Raul654

Greetings

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

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

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

Pundit

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

Sony V Betamax

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

RYE and Rye

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

Use minor edit less often

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

Redirects

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

Pics policies

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

Ok, thanks for the heads up

Alan Turing

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

Whoops

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

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

thanks!

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

Computer science v computer engineering

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

mental connection

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

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

---

Google Likes (delete)

Raul wrote:

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

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

Sterlingda 07:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You're an admin

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

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

Admin policies

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

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

Finally

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

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

Brilliant Prose

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

Foundation's Friends

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

Rudolf Heß vs. Rudolf Hess

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

---

Village Pump

Thanks for your kind words at the Village Pump. Ensiform

Groin

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

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

User:Mark

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

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

Wikipedia:protected page

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Re: The requested articles page

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

Main page

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

Family Guy

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

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

Rename of Wikipedia:Brilliant prose

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

Fair use on Operation Downfall

Raul, please check:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BP nomination

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

Main Page (2)

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

Double Jeopardy, Res Judicata, & Collateral Estoppel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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