for the main page, or is it too trivial? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no issues with featuring it at some point. Raul654 04:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoophilia - thank you

I didn't realize you were still watching this? Or did you pick it up on Recent Changes patrol. Either way, I thought that as you're (apparently) watching it, you'd like the following information.

Following the FAC review, I've decided to try and move key areas to their own articles, in summary style, which the review really made me realize were not rounded out. Zoosexuality and the law is one written since FAC review, and the unpublished draft Animal pornography another.

I'm having to take a break from working on these though, to fix up the Neuro-linguistic programming area, which was heavily damaged by forged cites from a recently blocked sock-master HeadleyDown, after which I'll be coming back to fix those up and get the main article ready for FAC 2.

It was a tough article to get ready, and FAC review has helped clarify a lot for me about how to improve it further. Many thanks for your help and support, for running F.A. -- and see you around on this or other articles.

08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

==Richard III (1955 film) FAC==

Hey, uh, this article has been up at FAC for quite some time, and consensus has been reached for quite a few days, with 3 Objections withdrawn (1 weak), and 5 Supports (1 weak). So...what's going on? ...._(Complain) 01:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Has Monocrat withdrawn his objection? Raul654 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he most certainly has. Sorry for the late response, I was expecting you to post on my talk page ...._(Complain) 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiStress

I noticed your WikiStress meter is up high, is there anything I can do to help lower your WikiStress? Minun 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Micronation FAC

A user tried to create a FAC for Micronations at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jasper High School, which I moved to its own subpage at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Micronations, before I realized that there was an orphaned (and apparently never properly completed) nomination from a couple of weeks ago at the correct location: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Micronation. Not sure how you want to treat this. — TKD::Talk 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Put it on the FAC (which I see you have already done). Raul654 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan FA

You made her the featured article for today - this also coincides with her birthday. Did you intend for this to happen? --NicAgent 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was specifically requested for today. Raul654 02:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who's the secret admirer?  ;) (Not me, though I welcome the move.) —an odd name 17:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Raul654#Greetings.2C_Mark.21 Raul654 18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Lindsay Lohan:

You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Featuring Lastovo

Please don't feature Lastovo for the time being. Some images appear to have been mislabeled as GFDL or public domain -- see User talk:Luka Jačov. I'm removing them (the user is trying to restore them), but the whole article should probably undergo copyright review.--Eloquence* 17:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem cause images are self-made. Luka Jačov 17:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just reverted to the version from a few days ago that didn't have a trivia section (sans the pictures eloquence removed). Trivia sections are very, very bad writing. Converting well written prose into trivia lists is a major step backwards. Raul654 17:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the pictures - a couple of them look self-made, but the one of hte island looks like it was taken from a jet or helicopter. Raul654 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to continue this on Luka's talk page.--Eloquence* 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've recheduled another geography article in Lastovo's place. Raul654 18:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok remove disputed picture but just give the article back. Luka Jačov 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Could you please anwser me? Luka Jačov 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've listed the article at WP:FAR because it has some considerable problems that need to be solved. I'd also support putting off its display on the Main Page for now. Besides the image copyright problems (which are apparent), it needs some more work to actually be ready for the Main Page, because it seems not to meet important FA criteria. Todor→Bozhinov 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Before it can go on the main page, the image issue needs to be worked out to Eloquence's satisfaction, and the trivia section must be removed (FAs should avoid lists in general, and should never, ever have trivia sections). I'm not sure what other issues Todor is referring to though. Raul654 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove pics remove trivia just get it back... Luka Jačov 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So could you please return it back...:-( Luka Jačov 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I've listed the issues with the article at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Lastovo. They include a badly needed copyedit, more refs, better formatting (the article uses hyphens instead of dashes), etc. I'm not sure whether these could prevent it from hitting the Main Page, but it simply doesn't look ready this way. Let alone those copyvios. Todor→Bozhinov 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The number of refs is fine, and hyphens versus dashes are a trivial issue. The images eloquence flagged are not used in the article any longer, so I don't see any reason why this shouldn't go on the main page. Raul654 19:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's OK now. I was referring not to the number of refs, but to several unsourced statements and some weasel words, but they were in the Trivia section that was removed. I'd be happy to see it on the Main Page now. Todor→Bozhinov 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been of the same opinion regarding Luka Jacov - see my opinions i have posted on User_talk:TodorBozhinov user talk page. I have ancestry linked to the island and only want to contribute to that particular article to make it better. I was excited to see it nominated for the main page, but understand that it is probably not fit to be put there due to current concerns. Please let me know what needs to be done, and if the chance arises to link it to the main page then that would be great. I also ask if Luka has done contributing to the article then please refrain from dominating the article, especially when your opinions are in the minority or go against the general concensus reached in peer reviews and the featured article process. Best regards Uvouvo 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cryptography

Lastovo copyvios

As I said, I suspect there are more copyvios throughout the text -- see User talk:Luka Jačov; the user has been warned about copying and pasting text in the past. Some quick checking immediately turned out a copied passage from http://www.adriatica.net/croatia/feature/lastovo_en.htm , i.e. the text from "Origins of the Lastovo Poklad" has been copied verbatim. The site has a copyright notice from 2000, and archive.org turns up a copy from 2002, while the Misplaced Pages article was created in 2005. I really think the article needs to be subjected to systematic copyright check, with possible deletion of many old revisions due to copyvio.--Eloquence* 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont worry we've got the permission... Luka Jačov 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are too many issues cropping up for me to be comfortable running this article on the main page. I think I'll put this one on the back burner for a while. Raul654 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me user Eloquence is not quite sane person and he is trying to sabotage article apparence for the reasons only he knows you really should put article... Luka Jačov 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Keeping ourselves lawsuit free is definitely in the best interests of the project, and that's what Eloquence is looking out for. Raul654 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on this paranoia should be stopped nobody is going to sue cos of couple of pictures us in worse case they are just goin to tell us to remove the content. Most people and especially small comunities like Lastovo would be more than happy that their picture appear on wikipedia. Picture are taken by Lastovo tourist community that gave blessing of appearing their picture on wikipedia... Luka Jačov 21:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the point you are making - however, there is no such record of any of this on the image pages of the various images, or linked into the text in teh article, or in the permissions queue of Misplaced Pages's email system. Until these issues are straigthened out, it shouldn't go on the main page. Raul654 21:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

could you please reply me.. Luka Jačov 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

ok remove the picture and diputed text and then its suitable Luka Jačov 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is everything ok now? can u put it back? Luka Jačov 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, as I said, I think this article needs a good looking over first. I'll let people comb over it first and it everything is settled aftwerards, I'll put it back into the queue. Raul654 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its not fear... Luka Jačov 21:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I am going to ask for permissions, Can you give me your mail so they could send you aswell? Luka Jačov 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Have everything cc'd to: permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org Raul654 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, make sure the terms of the permission is as clear as possible. Vague permission grants are not helpful. Raul654 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What is cc? Luka Jačov 22:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I ve got permission for image Fumari.jpg. Luka Jačov 23:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been of the same opinion regarding Luka Jacov - see my opinions i have posted on User_talk:TodorBozhinov user talk page. I have ancestry linked to the island and only want to contribute to that particular article to make it better. I was excited to see it nominated for the main page, but understand that it is probably not fit to be put there due to current concerns. Please let me know what needs to be done, and if the chance arises to link it to the main page then that would be great. I also ask if Luka has done contributing to the article then please refrain from dominating the article, especially when your opinions are in the minority or go against the general concensus reached in peer reviews and the featured article process. Best regards Uvouvo 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter Confederate flag edit

I'd like to ask you to revert your recent edits to this very sensitive section. (I don't revert people myself.) The "kente cloth" quote is taken out of the context of a long article about the confederate flag (it was comparing two textiles, each of which could be seen by someone who wanted to as a symbol of slavery). Whoever posted the quote asserted that it generated controversy, but nobody could ever find any actual public debate or argument about it (other than assuming from their own POV that it was controversial). The edit not only removed the request to provide evidence of the controversy, but removed a link to the full text of the original article where folks could make up their minds about the "cherry-picked" nature of the quote in context. (My belief, which is shared by others in talk, is that the quote WAS cherry-picked to make it seem as though Coulter was being critical of negroes (both American and West African.))

The remaining link is not to full text of the article, but only identifies a book in which the article may have been reprinted. Since most viewers don't have the book, they can't even tell if the link/reference is valid.

Additionally, I don't understand the comment you made about "wrote about writing," or whatever it was. If there was some clunky language, surely it could have been fixed without removing all the other stuff. Lou Sander 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote does not come from the jewish world review article; it comes from Coulter's How To Talk to a Liberal book (which I do not own so I cannot provide a specific page number; I found it by searching the web for that particular quotation). However, it is definitely misleading to point to the jewish world review article as the source of the issue when the quote itself is taken from coulter's much more widely read book.

That's why JWR wasn't sourced for the quote, but as a way to look at the whole thing in the Confederate flag context. I'm guessing that the book didn't just repeat the columns verbatim, but that it embellished them. The kente quote in the article seems (to me) to be an expansion of the kente quote in JWR. Maybe I ass-u-me too much about that. Lou Sander 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And yes, it did cause a controversy - "Since Coulter’s topic was the Confederate flag issue, a confrontation of some sort was inevitable. Previously Coulter had written a column on the Confederate battle flag which pointed out that slavery had existed longer under the Stars and Stripes than under the Stars and Bars, that the flag symbolized more than the slavery cause, and that, in any case, there were no visible pro-slavery advocates around to make leftist concerns about the implications of its presence valid. These mildly expressed views were a call to arms to the Cornell vigilantes." - and that's coming from a arch-conservative David Horowitz.

Now THERE'S yer trouble, or actually two of them -- 1) there WAS a controversy, but nobody ever provided a citation for it. Not only that, but a well-meaning person deleted the call for a citation. And 2) the controversy was about the Confederate flag part of the article, but the quote alleging a controversy was from a minor kinte cloth paragraph. IMHO, he/she who used the kente quote was trying to impute racism to Ms. Coulter. Why else would they quote a paragraph that was only used to illustrate Coulter's flag argument? Lou Sander 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the sentence I removed, it was horribly clunky: She wrote that it is wrong to condemn the Confederate flag on the grounds that it was a symbol of slavery by writing: (emphasis mine), but this could probably be fixed with some rephrasing. Raul654 22:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Clunky, yes. Horribly clunky? Well, OK, maybe. ;-) I didn't see it because it's hard to separate the plain English in an edit that includes a lot of reference stuff. Lou Sander 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bluegene/p

It is indeed to achieve a capacity of 1 Petaflop at least. Take a look at the discussion, if you need I can provide additional info.

The documents you cited are ancient - the powerpoint was two years old, and the article was 3 years old. In that time, I know of at least 3 other projects that claim they will be the first to achieve a petaflop. Take those claims with a large grain of salt, and the older documents in particular are not valid. Raul654 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Spoken Misplaced Pages}}

I have an idea you might like regarding the {{Spoken Misplaced Pages}} template. I have just noticed that similar ideas have been suggested some time ago. You can find (and modify, if you like) my proposed template at User:T J McKenzie/Spoken Misplaced Pages, and here's what it would look like:

This could be put at the top of an article, as, for example, {{otheruses}} is. Benefits include the following:

1. No icon anywhere.
2. It's wrapped in {{selfref}}, so mirrors that blank that template won't need to worry about the metadata.
3. The link is to :Image: rather than Media:, so interested people can find out relevant information about the recording, but people who aren't interested don't need to put up with this information being in the body of the article.
4. At the top, it can be read easily by eyes or a screenreader before reading the rest of the article.
5. It will simplify the task of people uploading recordings; it makes no difference how many parts they upload the recording in, and they needn't specify the date in two places (as with the status quo, where they have to specify it in both {{Spoken Misplaced Pages}} in the article and {{Spoken article entry}} with the actual recording).

In its current state, this would be used in conjunction with a suggestion that has recently been revived. If that suggestion isn't put into practice, then this template would also need

<includeonly>]</includeonly>

thrown in, too.

I believe that if this goes ahead, then the changeover would require a bot to move all the existing transclusions of this template up to the top of articles. I hope this wouldn't be too difficult.

It has just occurred to me that the {{selfref}} wrapper may not be necessary. Do mirrors usually copy the Image namespace over? If so, then the link wouldn't be broken at all, and it's not as if it says something like "Misplaced Pages has a spoken version of this article.". I don't know. What do you think?

I hope you like this idea. It could help solve your issue with the proliferation of icons. If you do like it, we can suggest and support this idea at Template talk:Spoken Misplaced Pages. T J McKenzie 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! The spoken article template belong at the bottom of the article, in the external links, where the documentation says it should be. It should NOT be placed at the top of an article. Raul654 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does this template belong in external links? --T J McKenzie 09:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it has been decided that the spoken template is roughly equivalent to the sister project templates, and teh external link section is where those belong. Moreover, it is in very bad form to start putting large banners all over articles. Raul654 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that in its current form, the Spoken Misplaced Pages template is far too cumbersome to go at the top of articles. However, what I've suggested above is much more discreet; more discreet than, for example, {{redirect3}} is in Rocky Mountains, where it runs onto two lines in my browser; and at least as discreet as pretty much all of the Disambiguation and redirection templates. --T J McKenzie 06:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

Thanks for putting this on the main page. Your changes to the intro are fine, but there are some capitalization errors both added and preexisting that don't seem to be getting responded to at Misplaced Pages:Main_Page/Errors. Joturner has summed it up there. Are you the only one with the ability to edit the TFA on the main page? savidan 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alison Krauss

Hiya Raul! As you may or may not know I've been working on Alison Krauss for a while now, and have it nominated at FAC. Currently the voting stands at 3 oppose, 2 support, 0 neutral, and I would have absolutely no issue with it failing, my working on the article to fix anything requested, and nominating again. However, despite repeated attempts over a long period of time to get the three oppose voters to re-examine the article (Their only requests were to make the article more comprehensive and I've added a very detailed "Artistry" section after the style of Mariah Carey, filled out the bio info, and fixed up the references). What is the proper conduct in this situation? The voting stagnated after the three opposes, but I've fixed their requests and they haven't even responded on my talk page let alone the FAC. I'd hate to go through all the work of fixing the article up, re-nominating it (though, I've already done the fixes they've requested so I don't really know what else to do) and having the FAC fall apart again with unresponsive opposition. What should I do? Staxringold _talk 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Raul! That was such a nice thing to do! I swear I'll continue to work at fixing any objections people bring up, I was just worried by the 3 who stopped responding that brought voting to a near-stop. Thanks again! Staxringold _talk 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fumar

I also got permission for that picture as well and told the guy to send permission to permissions@wikimedia.org as well. If it didnt come maybe its because guy doesnt knows english and he send it in italian. If you want check it let some Italian speaking user send him mail: info@gianfrancogervasi.it . Luka Jačov 11:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I have fixed the image page accordingly. Raul654 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So does he speaks english? Luka Jačov 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but an immediate family member of mine speaks italian natively. Raul654 21:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Iqbal FAC

Hi Raul654 - is there a particular problem to fix with this article? I've addressed most concerns. There have been a couple of anons engaging in revert wars and violating WP:NPA, but the main issues have been discussed and solved,. This Fire Burns....Always 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to promote until I see the people who registerd teh objections agreeing that they have been addressed. Raul654 04:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1st person to object was user:Anwar saadat. I've addressed his objections, but as you may know/did not know, Saadat is a continual opposer of Indian subject FACs/RfAs and violator of WP:NPA - the problem has been serious enough for several users to ask that he be taken to RfC. Also his two points here:

(1) Article is "poorly written" and "difficult to pin-point Iqbal as progressive and regreesive": the fact is, the article must not offer an opinion about Iqbal. The article tackles his life and work in a most chronological manner, separating poetry from politics. Iqbal's opposition to Western values like secularism cannot be branded as "regressive."

(2) It is not fair to assume that Iqbal was secular pre-WWI because of his rigorous Islamic faith and grounding. "Law practise" is the correct use of British-Indian-English.

Saadat placed a similar "object" vote on Sikhism, citing user:Zafiroblue05's objection but did not rescind his objection when Zafiroblue05 himself did so.

I'm not trying to malign this user, but I have legitimate reason to point out that his object vote is not WP:AGF. Any valid reasoning has been addressed by me. And user:Arniep cited Anwar's rationale, which has been addressed. Nevertheless, I respect your concern and hope you'll let me know what you think now, so I can get to work on it. Thanks, This Fire Burns....Always 04:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

Hi,

How do I get the FA star on top of the newly FA'd Knights of Columbus article? --Briancua 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RN beat me to it - Raul654 06:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Andy's suggestions

Date links. AndyZ has been advising people to act contrary to the MOS, not in compliance with it. Being linked from the WIAFA page legitimises this. Rebecca 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear... Raul654 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOVing the zoophilia article

Hi Raul. I believe you are the more independent of the editors on the zoophilia artilce. Which of these versions of the opening do you consider the more neutral and less argumentative: My version:

Or the more recent version?:

I have placed some more argument for this on the zoophilia talkpage.

JHartley 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Using this diff - I think your version of the introduction is generally better, although there are a few things I would tweak. In order: "perform sexual acts with animals" is far less kludgy than "exercise their philia". The "Legal and ethical experts...zoophilia should be illegal" sentence is probably too specific and too hotly debated to go into the intro; I think it should be stated later in the article. I have no opinion on which paragraph (the DSM or the crime against nature paragraph) should go first, but I think your version of the crime against nature paragraph is clearly better. And I'm very much in favor of using a simple {{otheruses}} rather than the more detailed 'here's a defintion before we actually define it in the article' otheruses template. (and while I'm on that note - I fail to see Zoosexuality and zoophilia are seperate topics deserving seperate articles) Raul654 06:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much Raul. I'll see if I can make some satisfactory adjustments. I appreciate your input. JHartley 07:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Iqbal Article

Hi, I have very genuine concerns about the factual accuracy of the Iqbal article. I think it would be great if somone who's not from Asia to discuss this issue in an unbiased manner. I'll make further comments on the talk page. --66.25.124.237 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article request

Mister Essjay - I'd like to request an article on Advocatus dei (God's advocate) Raul654 06:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article writing? Is that for the encyclopedia thing I keep hearing we have on here? Oh, and it's Doctor Essjay, you lowly Ph.D. candidate! ;) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo

Did you got permission from this site www.lastovo.net cause I did so if you didnt send them mail again. Regards! Luka Jačov 11:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. I have updated Image:Kuzma.jpg accordingly. Raul654 15:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin actions

Where on earth have I commented on an admin action aside from an admin's own talk page? Everyking 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I had forgotten we had carved out that exception for other admin's talk pages. However, that exception was *not* created to allow you to harass others. Raul654 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In the future, please carefully review situations before commenting on them. Everyking 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on your comments to EM, and your previous violations, and your recent edits to several Ashlee Simpson articles, the arbitration committee is currently discussing a series of modifications to our previous remedies. Raul654 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be fascinated to see how these modifications can be made to work within the context of the existing ruling. My comments to EM are protected by the ruling, Ashlee Simpson articles have nothing whatsoever to do with the ruling, and as for "previous violations", I haven't been blocked in months—and you in fact were the one who unblocked me on that last occasion. Everyking 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As you have a well established record of testing the boundaries of such remedies, and as there has been little apparent change in your behavior since we institutied it, in all likelihood, the new remedies will be more encompasing and permanent in duration. Insofar as Ashlee Simpson, since you have gone back to your old editing habits, we will have be reconsidering our decision to let you edit those freely. And as far as me unblocking you - I did it contigent on you changing your behavior and avoiding conflict. Shifting the harassment from the ANI to their individual talk pages is hardly an improvement. Raul654 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm hmmm. Can you explain exactly what you find objectionable about my conduct on the Ashlee Simpson articles? I have been significantly less aggressive on the matter than EM, confining most of the controversy to the talk pages, so why does EM get the the apparent backing and me the opprobrium? This was an equally good question 18 months ago, but I don't remember getting an answer back then. Everyking 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Which of the two of you had multiple arbcom cases revolving around a tendancy to cram ashley simpson-related articles full of cruft, when everyone else in the community said otherwise? Raul654 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to "Here is my attack"

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. I sincerely apologize for my actions. Because you are a beauracrat, could you restore my old pages as well? I am truly sorry, and I especially apologize to John Reid. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FFX FAC

Heya Raul; I was wondering if anyone has approached you yet asking for a July 19th selection date for a front page display of Final Fantasy X. Is this still possible? Thanks! — Deckiller 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the front page thing works, but maybe FFX can take the 11th instead of Microsoft as (perfectionist side speaking here) I've got some tidies I'd like to do before it goes up. (I don't personally mind if it means another month or two wait). RN 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually did make the request a while back, but it hasn't been accepted or rejected yet. I appreciate your offer of the 11th (and would gladly accept it if Raul couldn't find another way to fit it in), but if possible, I'd prefer the 19th (which is still an empty slot at the moment) since that will be the fifth anniversary of FFX's release. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article

Hi, I'm wondering if you have time to speedy delete the above recreated metadata template (as you closed the original debate, it has since been recreated and speedy deleted a couple of times). It places a star in the top corner of an article. Thanks. Niz 12:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: its since been speedy-deleted by another admin... now you may be interested in the new deletion review at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8. Niz 12:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Email for you

Email headed your way. Can you let me know whether in fact it is important, or what you think? Many thanks :)

FT2 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalsim?

Hello Raul. (Note wasn't signed in when I reverted) Why do you consider my addition to culture:United States vandalism? This information is verifiable and true. ? Would you like to re-write it?HappyVR 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect, not to mention ludicriously biased, to the point of being vandalism. Raul654 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What about gauntanamo bay, bombing of vietnam, operation in iraq(illegal under international law). All these are examples of the systematic (state sponsered) abuse of other human beings, which includes murder, multilation and terrorism.HappyVR 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this ridiculous point. Raul654 18:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

FA date request

While you generally try to make FAs completely random in when they appear on the main page, if I provided 50-100 possible dates for you for Sesame Street, would you consider? They'd be essentially random to even the biggest Sesame afficiado, but have meaning. -- Zanimum 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

50 to 100 dates is overkill. How about you provide 2 or 3 dates in July or August? Raul654 23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy

did you see the diff?? - CrazyRougeian talk/email 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I so object. Email me for more discussion of this if you want. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 04:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What's going on, Mark? Are you unblocking - or have you accepted my position - or are you still thinking about it? - CrazyRougeian talk/email 05:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 06:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My unblock

I appreciate you unblocking me, and I appreciate Bishonen's contacting you. I would prefer that my account remain blocked for a year though. I intend on taking a vacation from Misplaced Pages, but the damned thing's gotten rather addictive. Right now I don't have the time or the will to engage in a lengthy process with Arbcomm, and would prefer a decided course of action be made without all the mess. A year-long block should solve the problem. My past arguements and the quality of the some of the Islam-related articles demonstrate the point I make on the POV-bias here, and I only request that people take a look at it. The problem is for everyone to see, and I really can't stomach trying to draw attention to these problems again. His Excellency... 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)