User talk:Raul654

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

Talk-page archive

Hemingway as a featured article

Is it possible for you to provide the log for Ernest Hemingway being voted as a featured article? I've try tracking it down but to no avail. Please answer at my page as this talk page is pretty long. I'm really curious to know who would support this garbage on the main page. It really is garbage (for a record, try to read it). Thanks. Mandel 13:56, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ernest Hemmingway was added to the featured articles on July 19, 2003 (page diff). This was before we started logging the nominations. I checked the page history for the candidates page (hist) and there is no record of it. IE, Hemmingway was apparently added to the featured articles without any discussion. →Raul654 18:25, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

So it is still a featured article? Mandel 11:07, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

FAC screwup

I'm really sorry about that. I went by the one week-no objections guideline and didn't think further about it. In my defense, I don't remember ever seeing it in the list of articles with unresolved objections (could you point me to an old revision/diff ?), and I don't think it had much business down there anyway considering that the only objections against it were the lack of an image (which was addressed) and an irrelevant comment about Vi being better. Thank you for bringing the issue to my attention and my sincere apologies for the trouble. - Fredrik (talk) 22:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

re last comment

Listen, I'm not trying to be childish here, but if you're going to remove my last comment (which was not a threat in the slightest; it was a promise) and put a potentially damaging summary out there to boot, the least you could have done is remove Sam's remark as well. We don't just remove other people's posts from talk pages; it should go back in. Exploding Boy 03:23, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't mean to offend you. I have reverted myself. →Raul654 03:25, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Exploding Boy 03:27, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sound images (ahem)

Hey Mr sound-expert :) I've finally uploaded my first sound files. As you may know, I'm something of a "wikify the image page" fascist, and the way mediawiki seems to work it has all media (not just images) have their descriptions on :Image: pages (Ballblazer (ogg) | Ballblazer (mp3)). Everything works fine, but it's a bit offputting - am I doing anything silly here? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, you're exactly right. The image namespace is used for files of all types. →Raul654 18:00, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Protection of Ingoolemo's userpage

To Raul654, If I were to type up the exact text of an edited version of my userpage, so that all you had to do was copy and paste it into the edit window, would you be willing to do that for me? Will it be too much trouble for you? (Note: I don't plan to do anything like that yet, I'm just asking in case I need the servise.) Thanks, --Ingoolemo 01:10, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. →Raul654 01:28, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Harry Potter book covers

I like the covers you scanned in, and it would be nice if we could also get copies of the British versions. However, I wondered if you ought to credit the original artist on the Image pages? --Phil | Talk 08:43, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have added the credit information. As far as British versions, I can't help you there. →Raul654 08:51, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Gay Bias?

To be honest, I am not sure I entirely follow. What is exactly is meant by holding a "pro-gay bias"? That I am in favour of homosexuality? This seems entirely nonsensical, and indeed strictly speaking to be "pro-gay" would mean you hold that it is a superior sexual orientation that all should aspire to. To be quite honest, I think the whole notion of a "pro-gay bias" is entirely homophobic, and used to paint those who accept different sexual orientations in a manner that suggests they desire to promote homosexuality. Clearly, the article has a distinctly homophobic bias. It portrays a homosexuality as abnormal and deviant, homosexuality as a "post-industrial" cosmopolitan lifestyle, and homosexuality as the social norm. These are all strongly homophobic POVs which are rejected by those who accept different sexual orientations (i.e., the majority of society in the West, and specifically progressives and social liberals). Those who hold such beliefs are indeed social conservatives who defend traditional morality and particularly heterosexual relationships. Stating the views of social-conservatives as objective facts, without even engaging with the beliefs of the majority of society who accept homosexuality, is clearly and irrefutably extremely biased. As is the implication that homosexuality has supposedly "increased" as a result of the "modern urbanity of the post-industrial age", when in fact it is irrefutably due to the increasing acceptance of people's sexualities that has occurred in Western society in the 20th Century. On these grounds, I intend to revert this article. Jonesy 10:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: spamming warning

Raul,

Thank you for informing me that I was spamming; I didn't realize that I was. I just found Wikipedia recently, and I wanted to add something to the articles. However, I didn't know how to go about it, and apparently, I did something wrong.

Can you explain to me what exactly I did that constituted "spamming" (because I don't think that simply editing multiple enties is spamming -- is it?) and how I can avoid it in the future?

Also, how do I get a user account on Wikipedia? I'd like to get one, unless it costs money or requires information that I'm not willing to give.

Thanks! (138.88.201.19)

If you want a wikipedia account, it's completely free and (unlike most sites) does not even require an email address. Simply click "Log In" at the top right of any page on the site, type in the username/password you want, and click "Create account". Viola - account created.

In general, "spamming" on Wikipedia means adding links to the same site from a large number of articles. The site you were adding links to is (with all respect) sub-par - summaries of books that are 3 sentences long. We tend to be very sensetive to it because (a) we get a lot of it and (b) most of us hold spammers in the lowest regard. Any anonomyous user (that is, someone who edits without logging in) who adds large numbers of links to the same site is going to send up a lot of red flags. As a general rule, we only link to content we wouldn't normally include ourselves.

I hope this has answered your questions. →Raul654 22:44, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

PS: Please sign all your comments by typing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of it.

Thank you for your help -- I've created an account. Do you mind if I ask you whatever questions about this site I may have in the future? (Of course, I'll check the help pages first, but I may not be able to find what I'm looking for.)

And yes, that is definitely an understandable definition of "spamming" for a site like this. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Is there anything I can do to correct my spamming? Or has it already been dealt with?

And, last thing, I promise: How do you post a reply to a thread on a discussion page? The way I wrote this reply was to directly edit the comment; I'm sure there's another (easier) way.

Bbhtryoink 22:08, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikistress images

I've made an improved set: Image:Wikistress1.png, Image:Wikistress2.png, Image:Wikistress3.png, Image:Wikistress4.png.

-- Fredrik (talk) 20:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Psychohistory_(fictional). Does any of this ring a bell? RK 03:12, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you have me listed on the quick poll? Do you have any idea what's happening to me? Today I logged on and found that all the changes that I'd made from the day before were reverted by a user who just went through my user history and reverted all of my edits arbitrarily. So, I made one attempt to restore each of my edits; but VeryVerily reverted all of those changes automatically. I could've reverted his reverts, but today I just let VeryVerily stop me from editing articles (after joining the "harmonious editing club" around a week ago).

I did not break the 3-revert war today. That's why his version are on top of each of those articles. Don't you see what's happening? I'm getting banned for having a stalker and not doing anything about it this time. Please change your vote. 172 23:36, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you volunteer?

I think an admin needs to check out the following. Seems someone who knows their way around wikipedia is playing a game.

First, check Elizabeth Mytton Wilbraham which was posted by User:209.96.179.60. Check his talk page, where I left a message inviting comment. The page has since been blanked and the edit history shows nothing. I listed the article on the Vfd page earlier, but then, User:209.96.179.150 amended it (and obviously must have seen the Vfd message at the top).
User:209.96.179.26 then created an article Peter Harrison in exactly the same style and with outlandish claims as the Wilbraham article. It was subsequently edited by User:209.96.179.150.
I suspect User:209.96.179.60, User:209.96.179.150 and User:209.96.179.26 are the same person. Neither of them has a previous edit history.
You might be interested to learn that the Harrison in the second article "is largely responsible for America speaking English today and for India remaining in the British fold for 200 more years". Moriori 23:45, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Since I know precious little about architecture, I can't really evaluate the claims on the their merits. As a layman, they do seem a bit suspicious. The proper thing to do would be to list them both on the VFD. →Raul654 02:34, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hemingway as a Featured Article?

Sorry to be repeating myself, you seem not to have seen my last entry. But is the Hemingway article still considered featured? There wasn't any reply last time round. Mandel 00:29, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your reply to my replty. Yes, Hemmingway it is still a featured article. Give me a couple days and I'll start proceedings to remove it. →Raul654 02:39, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll

If you logged on and found out that all the changes you'd made the previous time you'd logged on were reverted by a stalker, were you involved in the rampage or the victim of a rampage? I was the victim of a rampage and in order not to break the 3-revert rule, I let VeryVerily have the top versions of all the articles he'd reverted by not fighting to revert his reversions. The unfairness of the users voting to ban me along with VeryVerily is mind-blowing. 172 08:06, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not go through a large number of articles and search-replace the word "American" with "U.S."? (while, for the record, the manual of style explicetely says to use US over U.S.) This is the very same issue that came up at My Lai massacre over a week ago - I started discussion on that talk page about this issue, but neither of you participated. So by going and making the same controversial edit to numerous articles, VV's response was quite predictable. Now, I would like to say it is good to see you abiding by the three revert rule now - it does speak quite a bit in your favor. I noticed that you left a message on his talk page as well asking to settle the issue privately - this too speaks in your favor.

I would like to respectfully suggest that, had you tried talking about the issue when it came up before, this whole thing (or at least the current version thereof) could have been avoided. If the consensus was to go with "US" instead of American and NLF instead of Vietcong, then so be it. If VV refused to abide by group consensus, I would have started a quickpoll on him only.

Let me level with you - the rest of us are very, very tired of seeing you two constantly at war with each other. I'm sympathetic to your claim that he follows you around to start edit wars- I haven't verified it, but I trust that it's true. Even if it is, per se, there is no rule that you cannot follow someone around. (For the record, this can be a valuable technique. I did this to user:Plautus satire so as to keep him in check. He was a well-known troll who has now been banned by the AC for 1 year) I'd like to suggest that if you cannot settle your differences privately, that you get ask the AC to look into the case, and specifically get them to issue an injunction to prevent VV from following you. →Raul654 08:33, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Insult

I have not insulted you. If you feel I have, feel free to explain it. I don't agree w your reasoning regarding featured article promotions. I suspect EB is biased in favor of having his article promoted, and would like to push it thru based on what I hope are your unusual interpretations of policy. I definitely do not think you are impartial on this subject, but I also don't think you are tying to "cheat". I simply don't think your statement here shows proper regard for objections to any page. The fact that I think EB may like for you to excersize such a judgement in this case does not to me seem to be unreasonable nor insulting. Please discuss any theoretical insults on my talk page (rather than in public discussion). Thank you, Sam [Spade] 16:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I checked further, and my original statement that "As the policy is currently written, yes" was incorrect. The policy says If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. -- consensus does not necessitate unanimity. If there is suffecient support, one or two objections is not enough to derail a nomination. So my actions in the past have been in complete harmony with existing policy.

Second, while I am willing to admit that I *do* have an opinion on the article in question - from what I have seen, I happen to think it's well written (but I was trying not to read it so as not to form an opinion). On the other hand, I think I have been exceedingly fair in my treatment of both of you. I don't see what else I could have done to act impartially. Your statement ("I am aware of your attempts to ... push this article thru w the assistance of raul") implies that I am not acting in good faith as a moderator and that I am conspiring with EB. →Raul654 17:22, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

For the record I don't assume bad faith, nor do I suspect conspiracy on the part of you or EB. I will mention that on the talk page in question. Sam [Spade] 17:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Iridology / Alternative medicine

The last time alternative medicine was protected it was protected against User:RK [1]. And, that protection lasted only a few days. RK's editing resulted in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK as well as in a quickpoll on RK which was started by somebody other than me. RK's behavior in the current situation is exactly the same, in my opnion. I did in fact post RK on User talk:RK which he ignored [2]. Iridology has been protected since May 25, 2004. That is clearly too long. I did not protest your page protection of Iridology at the time, because I was not remotely interested in editing Iridology. If there was an edit war going on in Iridology, I a major player in this so-called edit war certainly was not aware of it. My only interest in editing Iridology now is to update the infobox and to remove the right margin from the image of the eye.

I would like the page protection removed from Iridology, now. And, from Alternative medicine in a few days per the above. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 18:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that iridology has been protected for a long time (not nessarily "too" long, but long enough). While there is some discussion going occuring on the talk page, I don't see a whole lot, so I have unprotected it.

As to alt. medicine, I suggest that you wait a few days and then request unprotection on Wikipedia:Requests for protection. →Raul654 18:17, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Featuring "History of Scotland"

A while ago you asked me to "enpicture" History of Scotland. I've done so, and the copy has greatly grown on me in the process. I don't think you should feature it yet (I've asked User:Derek Ross, its original author, to give it a onceover first). Assuming he's happy, who writes the one or two paragraphs that are shown in summary on the main page? If you want, I'm sure Derek and I can cook that up too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy to feature that on the main page when you think it appropriate. The lead in section doesn't quite fit the main page though, so you might want to suggest the copy to use was well. →Raul654 23:18, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

User:Abigail-II

I have just sent Abigail-II an E-mail regarding her leaving - I gave a shot at convincing her not to leave. --Marcus2

Raul,

I seem to be the "bad apple" you are referring to. Your name rings a bell... I think we both tangled with Plautus satire.

Please take a look at the pre-blanking version of User talk:Abigail-II. There have in fact been attempts at discussion, but she is apparently objecting to the fact that it's taking place on her talk page rather than somewhere else.

-- Curps 00:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey Curps. Sorry, I didn't even know it was you. I just assumed she was referring to anon vandalims. →Raul654 00:20, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Accidental deletion

Sorry, I have no idea. I can only assume it was a caching issue since I all I did was add <nowiki> to the page. Thanks for noticing it. --Angela . 01:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am a vandal (curse those Romans!)

Please inform me on how I was vandalising Zionism... (Powerpleb)

Perhaps I mislabeled you, but a new account adding "controversial" content to the day's featured article (which for today, happens to be *very* vandalism proned), and marking it as minor is a very common type of vandalism. →Raul654 05:03, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

PS - please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~)

OK, I understand where you're coming from and accept that I made a mistake. So if I add it again not marking it as minor it won't be vandalism?

I think that controversial content is what makes Wikipedia great. And if some facts don't fit with people's beliefs then that's too bad, we're here to educate. Thanks for your help. Powerpleb 05:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is supposed to maintain a neutral tone. Your edits have been blatantly POV. →Raul654 05:27, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I thought it was neutral. If you're not satisfied add to what I say to make it neutral. Surely you're not endorsing the denial of facts in the name of "neutrality" Powerpleb 05:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please tell me if my most recent addition is neutral enough. Thanks. Powerpleb 05:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

rights question

Could you please look into the source right issue for of , which you uploaded? The issue is currently the only objection to upgrading Alan Turing to a featured article. -- Jmabel 04:30, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. The photo appears to be AMT/K/7/9, from [3]. In general, it says "You are granted permission to view these images, and except where otherwise indicated to make a single printed copy of any image for your personal research. If a copyright or credit line appears on the page containing the image you are responsible for ensuring that the same information is reproduced on your printed copy. You are not granted any other rights to publish or reproduce material from the archive except those described above. Permission for any other use of an image from the archive (e.g. for reproduction on your web site) must be sought from the rights holder for that image.". But the page for that individual series of photos it says ""Reasonable attempts have been made to contact the copyright owner of this document." So the current "we don't know" tag on the image seems justified. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think Finlay has answered this for me :) →Raul654 18:06, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Rights on an Image

I'm wondering about the rights for the image that is displayed in Ralph Nader, the only reason I'm asking is that it has no line about it on the image page and I was curious. Ilyanep 20:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I'm not sure. I added that one when I was pretty new here, so I wasn't as careful w/ respect to copyright as I should have been. →Raul654 20:34, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Academia FAC status

Hi, see that talk page for my response to your helpful summary of objections. Thanks - Taxman 18:02, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'll post to the FAC about it. →Raul654 00:20, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Bitching?

The Wikipedia discussion forum was setup for a peaceful debate purpose. It is a democratic setup where users can voice their opinion about issues. If you don't agree to what other people say, either you remain silent or present your views on the topic in a polite manner as Kevin Baas has done. There is no need to accuse people of bitching around. From what I have seen, your replies are a little vague. Nichalp 19:54, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipdia is not a discussion forum - it is an encyclopedia. Second, as has been said numerous times, Wikipedia is not a democracy; we do not have an adverserial system nor do me settle issues by majority voting. Third, I was, in fact, being polite - if you see, I prefaced my comment by saying "respectfully" - this was not idle chat. Fourth, every time you comment, you risk people telling you you are wrong. Fifth, Wikipedia's main page is not an international politics review - we can and do show individual nations' internal matters if we want. As I said, the litmus test is: is this important to a large number of our readers/contributors? →Raul654 00:20, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Charter school

Yeah, I was curious about the "Charter school" thing. I even checked to see if it was some kind of reform school or insane asylum, but it seems like a perfectly august body (so I erred on not reverting him, incase it was you). What odd vandalism. Equally, a few days ago someone added a link to a (perfectly decent) travel site about Quito to my userpage. This can mean only one thing: surrealist vandals ! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the "vandalism" was completely true - I did go there for high school (no, it's not an insane asylum or a "special" school - it's a math/science magnet school). But no, I wasn't the one who added it. It was to be someone who knows me, but I really have no idea who it is, though. →Raul654 00:20, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Relevance is nice

from the pump

What or who determines the daily featured article? I wish they would select ones with a bit more relevance to todays problems/issues and entertainment.

For the things which have daily relevance we have the "Current Events" box, or sometimes also relevant things happen to show in the anniversaries box. The "Featured Article" however is supposed to show those articles we are most proud of. For most of the current event we don't have a very good article yet. andy 07:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Raul654 is the de facto administrator of the featured article box. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This point has been brought up before and effectively shouted down each time. The Featured Article box is, by definition, *not* supposed to be timely. That is what the current events box is for. The featured article is supposed to showcase the articles we think are good. In fact, I've generally avoided timely articles for just that reason. The only exception to this was European Union, which was featured on Europe Day by request from *numerous* people. →Raul654 19:03, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

bureaucratship

Hello. I noticed your request for bureaucratship and I had a couple of quick questions. Do you support adminship being widespread and generally "no big deal" or do you feel adminship should be more exclusive? As a bureaucrat would you give controversial user's and troll's votes equal weight to the votes of respected contributors? Best regards --"DICK" CHENEY 01:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Do you support adminship being widespread and generally "no big deal" or do you feel adminship should be more exclusive? "- My opinion is that: in theory, adminship is no big deal. But in practice, it is. Personally, I've been a bit conservative on the RFA lately because there are a lot of people coming up who I have never heard of.

"As a bureaucrat would you give controversial user's and troll's votes equal weight to the votes of respected contributors?" - I believe the main poll on this subject (which I wrote) showed that a consensus of people favored bureaucrats using their judgement (to assign relative weight to the votes). I originally voted against that because Angela said she didn't know in advance that she would be making judgement calls, but I changed my vote (to support) after she said she didn't mind making them. →Raul654 01:54, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions. I just have a little follow-up. You mentioned that you are "a bit conservative on RFA lately", however the only recent nomination you have opposed is that of Snowspinner. How would you be "conservative" as a bureaucrat? Another concern I have is that adminship is becoming an elite "club" where only the top 2 or 3 percent most prolific contributors are reasonable candidates, and the need for being that prolific could scare away candidates with private sector jobs. What scares me is the potential for an admin pool composed solely of youth on summer break, the unemployed, academics, and Europeans (who have much shorter work weeks than Americans). Furthermore, one of the admins I respect most (User:Jwrosenzweig) was elected with less than 500 contributions under his belt.

One of the strongest opponents of adminship being "no big deal" is presently a bureaucrat. On occassion, when there is disagreement whether a user should be promoted, bureaucrats need to build consensus amongst themselves. What would you do as a bureaucrat to help promote adminship diversity? --"DICK" CHENEY 15:30, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think your fears are unjustified. If anything, the requirements have dropped significantly since I got here. Before, the suggested requirements were around 1000 edits and 5-6 months of editing. Now, it's more like 2-3 months of editing (albeit with approximately the same # of contributions).

You mentioned that you are "a bit conservative on RFA lately", however the only recent nomination you have opposed is that of Snowspinner. - True, but (IIRC) the only people I voted in favor of were Elf (when I nominated her) and David Gerard. If I see someone I don't know, I really don't think it's fair to vote one way or the other (unless, from their contributions history, they are blatantly unqualified).

How would you be "conservative" as a bureaucrat? - I never said I'd be a conservative beauracract. I said I'd been conservative there lately because of all the low-profile people (IE, people I don't know) being nominated. One the other hand, there are times when I have thought that the decisions made by the current set of beauracrats were too conservative (such as the non-promotion of Cecropia), and I would have done it differently.

"On occassion, when there is disagreement whether a user should be promoted, bureaucrats need to build consensus amongst themselves." - Actually, from what I have seen, I don't think this is true. Each bureaucrat makes the decision invidually whether to promote someone or (if after a while no one has promoted him/her) to remove the nomination. Since there are only one or two active bureaucrats, there really isn't much need for discussion.

What would you do as a bureaucrat to help promote adminship diversity? - I can't make blanket statements like that, I can only judge each case on its individual merits. Cases where someone has a lot of support are easy. I will say that in a case like Cecropia's, I probably would have gone ahead and promoted. →Raul654 19:19, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but User:Hcheney has a good point. Kingturtle I believe, consistently votes against anyone that does not have 3000 edits. That clearly keeps anyone that does not have unusual amounts of free time from gaining admin status in any period of time like the "2-3 months" you mention. This can easily lead to the types of concerns Hcheney has mentioned. - Taxman 23:16, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Right, and he is entitled to his opinion, as is everyone else. Adminship is not something to be given lightly. It's not a reward for participation - it's not something you are automatically given once you have been here for so long. You have to earn it, and you do that by getting others to trust you. If that takes time, so be it. →Raul654 01:39, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

As Taxman has mentioned, some users are placing a very high quantitative barrier while ignoring qualitative criteria. Though these users are entitled to their opinions, I find their opinions to be anti-diversity, and against the ideal of adminship being "no big deal". I also agree with you that adminship should only be given to users that are trusted within the community, regardless of time. --"DICK" CHENEY 15:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Talk stuff

re moving answers to my talk page Cheers, mate --Phil | Talk 07:21, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help :) →Raul654 07:27, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Half Million Pool

Raul, can you lock that page? It's already past 2 weeks from the announcement and I thought It had already been locked when I added my comments to the talk page. Thanks, - Taxman 12:51, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Done. →Raul654 19:19, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Do Not Use HTML

Re: outlets, and your edit: man, you swooped in while I was in the middle of trying to get the bullets to display, and added the image frames so sneakily, that I thought I'd discovered a bug. Well, I guess I still have, but the bug doesn't cause frames to appear around the images when html is used. Instead it makes the bullets in asterix-bulleted lists invisible to the IE browser. I believe this has to do with the second PNG being left-justified, but god knows why.

As for not using HTML, I was merely following the instructions on the Image Markup page. If div tags are no longer acceptable, perhaps you could edit that page accordingly.

Thanks for the attentive work - Clarknova 14:30, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The solution was simple enough - I moved the image to the right and now everything renders fine in IE (I wasn't sure what you were talking about because it rendered fine in Firefox).

As far as HTML, the page you cite is depricated - "For the new, extended image syntax, which provides image resizing and alignment, see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax". We much prefer wiki-syntax to html. You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Picture tutorial (which, for the record, I wrote). →Raul654 17:14, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

PS - I have modified the top of that page now so as to make the above more obvious. →Raul654 18:24, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)