I asked a question on the RFC that I was hoping you would answer. It seems to have been lost and the thread hijacked by others, but I just split out that part into a new section. I asked if you thought we at USRD felt our standards overrode the GA criteria, and then I explained how I thought they fit together.
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
GA Review of Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Have started a review of this. I feel the prose needs a bit of work and have left lots of comments. Some are minor issues and questions, but I feel there is a lot of work needed to get it up to the required standard. I am hoping we can get there though. Cheers AIRcorn(talk)13:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I userfy the page, make proposed changes, and then later move the changes back into article space. Here, we also have U of Miami students and recent graduates also active in the page, so I am not clear what the best way is to proceed. Perhaps have a subpage of the article and post a invitation on the article's talk page? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to respond here but since it had already escalated I thought it better to leave a comment at the mfd. Normally I wouldn't care how the edits were done, but seeing as another editor is involved I believe it would be best to make the changes in mainspace. AIRcorn(talk)07:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to work with you in any manner that you see fit. I have made many changes to the userfied page already. I can have it reviewed for any inadvertent close paraphrasing and then posted into user space. Alternatively, you can review what has been done so far yourself, and we can move it to article space. Going forward, I can edit article space directly and run any textual additions past you and if you agree that they are not a paraphrase, I can post them to article space. Alternatively, we can stick with the subpage, that would be reviewed for inadvertent close paraphrasing once by a third party at the end of the review. It depends on what you feel comfortable doing. Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be comfortably reviewing the userfied article before it hits mainspace. If you have paraphrasing concerns maybe you can get someone else to check them before transferring them or you can post them to the review page and I can check them there. Note that I am not an expert in this area and will just be using my best judgment.AIRcorn(talk)07:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me restate the two major options: Original plan: I make all of the changes on the userfied page. They meet your approval regarding whether they address your GA concerns. That page is then scanned once for possible close paraphrases and is posted into article space. Modified plan: I make non-text changes to article space and put proposed text changes somewhere else (the review?) - you review the proposed text changes for inadvertent paraphrasing (which is easy to do because you have to check them anyway) and we post them as we go along to the article space after each review.
I have a volunteer that I use to check for inadvertent close paraphrasing, but I would like to minimize the number of times that I ask him to review each article. I do not care whether the volunteer checks the changes or you check the changes, just so that they are checked. (Please see GA criteria 2.) It is a constraint that I am operating under. Thank you for your understanding, Racepacket (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am so intesely tired of you bullshit attempts to get these pages into good or featured status. There is absolutely no fucking reason why anyone would need to copy the entire code of an article and userfy it during a Good Article nomination. If people want to edit the article, they're going to edit the actual copy. Not your subpagethat you are going to use as some insane "consensus" copy that you are going to use to overwrite the code of the live page. I am tired of your nonsense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no disrespect and invite you to participate if you wish. However, I can't edit the article directly without userfying it first. I propose that we all edit the user copy. I will respect your changes there. Once it is finalized, we will check it for any copyright problems and then move it to article space. I appreciate your friendship and understanding. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, please be civil. If Racepacket wishes to sandbox this article for editing, he may do so. This may be done to prevent accidentally damaging the actual article (which is good practice) or for some other reason that Racepacket wishes. — PCB00:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be a need to sandbox an entire article that has been live for years for the sole purpose of having NO ONE edit the actual article. If you cannot be trusted to edit the live copies of articles, why are you allowed to be involved with the GA process?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Manual archive of your talk page
Hi Racepacket. Just a quick note to let you know I had to archive your talk page manually this morning, because some users were finding the size of the page was causing issues with editing, and some were unable to edit it at all. I've linked the archive at the top of your page, please contact me if you have any concerns over this. Regards, FishBarking?00:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator NewYorkBrad has posted an idea for resolving the pending case by mutual agreement. Please review the current state of discussion at the case request pace and provide your response to the idea at your earliest convenience; the decision on whether or not to open a case is pending your input. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the earliest time for you to make a meetup on May 7? If we get a room at the library, it closes at 5:30pm, so we could meet at 3:30pm and have two hours. And, continue socializing some place. If the time is not good for you, we need to think about alternative meetup locations. --Aude (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The library probably will work. We can reserve the meeting room at Tenleytown from 3-5:30 (meeting 3:30-5:30pm). --Aude (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interstate 376
Hey sorry, I didn't see your messages before. Yes, I am taking a break from the I-376 article. Yes, i just want to put the Good Article nomination on hold for right now. I am focusing on other articles. Thanks for your patience, and I'm sorry to leave you hanging. Jgera5 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's go ahead and finish it tonight then. I don't care if it passes or fails, since some of the detractors have done other work on it since. If it doesn't pass I'm not renominating it for a while. Jgera5 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Mr. Racepacket, I went piece by piece through your GA assessment of Columbia University and corrected everything I possibly could. If something wasn't referenced, I did the research myself and found the necessary citations. If it was unable to be verified by me personally after an extensive amount of research, I deleted it; thankfully, this was rarely the case and most of the information was easily verifiable with only moderate amounts of digging. For the most part I was able to fulfill all of the requirements you requested; however, there were a few deviations. Check out the GA article review page to see my comments. I'll post it for review again later and you can tear it apart some more. Thanks for working with me and reviewing stuff as I try to bring this article up to par. Have a good one. Nowhereman86 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History of Columbia
I don't THINK that remaining information is too detailed. I tried to keep it a reasonable length seeing as the section had to sum up 250 years of stuff. I tried to match the length of history summations in articles like Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was around 12 paragraphs. I added a TON of new information (referenced) to the new History of Columbia University article, especially for history before 1900, which was sparse in the original. Just let me know if you think the new summation under the history section is too long and I can pare it down.Nowhereman86 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question
In case you weren't aware, I'd appreciate a yes/no response to the question I asked here so that I can finish off the closing process of the respective RfC/U. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Muchas Gracias
Thanks for all your help and suggestions with improving the article Columbia University. It was a long and arduous project, but I feel like it's come a long way and is definitely the best it's ever been since its inception in terms of verifiability and structure. I'll continue to watch over it and expand it after I take a little Wiki vacation. Again, muchas gracias. : )
Nowhereman86 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Racepacket will not review any more road, netball or women's sport(s)† articles for GA or comment in their GA reviews for a year.
Imzadi1979, Rschen7754, Dough4872, and LauraHale will not GA review articles that Racepacket nominates for a year.
Racepacket stays away from the roads projects, netball and women's sport(s) for a year.
The normal dispute resolution processes may be followed if issues arise after the year is up.
All parties are civil to each other just like other Wikipedia editors are required to be.
†Articles that pertain to American collegiate sport(s) and running are exempted from the rest of women's sport(s).
Any RfC on the subject matter of how the GA Criteria interact with various kinds of advice pages/guidelines/essays/etc. is not a part of this agreement because these parties cannot bind an uninvolved set of parties to hold/host/conduct an RfC, especially when the core issue is not actually in dispute.
I want a one word answer. Do you accept it? Yes or no? If your answer is longer than a single word and four tildes, you've typed too much. Imzadi 1979→03:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting on that answer. I'm going to repeat myself over here though to emphasize a point. RfC/U and ArbCom are dispute resolution methods aimed at behavior, not content. The original dispute that spawned the RfC/U was summarized by Moabdave as:
Racepacket can give a very thorough and proper review when things are going well, and many people have had good experiences with him as a reviewer.
When things go bad with a Racepacket review, things go bad fast. Racepacket's actions after an unfavorable or unfortunate incident give the appearance that he goes on a rampage to the point of borderline wikistalking. This rampage can include tagging and reviewing articles, where the motivation appears to be revenge more than an attempt to improve wikipedia.
Now, we should both agree that the US 223 review was messy. I withdrew that nomination, yet you refused to let it go. The netball review was also messy, and when LauraHale withdrew it, you refused to let it go. After various issues with USRD, you went around tagging other articles with "issues". After your dramas with LauraHale, you went to the WMF on meta. These are behavioral questions that could best be attributed to personality conflicts between yourself and others. The goal of my proposal is to separate the two sides so those personality conflicts will not continue. If LauraHale is inappropriately paraphrasing content, let other editors deal with that issue. You're not the ideal candidate to be pushing that issue, since Geni still approves or comments on major editing revisions you make to articles as part of the agreement that lifted your block. If LauraHale, Dough, Rschen, myself or others are really committing egregious Wikipedia errors or violations, other parties will eventually challenge us, and we'll be the subject of our own RfC/Us. In the short term, the best course to restore some harmony in the community is to disengage the two sides. We've wasted 300K of text discussions on the RfC/U talk page alone, and countless hours of effort. We should all stop discussing the issue and fix it, which means disengagement. Imzadi 1979→06:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your conduct towards LauraHale is beginning to border on the unacceptable. I'm asking you to please stay away from her, not to go to her talk page, not to look through her contributions for problems, and generally forget that she even exists. You may have even have a general point at the RSN, but you filing it against one of LauraHale's images was little more than one more shot in this dispute. This needs to end, and it needs to end right now. --Courcelles02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second the request made above. There are plenty of other issues on Wikipedia you can engage with, any further engagement with LauraHale and her edits is just likely to generate heat, drama, and nothing of any value to the project. Lankiveil(speak to me)02:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I understand that things were heated a month ago during the GA review, particularly with User:KnowIG, an active editor of Netball who was previously blocked for disruptive editing, who within days of being unblocked came to dominate the GA review with disruption and personal attacks. He was finally permanently blocked for calling Bill, the GA reviewer, a "stupid Indian." I stepped in to bring the GA review to a conclusion. At that point Netball had 1,400 different editors and had been around since August 2005. During my GA review, I noticed several sourcing problems, including a photo of a Malawi team. Without regard to which editor included the photo in the aricle, I had questions and a number of experienced editors at RSN have concerns and guidance. During the GA review, Bill had concerns about term "Olympic sport" which I later shared. We now have guidance from the Legal Department of the International Olympic Committee critical of the term "Olympic recognized sport" which was introduced in response to Bill's criticism of including Netball in Category:Olympic sports. Because "Olympic" is a trademark and both Australia and the United States have special legislation protecting Olympic trademarks, Wikipedia needs to give this issue careful attention. I had also found a number of close paraphrasing of other sources particularly in the position table, although LauraHale has removed them from public view.diff So, the GA review uncovered a number of concerns which were left unaddressed at the time that LauraHale withdrew. A month has passed and it may be time to address these issue dispassionately. If either Laniveil or Courcelles want to take the lead on fixing this, I am happy to step back. I have never claimed to have a monopoly on Wikiwisdom or knowledge of Wikipedia policy, but I know that the solution can only be found through consensus and not by personal attacks, by deleting portions of GA reviews, by deleting routine talk page notices, or by deleting article merger notices. In sum, I have never seen this as involving an individual, rather there are serious policy issues involving an article that has many authors (which has since been split into a number of daughter articles carrying forward the same problems.) It does not matter who is right; what matters is that Wikipedia gets it right. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your inability to let the matter rest is noted. Even now, after the RFC, you are continuing to harass Laura in novel ways (e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Flickr_a_reliable_source_as_to_photo_contents) and with new unfounded allegations. e.g. above you say "LauraHale has removed [your evidence] from public view" when (ignoring the fact that she removed it because you posted it to a closed GA1) what she "removed" is still on that page. Because you had already posted it to that previously, and it had been discussed already.
Is that sentence the only piece of evidence you have, or is there more? If you have more, please send me all of your evidence very promptly and I will ensure that they are investigated by myself and someone more neutral, and any problems addressed. Then you can walk away from this large pit you've been digging. John Vandenberg(chat)09:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I respect all that you do for Wikipedia. However, let me assure you that this has nothing to do with LauraHale, who is only one of 1,400 netball editors. I have never tried to trace back the close paraphrasing to any particular editor, but the problem was there and is still present when the player position table was moved to the Netball rules article. I have given two examples, but there are more. I asked Moonriddengirl to find a volunteer with appropriate software to check the article. March 22March 23 As to your comment about removing material from the Talk:Netball/GA1 review, I did provide a sample suggested solution showing how adding quotation marks in a problem sentence could easily solve the problem, but it has been deleted several times. There has been a minor disagreement as to how and when a GA review should be closed. One view is that a nominator can withdraw, but the reviewer closes. The other view is that the nominator can unilaterally close without regard for the views of the reviewer or other active editors. Hence, the difference in closing dates and the contents of the review page.
The Goal Shooter's main role is to shoot goals. Players in this position can move within the attacking goal third, including the shooting circle. This player is often defended by the opposing team's Goal Keeper. The Goal Shooter works closely with Goal Attack in the shooting circle, and work to position themselves to receive passes from the feeding midcourt players.
It wont surprise you that I don't believe you when I say that it isnt about Laura. Whether or not it was your intention initially to merely review the content and not the contributor, it has developed way beyond that stage.
I am asking, very bluntly, for you to put all of the close paraphrasing evidence on the table, preferrably in an email to me so it doesnt needlessly inflame the current situation. In order to quickly address the ones you have identified above, before misunderstandings take hold about what your evidence could mean, this is the edit which introduced the problems you have raised above. Interestingly the problem was partly removed a few days later[1], but the short descriptions of the moves remained.
Anyone at any decent university has access to proper plagarism detection software Turn It In; the only problem will be whether there are licensing restrictions or uni policy on usage. I'm not sure about this, but I'll look into it if the need arises. However that is quite beside the point until you have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is a systemic problem in the Netball articles that calls for an indepth or automated analysis. I am challenging you to prove that there is a significant close paraphrasing that warrants the approach you have taken. John Vandenberg(chat)13:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the software came long after I graduated. Again, I have not tried to trace the problems back to a specific editor, I only want to protect Wikipedia and enforce existing policy, so we should focus on that. Racepacket (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm focusing on dispute resolution right now. You haven't answered regarding providing a complete list of the close paraphrasing you're aware of. Do you intend to provide that to me? John Vandenberg(chat)19:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I will be happy to cooperate in any way that I can. However, just to be clear, please do not interpret any list as being directed toward any particular editor. I am careful to not do that. This exercise is only intended for the sole purpose of making Wikipedia content freely reusable and is in no way an indication of copyright infringement or a failure to properly credit or cite sources. I have never accused anyone of plagiarism on Wikipedia and I intend to continue to avoid such accusations in the future. If you feel corrections are needed in the articles, just add quote marks and there is no need to elaborate. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three days ago you said "I can provide more" and agreed to cooperate by letting someone(me) know about the other instances of close paraphrasing that you're aware of. I havent seen this list from you. Instead you've been editing, and continuing to report this same problem[2] Please focus on providing someone with the complete list, otherwise you are not cooperating at all. John Vandenberg(chat)20:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Racepacket. I appreciate for completing the survey two weeks ago. I would like to return your favor with a reward of an online gift card with no condition. Please leave your email address in the final version of survey of my project. In addition, you can get chance to win $50 worth of gift card. It takes only 10 minutes to complete the final version because it contains only 35 questions. If you have Wikipedia friends, please introduce this survey to them. Thank you so much. cooldenny (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nagyon köszönöm
Köszönöm!
Köszönöm a kedvességét.
Köszönjük, hogy az ember vagy:
kedves és figyelmes,
érzékeny és figyelmes,
A nagyvonalú és figyelmes adakozót.
Ön önzetlen mindig,
üzembe mások előtt magát,
éreztem magam különleges és fontos.
Ez egy kiváltság és öröm, hogy ismerlek.
Ön olyan személy,
aki megkönnyíti az életet és a jobb
mindenki körülötted.
Ön folyamatosan jár
Az előzékenység
és kedvesség
felderül minden nap.
Mit tettél velem
felvillan emlékezetemben,
frissítő kellemes érzéseket
minden alkalommal,
amikor belegondolok.
Hálás vagyok, hogy,
és én köszönöm.
I'm sorry about the ArbCom thing and you have my sympathy. If you want to pull out of the review I certainly understand. Not an urgent matter to complete it, btw. I can't offer you much help with ArbCom, but if you want help with other editing things, please feel free to join my talk page stalkers, I think you would be welcome. Your heart is in the right place.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am almost finished and cannot stop on a dime. Right now, I am up to my elbows in scholarly research for the "Journal of Diff Research" but I expect to finish your review in about 24 hours. Thank you for your kind words. Racepacket (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and for passing it. Good luck! I don't have any other articles ready to go right this instant but plan on getting into Washington quarter next week. This too will pass, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library
The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.
This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.
Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1719:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the unique circumstances of the two GA reviews for this article, and continued claims by you and others that the article does not meet the GA criteria, I believe a reassessment is required to avoid the status of the article continuing to be under a cloud. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1. Chester Markel (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence
For the thorough review and feedback which helped us refine the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article which just achieved Featured Article. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you misunderstood
Hi Racepacket. I just re-read your reply on my page and wanted to make sure you didn't get the wrong end of the stick. I have no issue with you watchlisting my page and you are welcome to comment on anything you wish there. I was basically trying to suggest you walk away from netball. I have a dislike for unnecessary drama and am mearly trying to avoid being dragged into the netball one any further. It is up for review at the moment and has a good chance of being delisted, which might end up best for everyone. AIRcorn(talk)02:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for RideShare Delaware
On 9 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article RideShare Delaware, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that RideShare Delaware forms carpools from a database that grew to include 15,000 commuters in 2009? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Does anyone have an issue with making the name of the new article Oblation Run? I think we are all agreed that everything in the section should end up in the new article, the question is what should remain. I propose leaving a section at the current level with the first two sentences (up through the words "Economic Situation" and adding the fact that "The Oblation Run was inspired by the Oblation" and reference that with "http://www.gmanews.tv/story/101792/100-up-fratmen-alumni-join-oblation-run-for-centennial-celebration" and I'll tweek it a little from there, the information that this is talking about UP Dilliman (even though it has spread elsewhere) should be in this article. Everything else should be over in the main article. (And a {{Main|Oblation Run}} of course)Naraht (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. Just edit the existing page and remove the REDIRECT line and insert the text from the section in this article. You may wish to note that APO was disestablished (thrown off) the UP campus, so as to avoid the impression that UP condones APO's activities. Once the Run is removed, someone may wish to nominate the statue article for GA. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing the daughter article. After reading the remaining paragraph in the main article, the connection to the statue was too remote in my opinion, so I changed it to just a "see also." This is all very confusing to the reader. There is the original Oblation statue as well as replicas on the other campuses. To fully explain the location and reasons for the runs does take the full article. Your short paragraph raised more questions than it answered, and is not relevant to the work of art. Racepacket (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The goal may have been to convey sympathy, but the result was "this is rather creepy and I'm not sure what he's referring to". There are, at this stage, two options. One, you are being intentionally malicious and disruptive. Two, you simply have the self-preservation skills of a lemming - post-jump. Hanlon's razor applies. Your intentions may have been good, but the result was not; for the Nth time, disengage from contacting LauraHale or interfacing with her and her work except through and in the context of the ArbCom case. If you do not, I will have you blocked for harassment. Ironholds (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. Paul Getty Trust, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the J. Paul Getty Trust is the world's wealthiest art institution with an estimated endowment in April 2009 of US$4.2 billion? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Posting here because the evidence page doesn't allow discussion in other editors' sections. For this diff, H7 does not directly call me sexist, but calls the argument sexist. H7 does, however, call me a jerk. NYB: "Look, I don't want to be a jerk…" H7: "You may not want to be but you are." Not even "you're being one", which is a lighter kind of personal attack—just a categorical "you are". —Bill Price (nyb) 14:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent off an email requesting permission to discuss your question. I am still waiting for a reply. If you could answer my fourth question, that would be great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA reviews
I see that you have picked up a new GAN to review. I find that with the current tenor of the ArbCom case, this makes me somewhat nervous. If you end up blocked or banned, we're going to have to transition any GA reviews that you're involved in. Handing off reviews is not always a smooth and convenient process. Consequently, I would consider it a personal favor if you did not start any additional reviews unless and until we can be certain that you're not going to get topic-banned or blocked in ways that would disrupt things mid-review. You might additionally also wish to reflect on the wisdom of not nominating any more articles until then, since there is a possibility that you would be unable to participate in the reviews (and while it is not required, most noms like to do that).
ArbCom's timing is always unpredictable, but it would not be surprising to see them start voting next week, so I hope my suggestion of a brief, voluntary delay will not seem too onerous. In the meantime, I'd be happy to see you focus on completing the review underway, and improving articles that you'd like to nom in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a goal of Rschen and Imadzi to try to tie me up with these various proceedings and keep me from the meaningful work of building the encyclopedia. Many of my nominated articles have waited three months in the queue before being reviewed. That is because articles on cultural institutions like museums, universities, or arboreta to not have regular reviewers except for me. The time that I was briefly blocked over the copyright misunderstanding, Imadzi left a message at WT:GAN asking reviewers to summarily fail my articles as "an opportunity" to shorten the backlog. As a result, some of these article lost months of queue time and had to be renominated upon my reinstatement. Hypothetically, if I were blocked for months, and my articles were not taken out of turn, they would still be in the queue when I returned.
I understand your point about taking over the reviews of others, for which I have done my fair share. For example, I took on Don't Forget the Bacon! when the prior reviewer was blocked. I have stepped in on a number of other reviews, including Netball. Similarly, I step in as a substitute nominator when the original nominator abandoned United Nations Headquarters. I don't know how many other clean up batters will be left in the GA rotation if I leave, particularly if the ArbCom decision sends the wrong message about stepping into difficult review situations. Several of the most active reviewers from six months ago are gone now.
Would it be possible within the next couple of days to start the RFC on good article criteria that you agreed to launch? I would like to have the opportunity to state my views before the ArbCom case moves much further along. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that with your experience in picking up the pieces, you'd be sympathetic to my concerns about the potential need to 'transfer' reviews. And, yes, I've noticed that the number of noms listed is 10% higher than last year's average at the moment, and that the proportion currently under review is about three percentage points lower than last year's average.
I'm planning to leave the RFC until the ArbCom case is quiet, because I don't want it to be an RFC on you. We need on-topic answers, not another round of acrimony and he-said-then-she-said stuff. I'll make sure that you have an opportunity to comment, one way or another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that exploring that link shows this to be factually incorrect, and, considering that the writer has been actively advocating adverse results for Racepacket, IMHO this is probably also actually an inappropriate nastygram. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I went back through the sources to see if there was anything I missed on the Joppenbergh Mountain GA, and I think it's much more clear now on the former mayor's property. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Racepacket - I made a few edits for the simpler issues, from an email contact with User:WWB he is available and its possible he will address the other issues and if you can revisit later we might be able to resolve and close the review. Thanks. There is of course - no hurry and no worry, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA CU history
Hey thanks for all the suggestions, but I don't think I'll have the time to make improvements anytime soon. Go ahead and fail it so that I can address them when I have the time. Thanks again.
GA One South Broad
Thank you for your review! I have made changes and addressed the issues you have brought up. Let me know if there is more I can do. Medvedenko (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed most of the issues you highlighted and have left notes by those which I couldn't or did something else. Hope you don't leave entirely!♦ Dr. Blofeld18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You realize that since both yellow and green run through the same tunnel on the same track, they share a common history, so we are substantively correct as well. Racepacket (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI... candidates for public office, especially those in a "minor" race and not yet the party's choice, rarely make it past Articles for Deletion (AfD). A U.S. Senate candidate was deleted in the past week. Has Areizaga-Soto done something "notable" that stands out that may not be in the article? Bgwhite (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncomfortable
I have become uncomfortable with your comments and replies on my talk page, review page and reassessment page. I cannot be clear if you are simply over zealous or angry at the outcome and/or time frame. I feel it is best to remove myself from further review of your articles. Until now we have not had an actual problem, but today you have asked for a time frame for review with an uncivil tone I did not appreciate nor understand and have commented on a reassessment page which makes me feel you are attempting to question the review process itself as much as my own use of it. For this reason it is best that I step back from the situation and let others asses the articles. I also believe this may have been what you were looking for and I feel somewhat manipulated, but have no choice but to remove myself from the situation as to not escalate it further.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking like Racepacket is hours or days away from execution of a Wikipedia death penalty and so i'm guessing that they are a bit off balance. I was GA reviewing another article and got a similar comment which I took in that context. But the the review was completed anyway at that point and so I was able to completely ignore that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
